Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 65 of 65

Thread: Si - how to discover it

  1. #41
    Tearsofaclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    New York
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Hahahhaa funny you ask like this "How the fuck". I drew stuff very well even in kindergarten. At age 10 I tried to draw a human face in all its detail, worked out well on first try. And so on. I still have the drawings somewhere so I know I was actually good and not just imagining it as a kid. You know it's called right brained drawing by some who teach it supposedly. Idk if that's art, well very realistic art lol. Almost hyperrealism

    Brain surgery would be a lot more interesting to me than sewing bc it would require intellectual abilities too IMO. Besides the refined motor control. But I think I don't really like to pay ANY conscious attention to doing refined motor control. I only like to pay conscious attention to doing rough movements. More a tank than a ballet dancer here heh. But I'm fine with tasks requiring with refined motor control if I must for them for some reason. However with such tasks I'm way better off paying my attention directly to being methodical with those tasks (step by step) rather than the refined motor control itself. So again, brain surgery over ballet dancing ...would be more interesting

    Drawing is different I guess bc I just liked doing it as a kid. So I didn't feel the need to make the task methodical. I just focused on the things in front of me to draw. I tried recently to draw in some test again, boy was I out of practice... but I started getting used to it again soon enough. Just felt pretty awkward initially lol. Except when it came to tasks about drawing spatial arrangements. Instantly good, not awkward

    Then where I really am 100% methodical and step by step is when copying complex series of moves for some new complex movement, for sport, for an object etc. Well half methodical... it's like, I watch the whole thing, the series of movements. Then I can't copy it yet, I have to break it down step by step for the first couple steps, like really static steps, but then when I got those 1-2 first steps the rest just automatically sorts itself usually, don't ask how that works, it's not very conscious. The copying of the first couple steps *is* fully conscious. Whatever you wanna make of that. I always thought it's an idiosyncrasy of mine. Not good at copying movement until I see those first steps broken down and as soon as I see them I'm instantly good at copying the entire movement, not just those broken down first steps.

    That neurologist sounds weird tho'.

    Oh also. I don't know what your movements are like that you called "Si PoLR", but... are they rough, energetic, or just simply clumsy tripping over everything, or easily breaking things when handling them, or what?
    Hey hon. Glad to see you. I am terrible at spatial arrangements and geometry.

    No I am not tripping all over myself. lol. I will give you one concrete example and see what you make of it. Subway is a sandwich shop. When you are done making the sub, you wrap it up in the wrap stuff. This is a simple process. My brain can't figure it out though. Origami would be another perfect example. But here is my sub problem lol:

    You take a sub and wrap it. My brain finds this task very difficult.



    I have to take this:





    put it on this:

    6b0f39ea2b7661c5925a62aaec514d86.jpg

    and turn it into this:





    This is a difficult process for me and makes me look like a tard.
    "And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golden View Post
    Yes, I was agreeing with you and offering supporting discussion.
    Ah gotcha


    People used to be very familiar with horses and visually they imagined that the gallop had legs extended, but photos showed that to be incorrect. In response, people’s visual imaginations and perceptions seem to have changed to fit what the technology showed. As another writer on photography history, William Ivins, put it:

    “At first the public had talked a great deal about what it called photographic distortion.” But “it was not long before men began to think photographically, and thus to see for themselves things what it had previously taken the photograph to reveal to their astonished and protesting eyes.” So the exposure to those images arguably changed how people see.
    Interesting, well, there's top-down processing in the brain for sure. Did no one ever see/observe the galloping horses correctly or just most people didn't?


    I’m just saying in general that I find the idea of pure reality highly problematic. I hold trying to square up with reality as much as possible as a core personal value, but I also recognize it is not fully possible. This is my response for this thread in general, not at you since I think you understand this very well.
    Yeha get you. I'm already happy if our perceptions works well enough lol

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Tearsofaclown Ah hey. I see, this example is interesting. This wrapping is the sortof thing I will do as a methodical task. Origami is a similar thing to me. Breaking down the spatial arrangements (analytically) and creating clear steps. And easily committing it all to memory by just performing it with my body. God yeah the socionists are gonna jump on me and call it Ti-Si I guess.

  4. #44
    Tearsofaclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    New York
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    @Tearsofaclown Ah hey. I see, this example is interesting. This wrapping is the sortof thing I will do as a methodical task. Origami is a similar thing to me. Breaking down the spatial arrangements (analytically) and creating clear steps. And easily committing it all to memory by just performing it with my body. God yeah the socionists are gonna jump on me and call it Ti-Si I guess.

    Yes I was thinking it would probably have more to do with thinking. You have to break the stuff down logically. It is like an algorithm that is transferred from mind to body. It isn't even just a motor issue for me either. I conceptually cannot put in my mind what I should do with the object. It's not just that I am clumsy doing it, it is my brain can't even put together how to attempt it. My mother has this issue too. We have some personality differences and similarities but this one specific trait we both have. I think my mother has weak thinking.
    "And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tallmo is right.

    I'm staying in a Si "lair" right now. I call a Si person's space "lairs" because that is what they feel like to me: individualized literal extrapolation of inner Si onto the environment.

    Fabrics, vases, colours, toys, movies on shelves, books, house plants, flower pots, candles, decorations, pantries, paintings, impressions, impressions, impressions.

    Si is the primo-foundata of most of Culture.

    Home and Garden Channel would not exist if not for the stability of economic investments into Si ventures. Build your dream home - "WayFair you have just what I need" ---> you have all the objects that will reflect the inner state and thus perpetuate their existence within the strata of reality.

    Si is the most primitive, as in essentially numbered, IE there is. All cells discern inner from outter and all Cells interiors are most conducive to that cells homeostatic functioning.

    From the slobby trailer trash trailers to the Stepford Wife suburbs and everything and anything in between, its all Si lairs.

  6. #46
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,638
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Lol if Si allows control of your own body it explains why
    1. I have hard time telling anything about my current tempo without external reference
    2. Why I don't understand what I do with my hands. It is like those are almost always in auto mode
    3. Why recreating something based on visual feedback seems hard but I can generate those through mental schemes

    Anyway, one person has commented that I have started in abstract world. Which goes against many developmental theories. "Normally children use their senses to understand the world, lol"
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearsofaclown View Post
    Yes I was thinking it would probably have more to do with thinking. You have to break the stuff down logically. It is like an algorithm that is transferred from mind to body. It isn't even just a motor issue for me either. I conceptually cannot put in my mind what I should do with the object. It's not just that I am clumsy doing it, it is my brain can't even put together how to attempt it. My mother has this issue too. We have some personality differences and similarities but this one specific trait we both have. I think my mother has weak thinking.
    Gotcha. Idk if I'd call my stuff conceptual or very mind-based lol, I have an empty head - not daydreaming or reflecting - while doing this kind of spatial analysis. But yeah it would definitely be logically breaking it down. And you could make a logical diagram etc from it. Btw see below for more on when my brain can break it down and when it's harder



    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic 007 View Post
    Lol if Si allows control of your own body it explains why
    1. I have hard time telling anything about my current tempo without external reference
    2. Why I don't understand what I do with my hands. It is like those are almost always in auto mode
    3. Why recreating something based on visual feedback seems hard but I can generate those through mental schemes

    Anyway, one person has commented that I have started in abstract world. Which goes against many developmental theories. "Normally children use their senses to understand the world, lol"
    God just reading this hurts my head : PP

    I'm absolutely fine with handling things/objects if I can see/experience many sensory details about them. The more sensory details the faster my brain will process them / the more comfortable my brain will be with them. So, I said absolutely fine because, as a contrast, if I were to do mental operations, say, rotate abstract objects in my mind instead of imagining the same operation for things I've actually seen in real life, I'll be definitely slower at it with abstract objects/mental schemes. I'll still be okayish but alot slower compared to how easy it is with real life/sensed objects. And yeah, I'm fine with recreating the stuff based on visual feedback. I wouldn't even know how I'd start with mental schemes instead... And yeah I guess it's also funny that in some situations I can process more sensory detail more easily than if there was less detail yup. Like the amount of data to be handled isn't necessarily the bottleneck... but yeah, what kind of data is to be handled is the issue more. But I wouldn't say all this neatly lines up with 8 socionics IEs : P Sometimes for a short time lines up but then you can see that it overall doesn't actually if you go further.

    As for the underlined, yeah hm, you should've talked to Piaget ...some guy who made a famous theory on cognitive development of kids and I guess you started abstract operations sooner than that theory would claim. I think even I did sooner in some things - maths related mainly. I mean abstract logical concepts/operations more ofc rather than these mental schemes of things you speak of

  8. #48
    Tearsofaclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    New York
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Gotcha. Idk if I'd call my stuff conceptual or very mind-based lol, I have an empty head - not daydreaming or reflecting - while doing this kind of spatial analysis. But yeah it would definitely be logically breaking it down. And you could make a logical diagram etc from it. Btw see below for more on when my brain can break it down and when it's harder





    God just reading this hurts my head : PP

    I'm absolutely fine with handling things/objects if I can see/experience many sensory details about them. The more sensory details the faster my brain will process them / the more comfortable my brain will be with them. So, I said absolutely fine because, as a contrast, if I were to do mental operations, say, rotate abstract objects in my mind instead of imagining the same operation for things I've actually seen in real life, I'll be definitely slower at it with abstract objects/mental schemes. I'll still be okayish but alot slower compared to how easy it is with real life/sensed objects. And yeah, I'm fine with recreating the stuff based on visual feedback. I wouldn't even know how I'd start with mental schemes instead... And yeah I guess it's also funny that in some situations I can process more sensory detail more easily than if there was less detail yup. Like the amount of data to be handled isn't necessarily the bottleneck... but yeah, what kind of data is to be handled is the issue more. But I wouldn't say all this neatly lines up with 8 socionics IEs : P Sometimes for a short time lines up but then you can see that it overall doesn't actually if you go further.

    As for the underlined, yeah hm, you should've talked to Piaget ...some guy who made a famous theory on cognitive development of kids and I guess you started abstract operations sooner than that theory would claim. I think even I did sooner in some things - maths related mainly. I mean abstract logical concepts/operations more ofc rather than these mental schemes of things you speak of
    Yes, my brain is being pulled away from what I am trying to focus on. My mind is not empty at all. lol.

    One of the Piaget examples you are talking about has to do with conservation of liquid.





    Obviously the child gets it wrong until he learns the conservation concept. Everything must come from experience according to Skinner. So this is consistent with Skinner. But now take different sized and shaped containers. Skinner assumed that the child would have to be retaught the conservation concept because he never experienced this particular setup. He didn't think the concept would be "conserved" through various different experiments but it was. The children held onto the concept and could apply it to all kinds of things now.

    Skinner is technically right empirically though. This law is a shortcut. Nobody counted the exact amount of fluid down to the atom or whatever. I bet some water was lost in transit. I see this as a good metaphor for scientific theories. We make shortcuts. Conservation laws are one of them. You keep missing drops over and over until you are fucked. Like 80% of the universe is made out of dark matter and energy that we don't understand and don't fit with out theories. That is a culmination of missing drops. It's like knowing only about land on the surface of earth when 80% or whatever is water.

    Mice can do this too. When you let a mouse run through a maze, it gets better at it. Quicker. Skinner thought it must be muscular skeleton. The animal literally has to touch the ground and move himself through the maze. But they took mice and put them in like a little wheelbarrow and pushed them through maze. Like the mouse was a passenger in the car. He just watched as he was pushed through the maze. They then tested him and he knew the maze. Just by observing it. He created a cognitive map. I am terrible at directions too. I bet that mouse is way better than me at creating those cognitive maps.
    "And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

  9. #49
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,638
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Gotcha. Idk if I'd call my stuff conceptual or very mind-based lol, I have an empty head - not daydreaming or reflecting - while doing this kind of spatial analysis. But yeah it would definitely be logically breaking it down. And you could make a logical diagram etc from it. Btw see below for more on when my brain can break it down and when it's harder





    God just reading this hurts my head : PP

    I'm absolutely fine with handling things/objects if I can see/experience many sensory details about them. The more sensory details the faster my brain will process them / the more comfortable my brain will be with them. So, I said absolutely fine because, as a contrast, if I were to do mental operations, say, rotate abstract objects in my mind instead of imagining the same operation for things I've actually seen in real life, I'll be definitely slower at it with abstract objects/mental schemes. I'll still be okayish but alot slower compared to how easy it is with real life/sensed objects. And yeah, I'm fine with recreating the stuff based on visual feedback. I wouldn't even know how I'd start with mental schemes instead... And yeah I guess it's also funny that in some situations I can process more sensory detail more easily than if there was less detail yup. Like the amount of data to be handled isn't necessarily the bottleneck... but yeah, what kind of data is to be handled is the issue more. But I wouldn't say all this neatly lines up with 8 socionics IEs : P Sometimes for a short time lines up but then you can see that it overall doesn't actually if you go further.

    As for the underlined, yeah hm, you should've talked to Piaget ...some guy who made a famous theory on cognitive development of kids and I guess you started abstract operations sooner than that theory would claim. I think even I did sooner in some things - maths related mainly. I mean abstract logical concepts/operations more ofc rather than these mental schemes of things you speak of
    Umm.. this is hard to put in words. Let's think about up to bottom thinking. I start with a concepts then I continue to distill those in smaller pieces and find overlapping qualities and continue doing that. Think of it as reverse blur effect. If we continue this socionics track then I can say that with Se base types I can usually meet in the middle. If it makes any sense.

    She was probably mainly referring to Piaget's work. Problem is that it is so automatic it kind of goes unnoticed until someone points it out for me. Anyway, I think she is mainly right - qualitatively so. I was extremely jumpy as a kid when it came to senses. I started to classify properties of various things in order to predict plausible reactions. I think I trusted my predictions a lot more than my senses and many times let predictions overrule my sense data.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  10. #50
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    ........But strictly speaking they are actually focusing on the inner component "projected" onto the environment.

    So my perspective in this thread is more introverted than usual,.........
    You seem to be referring to the SXIs' fairly rigid sets of standards, to which they compare everything and everyone; in that sense, it's a projection but it's often one that only the SXI observer can sense. Si-subtypes tend to engage others much less than normal SXIs and seem more defensive and intransigent, which can make them rather opaque to others - and themselves. Reactionary SXIs build their walls so high and stand so close to them that they can lose all perspective.....

    a.k.a. I/O

  11. #51

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    You seem to be referring to the SXIs' fairly rigid sets of standards, to which they compare everything and everyone; in that sense, it's a projection but it's often one that only the SXI observer can sense. Si-subtypes tend to engage others much less than normal SXIs and seem more defensive and intransigent, which can make them rather opaque to others - and themselves. Reactionary SXIs build their walls so high and stand so close to them that they can lose all perspective.....

    a.k.a. I/O
    I thought unhealthy XSI is described that way........ and SXI is like a lot more adaptable relaxed Ip the unhealthy form of which is a lot of laziness and apathy

    You sound like mixing MBTI with Socionics

    Not that I care lol, I don't think either system is great at all but I'm just surprised

  12. #52
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I know that you think so, you have said it many times. But he has an extremely good understanding of Si. Very introverted and analytical. Haven't you read what he says about the contrast Si vs Ni at the beginning of the Ni section of chapter X? It should be enough to see that he can tell them apart.
    I not only said that, I proved it using quotes from Jung here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1345509

    Si is not "analytical" which again just proves my point. Literally the only word you used that I agree with is "organic". But you included other words like "old" and "depth" which are again Ni.

    If you want to quote the section I will read it. But it doesn't make his description of Si any better.

  13. #53

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I not only said that, I proved it using quotes from Jung here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1345509

    Si is not "analytical" which again just proves my point. Literally the only word you used that I agree with is "organic". But you included other words like "old" and "depth" which are again Ni.

    If you want to quote the section I will read it. But it doesn't make his description of Si any better.
    give me a break hotel use your imagination and expandf your lexicon here. Just because you want to play word association in sheer BLACK AND WHITE, doesn't mean the rest of us need to.

    ofc you could apply the words old and depth to both Si and Ni. Si doesn't just deal with the present moment reality, it has a time component just like all the other IEs do.

    Depth is found in the persons perceptual awareness that goes in many deepening layers. A flavour tips off a feeling on the tongue tips off a physiological reaction tips off a feeling state tip[s off a arousal, fear, ect. There is depth there that isn't readily apparent. The same perceptual awareness is expanded to the awareness of other people. A shifting posture reveals a pain in the interlocutors leg, ect.

    Old is just the same as all object ware out in time and the depth filled knowledge of how and why and what that means in regards to objects including the body is also a function of Si. Example, the Si massage therapist feeling the structure of parchment old skin.

    In regards to how tallmo is using these terms absolutely they are found within Si. Si is habits as much as anything else.

    These are just descriptors and I'\m actually surprised you of all people are getting caught up in it. Being obtuse isn't a great quality.Personally it furthers my distaste for alpha NTs, they just quibble over everything.

  14. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearsofaclown View Post
    Yes, my brain is being pulled away from what I am trying to focus on. My mind is not empty at all. lol.
    Lol right

    That's the sensory part I guess, awareness of the sensory details to be analytical about


    One of the Piaget examples you are talking about has to do with conservation of liquid.

    Obviously the child gets it wrong until he learns the conservation concept. Everything must come from experience according to Skinner. So this is consistent with Skinner. But now take different sized and shaped containers. Skinner assumed that the child would have to be retaught the conservation concept because he never experienced this particular setup. He didn't think the concept would be "conserved" through various different experiments but it was. The children held onto the concept and could apply it to all kinds of things now.

    Skinner is technically right empirically though. This law is a shortcut. Nobody counted the exact amount of fluid down to the atom or whatever. I bet some water was lost in transit. I see this as a good metaphor for scientific theories. We make shortcuts. Conservation laws are one of them. You keep missing drops over and over until you are fucked. Like 80% of the universe is made out of dark matter and energy that we don't understand and don't fit with out theories. That is a culmination of missing drops. It's like knowing only about land on the surface of earth when 80% or whatever is water.

    Mice can do this too. When you let a mouse run through a maze, it gets better at it. Quicker. Skinner thought it must be muscular skeleton. The animal literally has to touch the ground and move himself through the maze. But they took mice and put them in like a little wheelbarrow and pushed them through maze. Like the mouse was a passenger in the car. He just watched as he was pushed through the maze. They then tested him and he knew the maze. Just by observing it. He created a cognitive map. I am terrible at directions too. I bet that mouse is way better than me at creating those cognitive maps.
    Lol about the last part. You are my opposite, I beat guys in navigation lol!! (I mean guys are supposed to be better at it but I'm better than most of them apparently...)

    I agree that we do approximations for rules governing the universe. It's so weird, I just thought about that the other day. Not joking I happened to think about this same thing. So yeah, it's weird to me that the approximation seems to work and seems like the correct rule and explanation. Yet it isn't. I once read this thing about how Newtonian laws are pretty orderly while on subatomic level it's anything but orderly, all of it. So yeah our sense of regularity, order, etc... it's strange, it's like more Newtonian for sure. Approximation that looks precise even tho' it's an approximation lol

    And all this for me ties into my little conundrum about structure vs content. Structure is the rules, systems, content is the content it's made about by breaking down content. You cannot infinitely break down content though. So it's an approximation ........ I don't know where you have to stop breaking it all down. I tried to imagine the universe/world in coordination systems etc before. To try and remove all content. Lol this is now getting so off topic. But fun

  15. #55
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,638
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tearsofaclown View Post
    Yes, my brain is being pulled away from what I am trying to focus on. My mind is not empty at all. lol.

    One of the Piaget examples you are talking about has to do with conservation of liquid.





    Obviously the child gets it wrong until he learns the conservation concept. Everything must come from experience according to Skinner. So this is consistent with Skinner. But now take different sized and shaped containers. Skinner assumed that the child would have to be retaught the conservation concept because he never experienced this particular setup. He didn't think the concept would be "conserved" through various different experiments but it was. The children held onto the concept and could apply it to all kinds of things now.
    Ha I find this example quite funny. I know pupils who downright refuse to believe this volume thing. I also know adults who refuse to conclude that if we have infinite amount of time and do lottery weekly (or at least we we never stop doing it in irregular intervals resulting infinite amount of times) we are going to get infinite amount of wins.

    Routine operations for me at least are all about of getting details right after I have figured out estimate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  16. #56

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic 007 View Post
    Umm.. this is hard to put in words. Let's think about up to bottom thinking. I start with a concepts then I continue to distill those in smaller pieces and find overlapping qualities and continue doing that. Think of it as reverse blur effect. If we continue this socionics track then I can say that with Se base types I can usually meet in the middle. If it makes any sense.

    She was probably mainly referring to Piaget's work. Problem is that it is so automatic it kind of goes unnoticed until someone points it out for me. Anyway, I think she is mainly right - qualitatively so. I was extremely jumpy as a kid when it came to senses. I started to classify properties of various things in order to predict plausible reactions. I think I trusted my predictions a lot more than my senses and many times let predictions overrule my sense data.
    Interesting yeah. I didn't get the meeting in the middle with the Se base types, the language there is too encoded, so I don't know what is meant by "Se" there plus the mental jump is just too much for me from the rest of the description, but the rest is fine and definitely interesting.

  17. #57
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I thought unhealthy XSI is described that way........ and SXI is like a lot more adaptable relaxed Ip the unhealthy form of which is a lot of laziness and apathy

    You sound like mixing MBTI with Socionics

    Not that I care lol, I don't think either system is great at all but I'm just surprised
    My descriptions aren't based on Socionics nor MBTI models; most on this site would not agree with the SLI description that I've posted. I find that SXIs tend to be ambivalent until their space is invaded or threatened and some of them see threats where there aren't any; some can really get paranoid especially when they've been alone for too long. XSIs tend to be set in their ways but their standards and principles can be rather flexible so long as logic and practicality is maintained. SXIs have been known to go out in a blaze of glory just on principle (more than a few times based on false assumptions) while XSIs tend to flee so they could think and perhaps live to fight another day but I'm sure the next time would be from ambush. XSIs also seem to never be as certain of their information as SXIs tend to be.......

    a.k.a. I/O

  18. #58

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    My descriptions aren't based on Socionics nor MBTI models; most on this site would not agree with the SLI description that I've posted. I find that SXIs tend to be ambivalent until their space is invaded or threatened and some of them see threats where there aren't any; some can really get paranoid especially when they've been alone for too long. XSIs tend to be set in their ways but their standards and principles can be rather flexible so long as logic and practicality is maintained. SXIs have been known to go out in a blaze of glory just on principle (more than a few times based on false assumptions) while XSIs tend to flee so they could think and perhaps live to fight another day but I'm sure the next time would be from ambush. XSIs also seem to never be as certain of their information as SXIs tend to be.......

    a.k.a. I/O
    Where is the SLI description?

    Where is the idea of yours from about SXI being more rigid than XSI with standards and principles?

    Btw. All the LSI descriptions talk about that certainty thing of LSI lol.

    Si-dom description of Van der Hoop (Jung student) says Si is not open to new information first but it is only passively "resisting" it then comes to accept it. This one does happen to be in line with SXI and Ne dual seeking. While Ne PoLR seems to be about more actively resisting.

    But then these are theories on people... While neither theory explains these patterns properly I think.

    I think the factors making people rigid like that are dependent on things that are not explained by these models whatsoever. Even where these models seem to touch on it's superficial touching on it and not the proper explanation.

    And then this is why we get people who say XSI are the rigid ones (standard Socionics and Van der Hoop/jungian stuff) and then people who say XSI are the flexible ones (you and MBTI) and so on. It's kinda random really which follower of these ideas (that were originally from Jung and then modified by many people) will claim that X type is Y or the complete opposite of it.

  19. #59
    Tearsofaclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    New York
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    445
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic 007 View Post
    Ha I find this example quite funny. I know pupils who downright refuse to believe this volume thing. I also know adults who refuse to conclude that if we have infinite amount of time and do lottery weekly (or at least we we never stop doing it in irregular intervals resulting infinite amount of times) we are going to get infinite amount of wins.

    Routine operations for me at least are all about of getting details right after I have figured out estimate.
    I think infinity is a hard concept for most people to grasp. The only reason I understand it is because I read an entire book on the subject of infinity by a mathematician. If you multiply anything above zero probability times infinity, you will get infinity. In infinity, everything that is possible happens an infinite amount of times. It can lead to ethical questions too because no net good can ever be added to the universe and no bad taken away. lol. It's like another conservation law.
    "And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

  20. #60
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,148
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Where is the SLI description?

    Where is the idea of yours from about SXI being more rigid than XSI with standards and principles?

    ..... Si is not open to new information first but it is only passively "resisting" .....
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...cription+I%2FO

    SXI is rigid from a defensive perspective - defending what they believe is correct and proper. XSI is hard-headed from a I'm-going-to-do-it-my-way perspective - right or wrong. XSI tend to think that information (including standards) is transient and disposable and they can easily start from zero whereas SXIs are far more and often too deeply rooted into (dependent on) their knowledge and skill base. SXIs often wing it with the assumption that what they have will get them through it all whereas XSIs need a plan but when they have a plan, they're hard to stop....

    To say that SLIs passively resist, one hasn't met an angry one; I would fear their knee jerk and often unpredictable reactions over anything LSIs can deliver.......

    a.k.a. I/O
    Last edited by Rebelondeck; 09-14-2019 at 11:41 AM.

  21. #61

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...cription+I%2FO

    SXI is rigid from a defensive perspective - defending what they believe is correct and proper. XSI is hard-headed from a I'm-going-to-do-it-my-way perspective - right or wrong. XSI tend to think that information (including standards) is transient and disposable and they can easily start from zero whereas SXIs are far more and often too deeply rooted into (dependent on) their knowledge and skill base. SXIs often wing it with the assumption that what they have will get them through it all whereas XSIs need a plan but when they have a plan, they're hard to stop....

    To say that SLIs passively resist, one hasn't met an angry one; I would fear their knee jerk and often unpredictable reactions over anything LSIs can deliver.......

    a.k.a. I/O
    That description is MBTI ISTP and Socionics ISTp alright.

    But I'm still not really following your ideas here. I've never heard anyone identifying with SXI (and I specifically know how MBTI ISTP never says that, Ive talked to enough of them until I saw they were completely alien to me - and your desc lines up with MBTI ISTP) say that they are so deeply rooted into that knowledge and skill base. Or that XSIs would easily start from zero or easily drop standards randomly. I personally don't relate to either one btw. I did notice before that I'm deeply rooted in some approaches/systems I had before, some of it comes back to me from even 2 decades ago. I don't really think about it by default but that's really true though and I like to keep consistency forever, well as long as it doesn't lose the point (this can be effortful but I don't mind doing effort). I can wing things, yeah as long as they are not too complex. By winging I mean I adapt quickly enough on the spot and I only have a draft of a plan. I follow that draft but it truly is a draft only. Not detailed at all. If things are too complex, I need to do a bit more detailed plan but I do make that plan. Not overly detailed, but I become definitely more planful than by default. I'm not good at making plans extra detailed tho', it would just make no sense to me tbh. Overall I can start from zero but I don't like to do that all the time. Bc I want to get ahead in my achievements in life, not just always step back and start from zero. Plus I don't like to have to learn new skills all the time just for the sake of it, nah. And I take time to familiarise myself with something totally new before I get into it. Or, alternatively, I make a decision to get into it for whatever reason and then I jump into it. That may be your starting from zero thingy. But I'm not even really focused on skills in that case. Or at any other time, either. I focus on the goal and achievement really, not on skills. Whatever that means in your interpretation.

    Suppose these are your observations from a distance. While using systems that don't really work all that well for it.

    And btw: "defending what they believe is correct and proper. XSI is hard-headed from a I'm-going-to-do-it-my-way perspective - right or wrong"

    I don't really register the difference here. Both are about what's right/wrong, correct or not. Your ISTp description has the ISTp hard headed with doing things their own way, not wanting to be in sync with others. That btw to me is completely alien

  22. #62
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,119
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I not only said that, I proved it using quotes from Jung here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1345509
    The problem here is that Si is very hard to describe (from the inside), to isolate the actual impression. Yet, one can try. It's very easy to misread this stuff.

    Si is not "analytical" which again just proves my point.
    Of course it is not. I was referring to Jung's approach. I should have been clearer.

    Literally the only word you used that I agree with is "organic". But you included other words like "old" and "depth" which are again Ni.
    You are making too fast conclusions based on my words. "Depth" (of sensation) and "old" are good attempts to describe Si, but as usual they are not enough unless the real psychological phenomenon is familiar enough. You have to know how Si actually is experienced.

    When I use those words I am only referring to the character of the Si-sensation, not to something intuitive.

    If you want to quote the section I will read it. But it doesn't make his description of Si any better.
    Here it is:

    Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content.

    Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.

    (Jung, chapter X, beginning of section 8. "Intuition")

    So, here finally Jung is giving an example of "body sensation" in connection to Si. I think it is pretty clear that he has understood Si correctly.

  23. #63
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,119
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    You seem to be referring to the SXIs' fairly rigid sets of standards, to which they compare everything and everyone; in that sense, it's a projection but it's often one that only the SXI observer can sense. Si-subtypes tend to engage others much less than normal SXIs and seem more defensive and intransigent, which can make them rather opaque to others - and themselves. Reactionary SXIs build their walls so high and stand so close to them that they can lose all perspective.....

    a.k.a. I/O
    No, I was saying that introverted sensing is about sensing impressions, but these impressions are not really connected to the environment, even though they are activated by the environment and perceived as being "out there". So the person is more focused on an "image", "reflection" of the environment, than the environment itself.

    (Then there are of course also other Si-impressions, that are not felt in the environment, such as body sensations, tiredness etc.)

  24. #64
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    The problem here is that Si is very hard to describe (from the inside), to isolate the actual impression. Yet, one can try. It's very easy to misread this stuff.
    I described it above.

    You are making too fast conclusions based on my words. "Depth" (of sensation) and "old" are good attempts to describe Si, but as usual they are not enough unless the real psychological phenomenon is familiar enough. You have to know how Si actually is experienced.
    No, they're not good attempts. In socionics Si has nothing to do with the concept "old".

    Here it is:

    Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content.

    Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.

    (Jung, chapter X, beginning of section 8. "Intuition")

    So, here finally Jung is giving an example of "body sensation" in connection to Si. I think it is pretty clear that he has understood Si correctly.
    Jung is contradicting himself here then. He said "Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface", but here he says it's the surface and not the depth. In socionics sensing is external and therefore about surface information.

  25. #65

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    505 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Other contradiction by Jung is that note on focus on "the nature of its origin and disappearance" in that Si quote, bc he defines Intuition that way (seeing where things come from and where they go). heh
    @thehotelambush @Tallmo

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •