Jungian typologies are cognitive instead of behaviorism. So don't relate it simply with a behavior.
Jung's Si = Socionic Si.
Jungian typologies are cognitive instead of behaviorism. So don't relate it simply with a behavior.
Jung's Si = Socionic Si.
Last edited by CR400AF; 05-08-2021 at 09:35 AM.
@CR400AF Thanks! This is very helpful!!
“Things always seem fairer when we look back at them, and it is out of that inaccessible tower of the past that Longing leans and beckons.”
— James Russell Lowell猫が生き甲斐
That "in-depth review on Si" was really painful to read. He has read Jung but he hasn't understood him. The text is full of misunderstandings and irrelevant things such as talking about "rituals". There is no point in trying to unify mbti and Jung since mbti has totally misunderstood Jung a long time ago. But he assumes that mbti is correct (it isn't).Originally Posted by CR400AF
Jung's description of Si is outstanding but it's almost impossible to understand unless you personally experience what Si is.
I agree with you though that Jung and Socionics Si is the same thing.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Thanks for pointing out. I also agree that MBTI is not correct. It seems that Si and Ne in MBTI becomes to conflicted functions while have opposite values so that system is not working.
I am not a Si ego so I acknowledge that I don't really understand how Si is working. Recently someone in a Chinese MBTI communities claim that MBTI Si/Se = Jung's Si/Se while Socionics misunderstood Jung and changed the definitions so I found that post as it tries to explain that Socionics' = Jung's.
As for the ritual thing I agree that it's kind of MBTI stereotype and it shouldn't be connected to Si. I think he also believed that MBTI is wrong but he did connected Si with MBTI stereotypes in that post so that's a problem of that post. Also I think Jung's definition of introversion is exactly the same as Aushra's definition. But I don't understand how Si is working so I think I have to try to read more post by Si-egos.
Last edited by CR400AF; 05-08-2021 at 10:31 AM.
Well Si is not that hard to understand. The person senses inner impressions from the environment and the body. It's like sensing things "from within". When he sees an object he immediately focuses on the inner sensations that develop. He perceives the environment as a little more "soulful" or "deeper" than a normal person. These sensations ultimately come from the unconscious (just like Ni), but he sees them in the object.
These sensations are just part of the psyche, and are of course rooted in our evolutionary past.
But I would never have become aware of this, if I hadn't read Jung. It's hard to see something when you're standing in the middle of it.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
@Tallmo
I know this isn't about Si, it is about Ni, but I wanted to ask because I want to know how Si ego operates in this manner.
Do you have a mental visual imaginary?
For example, when you or others talk, do you get different kind of visuals that symbolize what has been said or done, etc or when you listen to some music, do you have have these kind of flashes or scenes without an effort?
Do you create imaginary worlds in your head?
No I don't, at least not that much. I have very weak "imaginary worlds". Of course I do imagine things, but I think that's just what everybody does, just normal. It's not strong. I'm basically stuck in a sensory-impressionistic world.
I would be very interested in knowing more about this. Because it sounds foreign to me. So you mean actually visualizing things that symbolize what has been said or done. Sounds Ni for sure.do you get different kind of visuals that symbolize what has been said or done, etc
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Examples: when I think I comprehend something to its core, I imagine squeezing the water of a wet paper or a new idea arises and I picture a blossoming flower or when I see an angry person is being fooled and being used via flattery, I imagine a crying baby getting fed, or when I see a person getting what they want despite other people's preventions, I imagine a swinging sword or a knockout.
I actually don't know for sure if these things are the result of Ni or Ne, because these things could be result of Ne(analogies) or Ni(symbols) or both. I have seen both Ni-doms and Ne-doms using words that describes similar things, rational intuition types use it in a more interactive way imo.
I personally don't visualize everything at all times, sometimes it pops out before words, sometimes it pops out after or when I am re-visiting what happened. However, especially when I listen music alone, some scenes always appears.
It seems that it's a key point that it's rooted in the evolution.
Yes, one could say it's like a weak echo of accumulated sensory experience with the environment since the dawn of mankind. In that way it's more permanent than the ever-changing concrete objects, Jung points out this.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
It seems that all introverted functions are related to the ancient primitive things. But most of my understandings come from rational functions since I have Ti and Fi in my mental ring. Especially this sentence by Jung.
It seems that subjective is not that subjective, it's something rooted in our evolution.
Reply With Quote
