The IP elements: Questions concerning differences in internal focus between Si and Ni

[Exodus]

By ''creating worlds'' i meant creating a sort of associative structure where sensory input tells the agent how to assess the world. Of course, this is very different from the imaginary process which is described as intuition in Socionics.

What do you mean by ''agreeable''? In which way? Can abstractions not be agreeable, or does it have to relate to the senses?

How about this. Before I answer your questions, you tell me what an "associative structure where sensory input tells the agent how to assess the world" is. And, read the relevant parts of the articles I linked.

And yes, it has to relate to the senses or what you are *actually experiencing*. Not abstractions.

[para]

How about this. Before I answer your questions, you tell me what an "associative structure where sensory input tells the agent how to assess the world" is. And, read the relevant parts of the articles I linked.

And yes, it has to relate to the senses or what you are *actually experiencing*. Not abstractions.

Sensory input regarded in relation to one another - things are experienced in tandem with an association with other experiences of similar (or opposite) nature that color both the particular (in an unhinged way for the IP type, the image appears suddenly) and general view of that experience and the 'semiotics' of the experience, as in, how should i understand this experience, and what does it say about my relationship to the world? This is by associating certain im-or explicitly defined elements of that experience with other experiences, aka comparing. (so, a is like b because a1 in a is reminiscent of b1 in b etc. Therefore i understand a as being closer to b than c, which doesn't share the same relation) I think that i meant that sensory input is made associative by comparing, thus bringing those comparisons to the forefront when experiencing, and this makes it easier to assess the world, since an idea of relation is presumably essential to biological life. This is the same with imaginary processes i think, creating worlds of association through comparison. Why i made this apparent in IP types is because their worlds seem more dependent on themselves as experiencing beings, rather than the input of others (only in regards to Si and Ni i would guess)

Sorry for possible bad wording, English is not my mother tounge.

[Exodus]

Sensory input regarded in relation to one another - things are experienced in tandem with an association with other experiences of similar (or opposite) nature that color both the particular (in an unhinged way for the IP type, the image appears suddenly) and general view of that experience and the 'semiotics' of the experience, as in, how should i understand this experience, and what does it say about my relationship to the world? This is by associating certain im-or explicitly defined elements of that experience with other experiences, aka comparing. (so, a is like b because a1 in a is reminiscent of b1 in b etc. Therefore i understand a as being closer to b than c, which doesn't share the same relation) I think that i meant that sensory input is made associative by comparing, thus bringing those comparisons to the forefront when experiencing, and this makes it easier to assess the world, since an idea of relation is presumably essential to biological life. This is the same with imaginary processes i think, creating worlds of association through comparison. Why i made this apparent in IP types is because their worlds seem more dependent on themselves as experiencing beings, rather than the input of others (only in regards to Si and Ni i would guess)

Sorry for possible bad wording, English is not my mother tounge.

The fact that what you're talking about sounds extremely vague and abstract means it's probably Ni and/or Ti. Si has 0 to do with semiotics, which is the study of symbols and meaning etc. That is Ni. Si is not about understanding your experience, it's about making it more pleasant or hospitable. Like, oh, it's cold so I need another blanket. If this doesn't make sense to you then you are probably not an Si leading type.

[para]

The fact that what you're talking about sounds extremely vague and abstract means it's probably Ni and/or Ti. Si has 0 to do with semiotics, which is the study of symbols and meaning etc. That is Ni. Si is not about understanding your experience, it's about making it more pleasant or hospitable. Like, oh, it's cold so I need another blanket. If this doesn't make sense to you then you are probably not an Si leading type.

But Si must, like Ni and any other element, derive meaning from something (in Si case the focus is on bodily sensation and physical qualia) and interpret it in order to sustain its purpose. So Si is 'semiotic' in the sense that it needs to have a relation to the things it experiences, to form it into something, to know whether or not it should be sought. For Si, the symbols and meaning are mainly the spectrum of sensory input(?) Not explicitly like Ti is presented of course. But i get what you're saying. Si does not focus on imagination, and is an element 'of the moment' not 'through the moment' like Ni - it satisfies itself (quite literally) by searching for pleasant experiences. Now, here's a question - does Si experience pleasure from imagination? Can pleasure be experienced without the physical component and still be related to Si? A feeling of significance or interest can be pleasant, but can it be related to Si? I don't see this focussed on much.