Yes
No
But the Big 5 isn’t really a theory, is it? It doesn’t seem to have much explaining power at the moment. As I understand, it defines some dichotomies and tries to place people on a scale of them. Which to me sounds about as useful as the Enneagram once you ignore the mysticism; that is, not very much, unless more data is collected and correlated.Originally Posted by MissDucki
The big 5 is weird. Depending on the wording of questions, I either get 0 or 100% agreeableness, no in between. I lose point on openess because I think art is vapid and useless, I can't understand what it has to do with keeping an open mind, it's just stuff or noise.
That's just the problem with all those personality stuff. What is it, what means what, how should what be interpreted... it's just an endless pit of a bunch of perceptions contradicting each others, of people who can't agree on a common vision... but those disagreements and where importance is put are telling of personality in its own way.
Trauma and healing from trauma can also change drasticaly personality it seems, but does it changes it or simply covers it with something else, but can that something else be called personality too...
Note that I paint, draw, and write poetry, sometimes sing, even want to go some lyre someday. My stuff's as vapid and useless as all the rest.
It's the reverse of that. They gave people questions and then noted how people's answers to questions varied together and then put names (agreeableness/extraversion/etc.) to the clumps of correlated answers. So the data isn't made up but the connotations are.
Which amounts to essentially the same thing. There are many subjective questions you could ask that’ll get correlated answers. But interpreting that is another problem.
It’s obvious, I think, there are introverts and extraverts, for instance. But I’m not sure psychology has managed to determine much about this since Jung. And as much as psychology now dismisses Jung and Freud for a lack of empiricism, it doesn’t seem to be getting much better results.
It depends on what you mean with "the same thing". If you mean it still makes it useless, then I think you could argue that it's unsound because it's a self-report, but (to my knowledge) that applies to pretty much all (ethical/generalized) psychological research. The actual stats methods seem fine since they are just exploiting variance. Weaknesses there appear to come from sampling issues (the fact that the factors they ended up pulling out are correlated with each other by some small amount when people try to reproduce).
In regards to "many subjective questions you could ask that'll get correlated answers", I am assuming you mean that people's lack of understanding about themselves could bias the responses systematically (e.g. all people misunderstand themselves in some area because of cultural influence or common cognitive blindspots). I don't disagree that this is an issue, but there are ways to control for this
This is just my partial info from what I've seen so far in that area since I don't follow it religiously or anything.
I think that there is wisdom in Jung and Freud, but we have to be careful with what we pick and choose to believe from what they said. I think sometimes their statements are underspecified and that fact gets thrown away by people who want to believe in their infallibility, and then you end up with concepts like Si and Ni where people are trying to make something out of nothing (or not much, at least).
And I have given up when it comes to coffee. No way that I consume it.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
If basic(!) theory and your practice do not match _regularly_ you should use the typology more appropriately.
Identify types more correctly, take into account other factors which may influence on a behavior.
While I personally don’t like the Big 5, it’s been the only scale to actually be able to measure personality traits empirically and the only scale to have witness these 5 traits cross culturally. I think as personality socionics nerds we view it as quite juvenile in comparison due to its lack of complexity. However, we seem to forget that personality theory in itself is not limited to categorizing people. There are some theories that look at the acquisition of traits. The Big 5 is also the only personality scale that is used in empirical psychological research.
While I really wish socionics and even MBTI was taken seriously for research and studying, it is really really hard to actually have people legitimately typed based on perception and the subjective aspect I’ve of it. With the Big 5 we can at least measure the strength of 5 traits and see how strong and weak they are much more objectively. People can also be mistyped. I mean, how much do we argue on here about others peoples types and perceptions? So, Big 5 remains king at the moment, at least in mainstream empirical psychology
Redefining Si seems like a whole new level of rationalization lol
I thought Si was 'internal fields/statics? of objects' or something which is very much related to how you are you in harmony with the environment and how much you sense that in others. The homeostasis of everything etc. Si appears hard to define because the very nature of Si is so subtle and soothing it slips through most definitions.
The 'it just means you are a soft healer type person' is more of the SEI stereotype but LSE-Te courtroom judges have 3D valued creative Si for example and they are known for being pretty tough and harsh. It is because of how the other functions are aligned in the psyche that a SEI is usually that way- but other types and Deltas value/are strong at Si as well.
A Si/Fi valuer like SLI understands how things harmonize together in the environment very well but they value Fi too so will be more selective on who they show their affection and softness with (more aloof/distant) - not to mention they are thinking types. The innate harshness of their creative Te is also hardening up a lot of their Si.
SEIs have 4D ego Si... but Te polr and they value Fe not Fi so they seem more world wide adorable-ish. And they are feelers.
The stereotype of Si of giving you chicken noodle soup and asking if you've had enough to eat all the time - comes more from ESE's 3D valued creative Si- along with their Fe valuing and not Te valuing of LSE courtroom judge. ((they would ask their heterosexual wife or husband that question- but not the world.))
Male ESEs are less this way due to gender roles but it's like very common to have a ESE male ask you if you'd like another hot dog or beer when he's BBQing. Or I've seem them like laugh and recoil and try to dial back a little bit if they sense they are being too harsh with somebody and breaking up the homeostasis, even if they are naturally asshole males.
LIEs/EIEs don't care about this- with their Si polr they just often come across as prickly abrasive assholes even when they're not and they actually have a lot of sensitivity. LIEs naturally can't process the homeostasis of things very well... that's how they are able to be so successful at business cuz the business world requires being a shark and stepping on toes to get what u want of course (and a lot of Te and extroversion which they also have in spades).
Socionics identifies Si correctly but it focuses too much on stereotypical behaviour. Jung on the other hand has an outstanding "scientific" Si description, and it is very long, several pages. But it is hard to understand unless you already know what Si is. SEIs don't really know what Si is because they lack comparative judgement, as Jung says.
So just read Jung and there you have it. And this goes for all functions. If you want to learn more and go deeper, then you have to start digging into Jung. It takes time though.
Please don't pay any attention to the mbti definition. It's a big misunderstanding and they even assign Si to the wrong types.
Personally, I am pretty much done with Socionics. It is really great for learning and identifying the types, relations, and weak functions, but if you want to know more about functions and the psychology, then you have to move to Jung.
I don't think Si should be called "personal". Si perceives primordial sensations evoked by the environment. The sensations rise from the unconscious and are not connected to anything personal. They are not perceived as "my sensations", but as something "other", slightly fascinating. It's the psyche's own mirroring of the external environment.
All introverted functions are subjective in this sense. They are connected to the subject, the information comes from the psyche.
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)
Stereotypes might be uncouth, but you laugh because they're based on truth.
I understand being annoyed at stereotypes but I think people do observe these behaviors, and how people come across in a natural ghetto Se way based on how they are processing and metabiolizing information in their head etc.
Well the SEI I know IRL its not like she asks how everybody is feeling all the time and makes sure others are always comfortable, or makes food for strangers, or will wipe your butt for you- that is weirdly codependent and strange behavior. But just her presence is soft and inviting and accepting of others so naturally or something- she doesn't have to say a word- her body energy doesn't 'push' you away unlike LIE asshole business(wo)man energy.
It's exactly the same for SLI, except instead of using Fe to balance the environment, we use Te.
o btw here's the methodology for the study:
"For the purposes of this work, semantic clusters of white sensing were analyzed by the author on 6663 initial questionnaire questions with known (tested on samples from 300 to 7000 people) socionic typical, characteristic and functional profiles. Clusters were collected further manually from about 1700 selected questions with an experimentally identified extreme (among other socionic functions) load on the BS. The questions were grouped into clusters on the basis of semantic similarity of the question formulations, but with the control of the predominant correlation of the typical profile of the issue under consideration with the profiles of other issues of this particular cluster. Subsequently, the finally obtained 104 semantic clusters of white sensorics were additionally broken down (with the involvement of funds from the EXCEL) by 15 groups (superclusters), but already proceeding from only one sign of similarity of their socionic profiles.
Initial sample profiles of 6663 questions were obtained using several self-paced socio-diagnostic questionnaires. Each typical profile consists of 16 numbers - one number for each of the 16 socionic psychotypes. Each number is equal to the deviation from the average population level (in fractions of the standard deviation of the gene population), which the representatives of this psychotype demonstrate in relation to the level of their agreement with this questionnaire statement. To calculate each number, as a rule, several questionnaires are used in which this questionnaire was tested. In this case, the final number is equal to the weighted average of the results of all questionnaires, taking into account the number of representatives of this type among their respondents. 16 numbers, forming a typical profile of the questionnaire, can be considered as diagnostic coefficients for the subsequent calculation of typical profiles of new respondents answering this and other questions of the next questionnaire. In this case, the complete typical profile of the respondent is formed from 16 linear correlation coefficients calculated between the vector of the respondent's answers to all the questions of the questionnaire (answers that have passed the normalization procedure) and 16 vectors of diagnostic coefficients, for each of the 16 types taken from the known typical profiles of the relevant questionnaire questions.
At the dawn of the author's work with socio-diagnostic questionnaires, namely a few years ago, at the beginning of the research program, the initial diagnostic coefficients of the questionnaires were completely obtained, in a first approximation, on the basis of sociotypes (one of 16 possible), previously announced by the test participants (taking into account also their likelihood, also declared by the respondents, as well as their declared own socionic experience). On the basis of the obtained coefficients, a typical diagnostics of the first stage was carried out, already irrespective of the declared types, which makes it possible to determine the types of all respondents, both having previously declared their types and not having declared them. At this stage, the declared psychotypes, grossly different from the newly diagnosed ones, were rejected, and the training procedure for obtaining diagnostic coefficients from the answers of respondents with pre-declared psychotypes was carried out anew. Then the diagnostics was carried out again using the refined coefficient system. The results of this diagnosis, already for all respondents in the sample, were used again to obtain a system of diagnostic coefficients for the diagnosis of each of the 16 psychotypes, but this was done without taking into account the declared types.
The resulting diagnostic coefficients were used for subsequent questionnaires using the same questions. The material accumulated with the new questionnaires was used to refine the previously obtained system of diagnostic coefficients. At the final stage, when all the material on all questionnaires had already been collected, an additional procedure for symmetrizing the diagnostic coefficients was carried out. The fact is that the system of diagnostic coefficients and the corresponding socionic typical profiles of all respondents obtained with its help deviate greatly from symmetry. This means that socionic features, which are supposed to be orthogonal (that is, correlated with each other with a zero correlation coefficient), in fact, on the array of all respondents, it is by no means orthogonal to be orthogonal - even after correcting (aligning) the sample, using a special mathematical-statistical procedure, for the inequality of the composition of the types represented in it. This deviation from orthogonality, outstanding socionic asymmetry, also applies to the basic (Jungian) features, and to an even greater extent it concerns the so-called. “Weak” 11 socionic signs of Reinin. So, for example, intuition in experience turns out to be strongly correlated with ethics and irrationality. In part, these "parasitic" correlations are justified and true, since they have an understandable physiological background, but in part they are in fact parasitic, since they are caused by imbalances in their psychotypes initially declared by the respondents (for example, some psychotypes are preferred by people more than others,
All these reasons, reflecting both the true asymmetry of socionic parameters, conditioned physiologically, and reflecting only artifacts of human mentality, add up to distortions of socionic features, giving rise to their deviation from mutual orthogonality. If this orthogonality in the system of diagnostic coefficients is completely eliminated artificially, then the average percentage of coincidence of the diagnosed types with the declared ones falls from about 62% to 50%. However, the new, subsequent systems of diagnostic coefficients obtained after this (based on the types newly diagnosed with their help) again gradually lead to the appearance of non-orthogonality of signs. This should already be considered as a true asymmetry of socionic parameters, restoring itself again and again.
Using recurrent procedures and weighted criteria for optimal symmetrization (on the one hand, maximizing the proportion of coincidence of the diagnosed types with the declared ones, and on the other, minimizing the mutual correlations of 15 socionic features), the author managed to arrive at a system of diagnostic coefficients, firstly, resistant to subsequent recurrent procedures of "self-learning" of this system, secondly, providing minimal correlations between socionic features, thirdly, while ensuring the proportion of coincidence between the typical diagnoses received and the types declared by the respondents is not worse than 58-59%. Thus, there is reason to believe that that this final system of diagnostic coefficients and the typical profiles of the subjects obtained with its help on any questionnaires best reflect the true structure of the alignment and relationships of socionic parameters in the population. For the purposes of this work, the socionic profiles of the questionnaire questions were used, obtained with the help of this particular system of diagnostic coefficients (we note, however, immediately that the use of an "uncorrected" system of diagnostic coefficients, based only on the types declared by the respondents and without any adjustments to the revealed characteristic asymmetry , leads to exactly the same conclusions regarding the identified clusters, with very insignificant shifts).
Throughout this article, "correlations" mean linear correlation coefficients.
"
Also I'm bad at reading things, the 1-15 thing isn't actually about how relevant it is, but in what "supercluster" it's in. So if you love animals, you probably love plants, etc. i'm not reading the rest of this though, my brain is not ready to translate the rest of this wall of text in actual english.
Edit: New fun correlations(stuff that if you have one you probably have the other):
Need for sleep and dislike of spicy foods
stretching and restless legs syndrome, and weakened sense of physical time
"He really does not like to formulate answers by answering questions - therefore, in a conversation, he often asks questions himself, so that he does not have to answer something himself and state his position. In conversations, he rarely answers questions - because he avoids declaring his opinion or challenging someone else's, so as not to generate a discussion or so as not to look stupid" and "slow verbal response", and is both are also correlated with hating the color red.
"green is a favorite color, in tune with the strings of the soul (correlated with a love of fiddling with growing plants)" mmm yes not correlated with anything else. Apparently most linked with SLI's and not at all SEI's
Things associated very strongly with SEI specifically:
"craving for comfort, significant concentration around him of all thoughts and interests"
"increased attention to gustatory sensations, their high sensitivity"
"focus on the sensations of your body, attention to all sorts of special sensations (with an emphasis on the dynamics of sensations or their unusualness)"
"a good sense of the signals of your body (with an emphasis on their pragmatism and their momentary statics)"
Like all of group 5, which is basically just apathy and going with the flow.
Last edited by Baqer; 07-22-2021 at 07:37 PM. Reason: i keep having to edit this because i'm bad
If you scroll back to the beginning of this thread it's near there, basically a study talanov did trying to figure out what Si is.
Was the study done to determine what Si is? I thought he was using correlations between types and their responses to his survey to come up with type profiles.
i wonder if si lead is more likely to vacillate in its views... i feel like i have so many views that aren't pinpointed, but swing back and forth, as though they cannot center... thoughts like "maybe i'm wrong," "well if i think of it that way," "i can see it this other way," "maybe it's actually that," like this mb blind flexibility. at each presentation of the view it is said with a sort of "certainty" for the sake of the point i guess but it is actually not certain, and it is ready and able to move, and may have a circuit along which it moves... ofc it also depends what kinds of views, i guess i was thinking like ideologically, about one's preferences, one's feelings about others, how forgiving/understanding one is regarding something...
mb it's also that then at every point in time whatever is currently happening, the views can be best oriented to that situation, but in the meantime it feels lost.
but also i guess no matter what they are they feel wrong... it's like this entire way of consciousness is wrong... it's not the views, it's the entire thing.
Last edited by marooned; 07-22-2021 at 09:29 PM.
Well ya, he did the first one first. Then he took all the data he had and tried to use it to figure out what Si is.
O BS stands for Si. Why? great question idk
Yeah even if it his intention, I’m not sure how useful this data actually is for defining Si.
These are responses to subjective statements like “I like animals”, “I eat too much”, “I yawn during business meetings”, “I am smarter than most people”. This isn’t objective data. For example, he didn’t observe the participants and record how often they actually yawn, how much they ate, measure their IQs, etc. He is looking at the correlation between types and how they perceive themselves and respond to certain questions. Without objective data, you can’t prove that their responses correlate to reality.
It’s possible that certain types have systematic biased perceptions of themselves, especially when the participants entered the study with a self determined type and a preconceived notion of how they should respond.
Btw I think most legit studies include the raw data and the statistical model that was used so that people can verify the work.
Last edited by Poptart; 07-23-2021 at 01:24 AM.
BS (БС) belaya sensorika (белая сенсорика) - white sensorics
I relate to this description. My beliefs really depend on an external source and I feel like I need that external source near me physically, say a Bible in my possession, to feel a connection to those beliefs because otherwise, my beliefs are very malleable depending on my environment and subsequent psychological state and I'm prone to confusion on what my true beliefs are. This is in part why I find socionics frustrating because it seems based more on beliefs that are not clearly defined nor tangible while lacking consensus so I never feel certain on my own type.
While I struggle to find some certainty on what I believe, I am rarely prone to doubt of what I feel. I'm acutely aware of my sensations to the point I have to detach myself a little from them so that I'm not overwhelmed by them.
A lot of what I do to try to feel happy has to do with evoking a certain internal state which I try to evoke via my senses. It could be through caffeine, tobacco, petting a cat, lighting incense, playing a certain style of music. However, my impressions are much more detailed. If I want coffee, I consider what kind of coffee I should get that fits into my budget while also having a certain taste and not being too acidic where I feel sick later on. If it's a cigar, size and flavor matters. I look for something smaller because of the way it feels and for the price and something dark with full flavor since anything less is unsatisfying. I have many cats but each cat feels a certain way. Each coat feels different when I stroke the cat's fur.
However, I always assumed this is what everyone else feels.
I really think that if someone has difficulty identifying with Si base then that's probably not their base.
But the functions are hard to understand, so maybe the problem is trying to understand something that has not been fully understood yet.
Jung gave a very vague and general description of the functions because they are much more complex than what can be ever described in words, just like trying to describe a computer you just can't make people understand it with just a few sentences, but you can get an idea of what he is pointing to
Flirt with ideas
Date opportunities
Marry problem-solving
"homeostasis or creating pleasant sensations for themselves or others, if they are not "natural caregivers"."
All of these things are definitely Si. I don't see what the problem is. If someone doesn't relate to these or the other Si themes then maybe they are simply not SEI.
People actually do this a lot to justify their self-typings.Redefining Si seems like a whole new level of rationalization lol
I guess the OP deserves points for phrasing it as a vague question rather than tacitly assuming it and running with it.
Socionic descriptions apparently don't relate to behavior... but cognitive processes according to my ex-boyfriend. He insists that psychosophy explains behaviors and that I am simply SEI with 1st will, 2nd emotion, 3rd logic and 4th physics that needs a more physical ILE with 1st physics, 2nd logic, 3rd emotion, and 4th will... He says he gets along better with his "perfect" duals than with me apparently so...
Maybe I am just too stupid to really understand the theory fully in the way he does and admittedly I have interacted with less people than my boyfriend... However I can confidently say that I absolutely do not relate to the erotic styles, Si base, or Ne seeking descriptions as they are. Maybe people will just want to say that I am blind or something when it comes to assessing my own behaviors... IDK...
It's worth taking into consideration that I am 4w3, and since 4 is an image type, it greatly blurs the lines into a strange sense of identity, it wants to maintain individuality and does not want to be misunderstood. Those motivations and fears will play into my behavior here so make of that what you will.
I believe they should be rewritten to provide a more accurate reflection onto the actual thought process of a human and not the behaviors... However I still disagree with my ex that type even matters in ITR if it is just thought processes and not behavior, then goal and ideal alignment and good communication, proper alignment in behaviors matters more than anything else in the world. Many people say duality is not 100% perfect all the time, and so it is in my best interests to look for someone using this alignment rather than use Socionics theory.
I think you already know at this point that your ex bf is full of shit.
It's not my own self typing but my boyfriend's typing of me. sometimes wonder how he does it but of course he can't really explain how he types besides similar vibes and how that person is different in relation to him and his values because of low Fi apparently...
I self type Fe/Ti valuing feeling type. SEI>Beta NF>ESE I just think that I might be deluded in my own perception of Socionics as my boyfriend insists that I am SEI 100% just tbat I am not really caregiving in a physical sense or caring about homeostasis or anything like the descriptions because the descriptions are exaggerations apparently. The problem is that I don't really share all my thoughts and feelings with him because I know he would just be slightly annoyed and not even want to listen to whatever I have to say as he can't understand it and finds it tiring to hear me talk... So I gave up trying and kept my thoughts to myself, I couldn't really express myself in front of him, it just felt super awkward and I felt without support to freely express myself.
Also 2-3 other forum members insist that I am also 100% SEI...
Am I deluded?
Or is the theory at fault for focusing on behavior and not cognitive processes enough?
I just... Sometimes the world seems to be crashing down in on my own thoughts and self, invading me, making me feel small and insignificant and worthless, and I feel defenseless to stop it all and protect myself... As if I am not really much in control of my own self or my own being, as if maybe the only power I truly have left is in some distant dream, to perfect it and attempt to work towards it... In the hopes some small change can be effected before death, otherwise nothing will have truly mattered in my life and I will have been just some even smaller speck... But what if I am not strong enough to command myself externally to focus, what if I am not strong enough to do it all correctly, what if I fail?
There is no one to help me, no one to express myself to, just myself, but that's fine. I just need to accept myself somehow...
I truly think I may be deluded after all...
Yeah but what if I am also full of shit? I mean I am clearly depressed at this point so anything I say or do might not even be real I don't know... Since I am not mentally right at all...
I get the feeling that my thoughts don't actually go through externally correctly and that I seem to be expressing some "rhetoric" according to others so...
I'm trying to better display my thoughts externally but since I usually don't talk to many people who will want to hear them or write them down I lose some ability to fully express it all, like all the dialogue just stays in my head and then leaves but some of it stays without ever going down...
Overthinking, rhetoric, something something...
I feel unable to actually focus my attention externally to get things done so I'm thinking I may possibly have an attention deficit disorder of some sort and depression since these things have been issues all my life...
This is a common fallacy. Think about it, if a theory doesn't match up with your behavior what is it even doing? The main way cognition manifests is through behavior.
If people use arguments like "I cant i just feel it okay" then yes, they probably don't know what they're talking about.
Yeah, basically the actual theory is practically worthless at that point... I guess he thinks the descriptions are exaggerations of behavior or something? I get that he really isn't an informative source... Since everyone has seemingly different criteria as for what constitutes a type or an information element and since clear cut, sensible explanations of types seem like a rarity on this forum, it's hard to sort it all out...
My behavior seems more SEI-ish at this point by my postings on this forum, and I don't really see enough clear cut, solid arguments for myself being another type vs SEI to justify retyping myself (I mean, there are other SEIs that have trouble seeing Si base and Ne DS in themselves, maybe my self perception is just severely wonky, besides it's more common for SEIs to think they are Beta NF types when they are not, due to stereotypes and stuff like that.
I can't retype until I have enough evidence to justify another type and defend that typing, now the evidence points in favor of SEI...
You seem like a pretty normal IEI with all the self-doubt and dramatics, I don't think there's anything wrong with you.
That's totally fair, but it seems like you're not weighting the evidence correctly given that you don't relate to Si leading. That should be one of the most important things to consider.
The overthinking stuff does seem more like IEI or some type with high Ni.
[QUOTE=MidnightWilderness;1463399]It may just be me, but I think the current definitions of Si are unrelatable and do us a great disservice. Every single time there is a discussion about SEIs, it seems to me that the same old stereotypes get conflated as the truth... Many people will not think of themselves as Si base if they do not have a focus on homeostasis or creating pleasant sensations for themselves or others, if they are not "natural caregivers"/QUOTE]
Well, first off, being a natural caregiver is a mbti stereotype for Fe or Si-Fe combo, whatever. Preferring Fe over Fi doesn't mean you wanna take care of people, that's retarded. However, preferring Si over Se does indeed mean you focus more on pleasant subjective sensations over intensity or expansion of sensations Se.
I guess, Si base people would be the best at explaining their experience. But, from my point of view it is basically this for those who value Si over Se overall: Si has a tendency of wanting to minimize the impact of the object on the senses and being more selective rather than expansive with sensations. It is an irrational function, so any claims like memory recall, sorting order of things, or things like that is nonsense. Hence noticing many details rather than specific ones is more of an Se trait IMO. Homeostasis is to create a balance between the self and the environment and Se wants to suck the environment dry, that is for base types at least.I wanted to start a discussion about what it truly means to be Si base
Last edited by Lycantrope; 08-05-2021 at 10:18 PM.
I ought to say it's already coherent but as if people like to generalize everything, it'd be better to re-define it depends on accustomary perception of function itself.
Although, that'd be a waste of time and rather work such as Ni between both IEI and ILI which is, on that regard, differentiated by their Creative or Instrumental function, Te/Fe. And if you were to refer which description of Si that you might want to rectify, I'd like to suggest this for you instead, Aushra's Dual Nature of Man:
S - the qualities of space, that is, that it occurs on well-being are in this space, people;
S - the relationship between the processes occurring in the same time - space;
Might not be that helpful but here is the definition of Si by Socionics IME on Wikipedia:
Senses (S) is responsible for detailed perception of physical sensations; questions of comfort, utility, and pleasure; and a sense of harmony and acclimation with one's environment (especially physical). S understands how well a person or thing's behavior agrees with its nature as well as the differences between comfortable behaviors and positions and uncomfortable ones.
And overall, I'd despise those descriptions that end up stereotyping functions, just like what some Socionics authors did in the past.
Si is not...:
Beauty, art, fashion, having good taste, practicing good hygiene, eating well, taking care of your body, being healthy, having a sense of aesthetics, knowing how to design your living arrangements, knowing how to dress and groom yourself, knowing how to use makeup, smelling good, being physically attractive.
Typology Diagnostic Service
Typology Discord Server
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
Si is external fields of dynamics, "comfort" is not the definition of Si but only a typical example to help you understand Si.
No. Read Jung:
So here is where Si comes. It's determined by heredity. It's the sensation which rooted from the evolution of us human beings. It's not that "personal", it somewhat "universal" such that it shares among all races.
For instance, the feeling of comfort and pain is from the evolution such that we share similar feelings about it. We feel comfort under situation A because situation A is helpful for our survival and evolution. Almost no one feels comfort when siting on fire because if so (s)he will be burned into ashes and thus (s)he will die.
I have Si in my vital ring so I couldn't give more descriptions on it. But let's talk about Ti. Ti also shares among all nations such that the logic of us human beings are common. Such logic rules are actually axiomized and this is exactly the mathematical logic. For instance, A⇒B∧B⇒C means A⇒C. This is common for all of us. So Ti is not that "personal".
So indeed, the Socionics Si gives some good examples for what Si is. Socionics, which grows in a country with superb mathematical education, also gives a mathematical definition such that Si is external fields of dynamics. It's the same as Jung.
I'm not exactly sure what undiscovered force holds you in place but please contact your nearest physics department.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Do you want to be SEI?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
