This is a partial remake of the Si profile, with the incorporation of much of the feedback received from our Si member base, and a wider review of the Si samples. Thank you all for your feedback - I'm so grateful for it.
Primary changes include:
- removed Ancestry/Genealogy
- added Backstory/Context
- added Indexing/Definitude
- reframed Temperance as Caution/Skepticism
- generally fixed over-emphasis on traditionalism and took a more metabolic route
- finished Mythology section
( Hrafn i haven't yet been able to incorporate the 'sensory memory' bit into this as i don't feel i know it well enough yet, but i've got it in mind )
Feedback welcome, and feel free to discuss Si in this thread!
In general I think this paints Si to be quite a bit different! ...and more true to its form. Traditionalism is still a real aspect of Si but better fits into the mythology of Si (positive and negative). It's just like how Te can be painted flatly as the Tyrant... even though Te is far more than that, and the Tyrant is but one slice of its potential.
But it appears to me more and more than people will project their negative archetype onto others. People have an easy time seeing the mythical representation of the function, because they are often battling against that archetype on either a personal or global scale. And so a typical high-Fi only sees Te as tyrannical, and the high-Ne's are prone to only see Si as retrogressive. One-sided Ni's may see high-Se's as little else but vulgar/hedonistic children (puer).
This also happened to me when building the first Si profile, to some degree, because my Si isn't fully conscious. The functions (and people who have them) are seen in a more one-dimensional expression. I'm still studying this phenomenon but am quite intrigued by it and just wanted to report it here.
"Over time the Si user will need to discover where the right balance is and be able to supply just the right amount of information for any given situation".
I thought this strayed a bit from description and sounded a bit self-helpy. Perhaps "...if the Si can discover where..." or just change "will need to" to "may".
Also, "The people visiting Jerusalem who make pilgrimages to the temple of Solomon." There isn't actually a temple in Jerusalem (since 70AD), just Temple Mount, on which the Dome of the Rock etc stands. Maybe "to the site of the temple of Solomon", or something like that?
Cool!--I s'pose I'll come out of the shadows and post some thoughts on this. I have some things to say right now, but I need a little while to collect my ideas on some of it. Overall it looks pretty good to me.
I relate quite a bit to this technophobic feature of dark Min (although not that much to its dogmatic aspect described in the rest of the paragraph):
There emerges a general refusal to advance with the times which can manifest as technophobia. [...] An example of this iteration of Min can be seen in the Amish, who forego modern essentials such as electricity, telephones, radios and automobiles –surviving instead by farming with an emphasis on family life.
One reason I think Min ("myth of the Earth," of course) can be associated with technophobia is that modern technology and infrastructure tends to manifest as forms of nature that are quite abstracted from the Earth. For instance, plastic has appeared on the Earth mostly within the past 70 years or so, and its formation is inextricably linked to (human) industrial capitalism. Although plastic originates from Earth & life (as petroleum that was once living organisms), it's so refined and abstracted that this connection to the Earth is completely obscured. Something about plastic seems almost sort of alien and other, especially since it has only been around for a tiny fraction of human history. For this reason, a table made of plastic doesn't evoke warmth or comfort in the way that a table made of wood does. Even if the wood for the latter table was actually produced by exploited labor in an industrial tree plantation halfway around the world, none of that is immediately apparent or visible. The wood still evokes something that's "of the Earth" and deeply rooted in the evolutionary past.
Just one more thought for now. I feel like the "Indexing and Definitude" section seems a bit too rigid and "J-like" to me. In fact parts of it are quite the opposite of my personality, e.g.:
The Si user will have a very modular grasp of the world [...] In a more real-world setting, this may lead to quite a few peculiarities as the Si user may literally index or label parts of their lives –separating things out by their purpose and application. The top drawer is kept for the red dishes which are used for big family reunions (and Nick’s cup which he left last time he was here) and the bottom drawer is reserved for hand towels, with dish cleaning towels in the bottom left drawer.
They can toggle between countless knowledge paradigms, and indeed they are often collectors of diverse paradigms, but with each of them comes an understanding that knowledge in one area is specific to that domain. There is in them a tendency to compartmentalize datasets; indexing them separately even if they belong to a wider whole.
In this second quote, I relate to the diverse paradigms, and even to the indexing...but not really to the compartmentalization. I need to think more about how to articulate this, and I'll come back to it in another post. I do relate to having different knowledge paradigms about different topics. However, the boundaries between these paradigms are very fuzzy/fluid and there's a ton of overlap. I might have a few different ways of looking at a particular topic without really having a sense of one particular way being definitive or superior. Likewise, I might not have a clear sense of where one paradigm ends and another begins.
The book mentions that Ne-Si users tend to have more fragmented & pluralistic worldviews, as opposed to Se-Ni's more linear, all-encompassing visions of reality. I suspect Si compartmentalization occurs as sort of a non-rational default that doesn't always have much rhyme or reason to it. When Ne is engaged, it's quite easy to see interconnections between the ideas in one Si compartment and the those in another. When these interconnections are persistent, datasets become cross-indexed over time--they end up belonging to more than one category. (i.e. to use the dish analogy, the red dishes be in the top drawer and the bottom drawer at the same time). In time, this can eventually make the categories themselves seem sort of fuzzy & arbitrary.
I'm probably not articulating this very well, but I'll think over it some more and try to write something a bit more coherent.
Hrafn - I like what u say about wood. (i think i'll also adjust that section to have a bit less of a negative slant)
Yea, I too felt the Indexing/Definitude section has some J-esque elements I'm not entirely happy with. Hmm, I'm trying to find the right framing. I was talking to SiFe Gomux about it too, as that section was inspired by convos with him. I think Si incidentally indexes reality in a passive form; archiving experiences into these mental schemas/groups (i.e. "everything i know about Bob Dylan" or "everything I know about music/typology/hiking/dance") but the active component of "arranging things into order" may involve participation with J.
Gomux is J-heavy, (SiTi) and you're polarized l--l so it'd be interesting to see the differences. I would expect a bit more cross-correlating to occur from the Si-Ne duality being fully activated. Looking forward to what you have to share! And gomux too if you have any thoughts? :3
If the Si-doms I know are indicative of Si, then I think 'precedent-ism' is a very important aspect of how Si manages life. My SiFe wife, who loves to tell a story every time something present reminds her of something past, is good at dealing with situations if they are familiar to her or relate to a past successful experience, but truly new situations that seem to have no precedent are almost 'crippling'. Without that preexisting recognizable proven framework, she has a really hard time projecting and 'guessing' at potential successful outcomes. In that sense, the present is a continuous link to the tried and true past.
Yet this doesn't mean that she's against new and untried things, because years of being married to me have shown her that 'winging it' or taking things as they come without too much preparation actually succeeds often and produces desirable and satisfying outcomes. So now she has precedents for unprecedentness, if that's possible. *head scratch*
We've enjoyed discussing some of these CT explanations a lot, like 'narrativism'. Narratives are a big deal to her. She confesses that she'll often collect data, then hear an interpretation (aka narrative) that resonates, and then kind of discard the data and just hang on to the narrative, and might not really be able to break down the narratives into the parts of which they're constituted. She would probably continue along forever in that narrative, until someone were to challenge the narrative and she would be surprised to realise she can't explain it satisfactorily.
I’ve been struggling with how to pull together and frame the massive, scattered jumble of thoughts on this topic. I actually have more stuff I've wanted to say/have started to write, so maybe I'll make yet one more post after this one. But this seems long enough for now.
First, here's the short version of how I relate to this version of the Si profile:
Narrativism – yes--I very much relate to this! Encyclopedia—Yes! It’s worth noting, though, that a lot of my information absorption is pretty passive. I learn stuff more through the contextual flow of day-to-day life than through deliberate or meticulous research. Backstory & context—Yes!! Very much so! Indexing & definitude—I have some issues with this that I've tried to explain at length below. Perhaps a more general, underlying trait is that Si’s worldview is always heterogenous/polymorphous…For some Si’s this leads to neatness, definitude, precise indexing & compartmentalization. But for me, it’s more of a pluralistic mishmash in a lot of areas, with some places that are quite speculative. I agree that Si relies on “indexing,” but I don’t think indexing necessarily involves compartmentalization (described below). Collections—Yes, I’d say I relate to most of this. Nostalgia—Yes. But again, while nostalgia is a common outcome, it seems like the underlying trait is referencing precedent (as Kahawa suggested) and sensory memory. For many Si users this will lead to nostalgia, but e.g. for those who had traumatic pasts, it might lead to a visceral aversion toward repeating these experiences. Caution & skepticism—Not too much. I certainly have some cautious traits, but in many ways I'm rather unplanned/fly-by-night. I'm prone to making wildly overoptimistic estimates about things like time management, am generally more credulous than skeptical. I actually think I related more to the earlier "temperance" version, despite being a not-so-temperate person in some ways. Temperance is at least sort of an ideal I strive toward. Under stress: paranoia and dogmatism—I relate to bits and pieces of these paragraphs. But as best I can tell, neither paranoia nor dogmatism is one of my more common stress responses. I can be very stubborn in certain situations, though, and I wonder if dogmatism could be reframed as the more general quality of stubbornness. Min—very well done, and I relate to it a lot! Especially this bit:
"The earth is seen as a living, breathing entity –filled with wisdom that’s physically embedded into stone, sediment and architecture. It is a living record of all that has come before and is the eternal forefather which gave rise to our existence."
One small caveat: the Earth is much more of a mother than a father; her biosphere IS a sort of womb from which humans (and other organisms) have emerged. If I make another post perhaps I'll write some more thoughts about Min, although I've already written about it pretty extensively. Random aside: I feel like Temple Grandin (SiTe, I’m pretty sure) could provide another in-depth perspective on the experience of Si...She talks in great detail about her own thought processes.
She’s on the autism spectrum and her way of thinking is clearly not characteristic of all Si leads (for instance, the photorealistic quality of her memory seems more typical among Se types...who knows, maybe I'm wrong about her being an Si lead?). But I think her characterization of visual, “bottom-up thinking” could be a common Si thread. She seems to index things down to very specific details and struggles with generalizations and broader categories—something that generally seems very S to me.
One thing I've thought about is that I’m not actually sure whether I should relate to everything in an Si profile: my Ne is conscious, and I think my ego’s been pretty invested in it during much of my life. Some of the Si traits outlined here directly countervail those of conscious Ne. Being distractible, tangent-hoppy and prone to magical thinking takes away from my ability to be consistent and dutiful. What’s interesting about this, though, is that as an Si-lead, I plainly have conscious Si. But because of the direct, oppositional tug-of-war between Si and Ne, it seems like my Si is sort of stripped down to its essentials. In other words, it has a full agenda, but its agenda is missing some of the behavioral “frills” (e.g. caution) that are commonly associated with Si.
I pretty clearly have the N-temperament of my polar function rather than the S-temperament of my dominant. This is not surprising, and even seems sort of ubiquitous among polarized types. But in a way it is fascinating to me that someone can have a temperament-attitude opposite that of their dominant function. (I realize the temperament-attitudes are not a “hard” part of CT theory, but I still find them enormously useful in describing what people are actually like in day-to-day life).
Anyway, I guess my overall idea is that maybe polarized types could be used to explore the traits of dominant functions. In what ways am I/am I not like other Si leads? In what ways is/is not Justin Bieber like other Ni-leads, Linus Torvalds like other Fi-leads, etc.? Could polarization help to show which traits are truly most characteristic of the dominant function?
I’m excited that the topic of Si and the senses seems to be receiving more interest and attention. To me, this has been the biggest missing piece in various descriptions of Si. I wrote quite a bit about this in the last post I made, so I’ll try not to repeat myself.
I definitely understand that Si’s connection to the senses does not appear as straightforward as that of Se. However, I suspect at least some of this has to do with cultural understanding/construction of sensory perception. In popular usage, sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch are generally described as “the senses.” They are mainly talked about in relation to their ability to perceive external objects. Because extraverted functions are object-oriented, this way of defining senses invariably points to Pe. Of the two Pe processes, Se is far more coordinated toward using the senses to perceive the external world of objects. In my understanding Ne also perceives the sensory qualities of objects, but it is not genuinely interested in them and so it doesn’t hold its attention there.
Because the Pi process is introverted, it's subject-oriented. So I believe one of Si’s specializations is in perceiving the sensory qualities of subjects. I believe the five senses above each have a subjective quality as well as an objective one. The CT book talks about how Pi engages the eyes to scan the worldview tapestery—this could be described as “subjective sight.” Smell has an extremely strong internal quality: noticing smells invariably involves strong internal impressions that can be recalled by imagining those smells. I suspect the difference between "subjective" and "objective" smell could be framed something like this: --Se: this fish is smelly. (i.e. this object has the attribute of smelliness) --Si: this attribute of smelliness within my senses has its backstory in that fish with which my senses were entangled (or, this smell evokes that fish).
There are also a whole variety of sensory experiences that are primarily subjective/internal and cannot be encapsulated by any of the typical “five senses”: appetite, thirst, balance, internal aching, fatigue, sleepiness, the feeling of food in your stomach, needing to urinate, and others. Or maybe some of them are merely something like “internal/subjective touch.” But either way, these kinds of sensory experience all involve concrete, literal perception, but none of them directly involves contact with external objects. Also, as an Si-lead I notice I can be prone to fussing or fretting about satiating these internal senses. I'm not very tolerant of hunger or sleep-deprivation. I’ve definitely noticed this in other high-Si types as well.
However, as with all sorts of perception, I bet the quality of this internal sensation depends on the judgment framework it’s interpreted through. For instance, two Si users might have a similar experience of feeling full of food. For one, it may be a delightful, relaxing experience, while for the other, it might prompt neurotic thoughts about weight-gain. Stereotypically, it seems like Si’s are conservative and temperate when it comes to indulging in sensory experiences. Yet clearly not all Si-heavies are this way. I’ve often tended to indulge in or seek intense sensory experiences—for instance, I enjoy feeling stuffed full of food.
I don’t exactly have a cohesive, articulated theory about how this aspect of Si connects with its information-storing aspect, but here’s an attempt at explaining my thoughts on it. In many people, sight plays a dominant sensory role because of its ability to notice and differentiate such a clear, specific kaleidoscope of details at any given time. Because indexing and information involves being able to perceive and arrange specific details down to a granular level, sight is heavily involved in this activity. Of course, indexing does not solely rely on sight—verbal indexing involves language cognition, in which sound is heavily involved. But in my experience, indexed information is typically arranged in something sort of like a visual map (I try to explain this below in some of what I’ve written about indexing and its relationship to mapping). A sense like smell—while powerfully evocative—does not have the precision or nuance of sight or sound. Thus, its role vis a vis Si is less heavily involved with indexing, and more with impressions & their evocation (If I write another post I'll try to take on the topic of "impressions"). While Si users certainly index certain kinds of smell experiences, this indexing still involves language. For all sorts of reasons, words can evoke smells, textures, visuals, etc. But in most contexts, a sense like smell is more involved with impressions & evocation than with indexing.
The Indexing and Definitude section seems to conflate indexing with compartmentalization, or to imply that the two always go hand-in-hand:
There is in them a tendency to compartmentalize datasets; indexing them separately even if they belong to a wider whole.
. When it comes to sorting information, I’d understand indexing and compartmentalization point as referring to two different things. While compartmentalized datasets generally rely on indexing (i.e. for labelling its compartments), indexing doesn’t necessarily imply compartmentalization. (Just to be clear, I don’t see indexing & compartmentalization as categorically different: as with most things, I think there’s a continuum between the two).
First, let me explain what I mean by compartmentalization. The text I’ve posted here is an example of something that’s compartmentalized: I’ve put different headings on different parts of it. These different parts could be considered different “compartments,” with the text in each compartment appearing there, but nowhere else. Ideally, the heading at its beginning of each compartment (an index) is supposed to be an overarching summary of its contents. It’s important to note that the reason I’ve compartmentalized this text is because it’s long—breaking it into indexed chunks is a communication strategy. As such, this sort of compartmentalizing actually seems like more of a Je thing. My actual understanding of what I’m writing about is far more jumbled and cross-referenced than this lets on.
Indexing, on the other hand, can simply involve “tagging” or labeling things or ideas: Auburn’s example of “everything I know about Bob Dylan” is a good example of this. Indexing does not require one thing per category. It just involves labeling things or attaching a code to them to make them easier to find and more recognizable. In real life, if I began recounting “everything I know about Bob Dylan,” the boundary between what’s “about Bob Dylan” and what isn’t would be very vague & indefinite.
To some extent, I’m sure all Si users rely on both indexing and compartmentalization. Yet as far as I can tell, I wouldn’t say my own worldview is all that compartmentalized. It is quite indexed, albeit not always in a regular or predictable way. In many areas of life, I’m somewhat resistant to compartmentalization. Different parts of my life, topics of interest, paradigms of understanding, etc., often cross over and bleed together through their own animation. I don’t usually make much concerted effort to keep them separated. For instance, if I discuss CT theory in any depth, it’s likely enough the discussion will get entangled in my political and ethical ideas. (Granted, there are some things that I have either a clear reason or a visceral sense about keeping separate, but these are relatively few).
In a way, Si’s focus on context actually runs contrary to its purported emphasis on compartmentalization. Let’s say I begin recounting “everything I know about Bob Dylan,” get sidetracked into a narrative about the political background that inspired his music, and mention Rage against the Machine (who covered “Maggie’s Farm”). In this example, Rage against the Machine is cross-indexed with Bob Dylan (via the song). But it’s not “filed away in a Bob Dylan compartment.” In other words, a subject's context often involves things that are quite peripheral to it.
As described above, Si works in a pretty visual/spatial way—at least for me. I could say the way my mind organizes indexed information is somewhat map-like. If I’m considering “everything I know about CT,” my mental process is NOT really analogous to pulling file-folder containing a string of CT documents. It’s far more like navigating to a “CT” point on an internal map, and being able to look around and explore the various bits of information that radiate out from the center. Although I don’t understand CT’s entire structure in crystal clarity, the fact that I believe it to be a cohesive theory makes it appear as such in my mental map. It’s just that certain parts of it are rather vague & nebulous. I could say my map of it looks sort of like a galaxy, with datapoints radiating outward from the central topic that holds it together in a loosely-knit order. “Vultology” would be close to the center of the CT galaxy, “Jungian functions” would be the center of another galaxy that heavily overlaps with this one (OK, the analogy isn’t exactly perfect). The galaxy’s edge is somewhat arbitrary: the Enneagram is pretty much separate from CT as a theory, but not altogether separate from it as a relevant/related topic. If I’m centering my map on CT, Enneagram will be quite visible. Needless to say, this analogy is a simplification of a mental process that in reality is much more diverse and multi-faceted. But my point is that there’s a very spatial component to accessing indexed information—although (probably because Si is an introverted function) the quality of “space” differs from that of the external world.
Of course, there’s no reason why something that’s visual can’t be compartmentalized. As Auburn pointed out, maps are quite a good analogy for the Pi processes in general, definitely for my Si. (This also connects with Min and the nature of Si’s worldview). Some maps, like this one, are quite compartmentalized.
In others, the compartmental divisions are less obvious, but these maps are still generally full of indices like place-names.
Without these indices, terrain features are more difficult to reference and cross-check. (Note that this map still has compartments in its schema of different terrain types, and in how it whites-out continental landmasses other than North America. But in general, these compartments aren't monolithic or predominating in the same way, and they're more based on geologic/landscape phenomena).
So, what’s the difference between the two maps? Well, all the terrain represented in the first (political) map is subsumed into different compartments—i.e. countries. For instance, you can’t really see that Calgary is in the prairie or that Seattle is surrounded by forest, but you can sure as hell tell that one is in Canada, while the other is in the USA. The categories are also homogenous: Inuvik is neither more nor less part of the Canada category than Toronto is. In this case, the compartments on the map represent socially-constructed ideas that have been gradually etched into physical reality through performative histories of force and violence.
Of the second (physical) map, it’s harder to speak categorically in quite the same way. I can see that one index-label says Chukchi Sea and another says Beaufort Sea, but nothing on the map suggests exactly where the boundary between them lies. In other places (e.g. Greenland, if it were labeled on this map) it’s pretty obvious where the boundary lies, but only because its boundary is written large in the landscape. If this map showed city locations, I might infer that Vancouver is more Seattle-like than Calgary-like because it is closer to Seattle and appears to share similar landscape features.
I’m not trying to veer off into political ecology, but I just bring up this topic because it’s a very good illustration of how my Si’s maps work. I’m certainly aware of different possible boundaries that can be/have been drawn to compartmentalize things: for instance, I’m know full well that Seattle’s been formed through interaction with US hegemony; Vancouver via Canadian hegemony. Yet within my worldview, these categories are not absolute, definitive, or internally homogenous. Yes, both Toronto and Inuvik are Canadian. Yet Toronto has enormous influence over Canadian culture, politics—and indeed the very social construction of “Canadian-ness.” By contrast, when most people think about Canada, the community of Inuvik does not quickly come to mind. It’s peripheral to the Canadian project and has little influence in shaping what Canada is. I suspect many of its residents would identify as Inuvialuit before they’d identify as Canadian—after all, the Inuvialuit had their lands and identities seized by Canada in the not-so-distant past. My point here is that while Toronto and Inuvik are both Canadian, Canadian means two different things when applied to the two different contexts. It’s not the monolithic, compartmental green shown on the above map. So, I guess it’s a category, but not a uniform category and compartment.
I didn't quite get to the end of my thoughts on this topic, but that's all I have time for right now.
I can see almost all of those points as related to Si except for Skepticism & Caution.
Every person I have ever met whom I have attempted to share a grandiose vision or magical thought with was not immediately accepting of the idea. Literally EVERY single one of them.
Unless I have only ever spoken to heavy Si users, this should be impossible, no? Unless, of course, caution, restrain, and skepticism are naturally *human* behaviors, not related to any particular function - though perhaps strengthened by them.
On a more personal note, I am even more convinced that I do not value Si in any sense after reading the revised post. Before, I could see how, with some great deal of contortion, I could see how people might construe me as being part of the Si box. Now, I am certain that the whole notion of my existence within the Si domain is patently absurd and fundamentally impossible.
Giving my feedback here as an SiTe: overall kind of hit or miss from my point of view.
Narrativism: Cant relate at all to this one. I never understood why anyone cared about the past or why we take history classes. I only care about whats happening right now in the present moment and what will yield an immediate pleasure.
Encyclopedia: Relatable, for specific topics at least. People seem to ask me how I know so much about X a lot. But it comes at the expense of knowing absolutely nothing about the things I dont know about, topics Y and Z and seemingly like a complete idiot.
Backstory and Context: dont really understand where you are going with this. ". Just as the Si user would expect to be mistaken if they extrapolated a trend from missing data" no...? I do this all the time."They may lay down seven datasets before conveying their core idea, only to realize the same thought could have been relayed with three. " Usually for me its the opposite. I jump straight to the point and dont realize that I didn't explain or give any context actually to the point of it distressing other people.
Indexing & Modularity: Relatable, this accurately describes how I think.
Collections: Cant relate at all. A lamp is just a lamp to me. I dont attribute sentimental value to possessions, only utility. My family told me I will be "disappointed" some day about not saving anything or taking any pictures but I still feel fine. " The totem gives them vicarious access to the perspective of someone who once saw this very same thing and held it in just the same manner. " Huh? that sounds like some lord of the rings shit.
Nostalgia: Cant relate at all. Ive always struggled to wrap my head around nostalgia because I dont really experience it in the conventional way. And this might tie back into the modularity thing. The past "me" I dont think of as having any relation to the current me. Its just another person that happened to exist at some point in time and space and the Me that is here now is the only thing I can call me. I have experienced the feeling of nostalgia, or what I believe it to be, but its always been from the point of view of another person since I dont give much preference to my own childhood or past over the childhood or past of others, seeing as there is nothing significant about the "me" at that time other than that we happen to share the same genetics.
Caution/Skeptism: True af for skepticism and doubting everything but as for caution I tend to be lacking which is one my main problems and why do impulsively make horrible decisions. "Over time they grow familiar with the general range of situations that constitute life, " This is true but the result of it is that I feel overconfident that I can handle things and therefore go into them recklessly without thinking of the consequences (mainly alcohol/drugs, nearly getting arrested, saying stupid things, and getting injured due to ignoring safety information)
Behaviors under stress: im never really stressed so i honestly dont know.
Mythology: Myth of the earth seems relatable, I feel connected to nature and ancient power.
Myth of light less so because I dont really have any "past wisdom". My main advice to people is just to live in the present moment and not think too much about the past or future.
Last Edit: Nov 11, 2018 19:12:49 GMT -5 by laughter