Are SLIs supposed to be risk takers.

[godslave]

Risk taking is often associated with Ne. You have to be aware of risks and why you are taking them. It can be a leap of faith into the unknown, or uncertainty. So risk can (must !) be evaluated. Now, Si doms think a lot about security and safety unlike E-Ps who have a tendency to impulsivity. In general SLI will not risk anything, they have to master what they are doing, be aware of stuff that could go wrong. So in a new situation the first think they'll think about is safety and security. They are very good in emergency situations (like all Ips). There is an aspect of Si dom that is not talked about that often, it's the status awareness of objects not only their own body but also others bodies, biological entities and object (if blocked with Te) or emotional state (if blocked with Fe).

As a reminder some definitions (Gulenko) :

Si+ Sensation of Comfort : Adjusting the environment to make yourself (and/or others) as comfortable as you can. Make your territory autonomous. (SLI) ((little spoiler) BIll from the Last of Us is SLI imho)

Si- Sensation of Discomfort : Treatments of malady or resolution of everyday discomfort (SEI). [I find this def. quite superficial]

So there is this notion that I call status/ data acquisition - (diagnosis) - Status/restoration i.e. knowing the natural state of things and being able to restore (or repair) them to their original (healthy) state.

With that said, the human brain is fully mature around age 24. Before that anthropological brain maturity, the will to take risks is higher (natural drive to experience life due to various factors (hormones etc..)) and that's obviously true for everyone even if some temperaments are more risk takers than others.

[The Reality Denialist]

Risk taking is often associated with Ne. You have to be aware of risks and why you are taking them. It can be a leap of faith into the unknown, or uncertainty. So risk can (must !) be evaluated. Now, Si doms think a lot about security and safety unlike E-Ps who have a tendency to impulsivity. In general SLI will not risk anything, they have to master what they are doing, be aware of stuff that could go wrong. So in a new situation the first think they'll think about is safety and security. They are very good in emergency situations (like all Ips). There is an aspect of Si dom that is not talked about that often, it's the status awareness of objects not only their own body but also others bodies, biological entities and object (if blocked with Te) or emotional state (if blocked with Fe).

As a reminder some definitions (Gulenko) :

Si+ Sensation of Comfort : Adjusting the environment to make yourself (and/or others) as comfortable as you can. Make your territory autonomous. (SLI) ((little spoiler) BIll from the Last of Us is SLI imho)

Si- Sensation of Discomfort : Treatments of malady or resolution of everyday discomfort (SEI). [I find this def. quite superficial]

So there is this notion that I call status/ data acquisition - (diagnosis) - Status/restoration i.e. knowing the natural state of things and being able to restore (or repair) them to their original (healthy) state.

With that said, the human brain is fully mature around age 24. Before that anthropological brain maturity, the will to take risks is higher (natural drive to experience life due to various factors (hormones etc..)) and that's obviously true for everyone even if some temperaments are more risk takers than others.

Well, risk taking in terms of sensation seeking is not really Ne. It could be something like studying dead end field so that there is no life support in sight or making a career writing books about anarchism or becoming a professional socionis or taking a problem to solve that you have previous experience. Those are high risk ventures. It really is - when you can loose life support.

[Tallmo]

As a reminder some definitions (Gulenko) :

Si+ Sensation of Comfort : Adjusting the environment to make yourself (and/or others) as comfortable as you can. Make your territory autonomous. (SLI) ((little spoiler) BIll from the Last of Us is SLI imho)

Si- Sensation of Discomfort : Treatments of malady or resolution of everyday discomfort (SEI). [I find this def. quite superficial]

So there is this notion that I call status/ data acquisition - (diagnosis) - Status/restoration i.e. knowing the natural state of things and being able to restore (or repair) them to their original (healthy) state.

My problem with Gulenko is that he mixes Si base / Se ignoring. They appear together, but one has to keep them separate because they are not the same thing. For example "make your territory autonomous" is hardly Si, but pure Se ignoring. Also "adjusting the environment to make yourself comfortable" seems Se ignoring. Si base always goes together with limiting and controlling external sensations (Se). Base and ignoring are kindof opposites and the other function has to be downplayed so that the base function can rule.

[godslave]

My problem with Gulenko is that he mixes Si base / Se ignoring. They appear together, but one has to keep them separate because they are not the same thing. For example "make your territory autonomous" is hardly Si, but pure Se ignoring. Also "adjusting the environment to make yourself comfortable" seems Se ignoring. Si base always goes together with limiting and controlling external sensations (Se). Base and ignoring are kindof opposites and the other function has to be downplayed so that the base function can rule.

I see what you mean. There is something that I want to say about Gulenko Model : it's more about behavior than cognitive functions in the pure Jungian sense. When you look at his definitions of "functions of the psyche "(not "cognitive functions" ™ ! ) he talks about how they manifest i.e. incarnated in behavior by the sociotype who has the function in Lead position. This imho is indeed confusing when you look at it from a pure Jungian point of view. Jung describes the cognitive functions in details from within and without, orientations, the relationship between the subject and the object etc...

In Model G the Ignoring Function is described as the following :

"Controlling — leading, stable, internal. Control through restriction. The point of least resistance, the most problematic position (the problem of the divergence of words and deeds is “I know, but I cannot.”). It controls what is happening in a close environment, dominates, imposes its own opinion, but the carrier of the sociotype is not inclined to actions through this function."

It's high on Informations and Low on energy.

[Crink]

My problem with Gulenko is that he mixes Si base / Se ignoring. .

Technically the same thing

[Tallmo]

Technically the same thing

Not at all. They appear together in the type but they are completely different in nature. I can explain this to you in detail if you want to.

[theum nathair]

Not at all. They appear together in the type but they are completely different in nature. I can explain this to you in detail if you want to.

technically different components of Model A, but Jung's Si archetype is described in terms of Se ignoring so they can't be fundamentally disentangled

[Sol]

Jung's Si archetype is described in terms of Se ignoring

Jung gave definitions of 4 functions and E/I attitudes. The most important are these definitions from him!
He also gave expanded descritions related to functions in e/i forms and people of some types.
He partly mistaked in _secondary_ interpretations of own theory. Or wrote badly as such can be understood.
Muddy and inconsistent Jung's texts can be linked with many of what.

On other side is the problem, that model's A representing of functions (as many of Augustinavichiute's ideas) are baseless nonsense, which sometimes have contradictions with more basic theory.

[theum nathair]

Jung gave definitions of 4 functions and E/I attitudes. The most important are these definitions from him!
He also gave expanded descritions related to functions in e/i forms and people of some types.
He partly mistaked in _secondary_ interpretations of own theory. Or wrote badly as such can be understood.
Muddy and inconsistent Jung's texts can be linked with many of what.

On other side is the problem, that model's A representing of functions (as many of Augustinavichiute's ideas) are baseless nonsense, which sometimes have contradictions with more basic theory.

It's so unexpected for you to agree with anyone that I felt a need to confirm my understanding...

[Tallmo]

technically different components of Model A, but Jung's Si archetype is described in terms of Se ignoring so they can't be fundamentally disentangled

I'll try to explain what I mean.

When Si is developed the focus is on the inner, "impressionistic/magical" sensations, as described by Jung. At the same time the direct impact from the object is limited. So two things are going on: indulging in the inner sensations and limiting the impact from without.

The problem is that it's easy for an observer to see that an Si base person can seem aloof, adapting and so on, but this behaviour comes from his negative relation to the object and should be labelled Se ignoring in model A. Si has a positive relation to the inner world of sensations and there is nothing limiting about it, just indulging in it. But this is harder to observe from the outside. When I read the Socionics descriptions I feel that these things have been mixed up. Understandable, because it's not necessary to keep them apart in order to type people correctly. But the type will be misunderstood.

Jung writes about "The introverted sensation type":

But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds.

I think many people have experienced this with SEIs and SLIs. I can notice this in myself. But this is about handling the influence from the object, a negative phenomenon in this type. Whereas Si is about the influence from the subject.

as Jung says:

Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality

[theum nathair]

I'll try to explain what I mean.

I've read all of this, and ftr, it's what most people who had read your previous post would've assumed you'd meant.

My point stands; it seems Jung was proving a sort of Hegelian dialectic when he composed the archetype. This implies a fundamental entanglement of concepts which hypothesis is borne out by his writing on the topic

[Crink]

Not at all. They appear together in the type but they are completely different in nature. I can explain this to you in detail if you want to.

Appearing together in the psyche means that they are a part of the same process, in my opinion. I don't need or want a detailed explanation, but I don't mind if you post it for others who might enjoy that line of reasoning.

[Tallmo]

I've read all of this, and ftr, it's what most people who had read your previous post would've assumed you'd meant.

My point stands; it seems Jung was proving a sort of Hegelian dialectic when he composed the archetype. This implies a fundamental entanglement of concepts which hypothesis is borne out by his writing on the topic

Appearing together in the psyche means that they are a part of the same process, in my opinion. I don't need or want a detailed explanation, but I don't mind if you post it for others who might enjoy that line of reasoning.

Yes, if I focus on something I have to ignore/limit something else (the opposite thing). Two sides of the same coin. It's quite natural that if sensation is turned inwards it cannot be turned outwards at the same time. My point was simply that these are still different things, very different experiences and can be kept apart. And the main thing in this type is his inner sensations, that's where the real focus is.

[Crink]

Yes, if I focus on something I have to ignore/limit something else (the opposite thing). Two sides of the same coin. It's quite natural that if sensation is turned inwards it cannot be turned outwards at the same time. My point was simply that these are still different things, very different experiences and can be kept apart. And the main thing in this type is his inner sensations, that's where the real focus is.

This is a good way of explaining it ����

[Amoeba]

Risk taking is often associated with Ne. You have to be aware of risks and why you are taking them. It can be a leap of faith into the unknown, or uncertainty. So risk can (must !) be evaluated. Now, Si doms think a lot about security and safety unlike E-Ps who have a tendency to impulsivity. In general SLI will not risk anything, they have to master what they are doing, be aware of stuff that could go wrong. So in a new situation the first think they'll think about is safety and security. They are very good in emergency situations (like all Ips). There is an aspect of Si dom that is not talked about that often, it's the status awareness of objects not only their own body but also others bodies, biological entities and object (if blocked with Te) or emotional state (if blocked with Fe).

As a reminder some definitions (Gulenko) :

Si+ Sensation of Comfort : Adjusting the environment to make yourself (and/or others) as comfortable as you can. Make your territory autonomous. (SLI) ((little spoiler) BIll from the Last of Us is SLI imho)

Si- Sensation of Discomfort : Treatments of malady or resolution of everyday discomfort (SEI). [I find this def. quite superficial]

So there is this notion that I call status/ data acquisition - (diagnosis) - Status/restoration i.e. knowing the natural state of things and being able to restore (or repair) them to their original (healthy) state.

With that said, the human brain is fully mature around age 24. Before that anthropological brain maturity, the will to take risks is higher (natural drive to experience life due to various factors (hormones etc..)) and that's obviously true for everyone even if some temperaments are more risk takers than others.

Great example I think I like bill I do slip in emergency situations though when there is high anxiety.