Si: Mundane tasks

[Architect]

I came across the following

The temptations of the inferior function are often not overt or obvious. For instance, it would be unusual for ENFPs to be tempted by mundane Si tasks, such as paying bills or keeping records

This is interesting. I've viewed Si as an information gatherer from the past

Introverted Sensing (Si). SJ types use Introverted Sensing (Si) as either their dominant or auxiliary function. Despite their shared status as Sensors, SJs are quite different from SPs. SJs do not venture out seeking novel sensations, experiences, or material goods. Instead, they prefer a more routinized and predictable lifestyle, functioning more as “homebodies.” ISJs may also fail to notice external details to the degree exhibited among ESPs. Unlike SPs, who are oriented to the present moment and the current trends, SJs rely on information from the past to inform the present. They grow attached to past ways of doing things, compelling them to conserve and protect traditions or conventions. Because of their concern for the remembered past, Si might be considered more abstract and less concrete than Se is.

But I never considered mundane tasks related to the Si function. This is a fascinating thought, one of the things about myself is that I can pull off mundane tasks when I have to. A good example is for my work; writing software involves many mudane tasks such as needing to write detailed code after coming up with the design. While not my favorite, it doesn't bother me that much even though it does get boring if continued for too long. I just buckle down and get it down. Mundane tasks that aren't related to my creative activity, such as housekeeping or bills, are much harder and lower on my list; ideally I wouldn't have to do them at all. But ones related to my work aren't a big deal.

Is this Si operating?

Thoughts from other INTP's?

 

[Duxwing]

I came across the following



This is interesting. I've viewed Si as an information gatherer from the past



But I never considered mundane tasks related to the Si function. This is a fascinating thought, one of the things about myself is that I can pull off mundane tasks when I have to. A good example is for my work; writing software involves many mudane tasks such as needing to write detailed code after coming up with the design. While not my favorite, it doesn't bother me that much even though it does get boring if continued for too long. I just buckle down and get it down. Mundane tasks that aren't related to my creative activity, such as housekeeping or bills, are much harder and lower on my list; ideally I wouldn't have to do them at all. But ones related to my work aren't a big deal.

Is this Si operating?

Thoughts from other INTP's?

I find the same to be true; 'going through the motions' is easy for me if the 'motions' in question are related to something that I enjoy. Sometimes, I even enjoy mundane tasks if they are integral to my thought process: following perfectly written logic or writing "QED" at the end of a perfect proof can be deeply satisfying and soothing, and afterward, I feel as light as a feather. The effect is also proportional to how worked up I felt beforehand and how many rules are 'obeyed' in relieving the stress.

-Duxwing

 

[own8ge]

Si might be considered more abstract and less concrete than Se is

Then you clearly miss out on understanding Se.

 

[Obsidian]

The idea is that Si users gain energy from viewing details in accordance with a preordained pattern. A court clerk might check over every document received, to make sure it is signed. But the same person might miss some even more important error, just because it is unusual and fits no system. The Ne user, in contrast, gains energy from solving the more unusual problems, and tends to find repetition boring.

Se users notice lots of details but do not necessarily recognize their relevance. Ni users focus purely on the big picture, often ignoring details.

I think Ne and Si are more closely related than Ni and Se.

 

[own8ge]

Se users notice lots of details but do not necessarily recognize their relevance. Ni users focus purely on the big picture, often ignoring details.

Se see the relevance of detail, they see their concrete and objective connections.

Ni users focus on the details very immensely (allowing them to see the big picture), it's not that they ignore details, they just don't notice them as they are so immensely focused. (Detail is more irrelevant to Ni doms as Detail is merely their to make up the bigger picture, that what the Ni dom longs to understand. But as Ni doms go very deep into the meaning/bigger_picture of Se, they sometimes forget that their made (Adaptive) Se conclusions (that what their understanding is all about) may be invalid, or irrelevant to the (Adaptive) subject at hand.

 

[Montresor]

The idea is that Si users gain energy from viewing details in accordance with a preordained pattern. A court clerk might check over every document received, to make sure it is signed. But the same person might miss some even more important error, just because it is unusual and fits no system. The Ne user, in contrast, gains energy from solving the more unusual problems, and tends to find repetition boring.

Se users notice lots of details but do not necessarily recognize their relevance. Ni users focus purely on the big picture, often ignoring details.

I think Ne and Si are more closely related than Ni and Se.

PURE bS this post.

Incoherent, contradictory, not relevant.

Good try tho.


Mundane tasks touch the surface of Si. Si suppresses Ne when it is dominant, they are as equally related to each other as Ni and Se are.

Si is all about "compare and contrast". How does this sensation I am having measure up to other sensations I've had? It's not making any judgements; it's validating judgements; it's being used as the basis for judgement.

 

[own8ge]

Montresor, You sure are good at explaining the essential principles of something you've canvassed. You keep on surprising me with your basic but deep arguments which together form an utmost relevant bigger picture based on irrefutable discernment of concrete perception.

I wish I had that skill.

 

[Montresor]

Montresor, You sure are good at explaining the essential principles of something you've canvassed. You keep on surprising me with your basic but deep arguments which together form an utmost relevant bigger picture based on irrefutable discernment of concrete perception.

I wish I had that skill.

Well you sure know how to put a smile on somebody's face but I can never tell what your motivations are.

Either you mean exactly what you said,

or

You're fucking with me.

This observation stands in all interactions between us (want it publicly known). I am not saying I don't trust you, I am saying I don't understand you.

I assume you'll take this as a compliment, please do.

 

[Architect]

Mundane tasks touch the surface of Si. Si suppresses Ne when it is dominant, they are as equally related to each other as Ni and Se are.

Si is all about "compare and contrast". How does this sensation I am having measure up to other sensations I've had? It's not making any judgements; it's validating judgements; it's being used as the basis for judgement.

Expand on this please. What do you think Si is*?

* Those last two words beautifully mirror each other

 

[own8ge]

I can never tell what your motivations are.

Either you mean exactly what you said,

or

You're fucking with me.

I laughed, thanks. Anyhow, can you imagine how I feel? I have this with everything. I try to decode everything to the point I understand the very nature/intention of it. If I don't understand the intention, my mind goes blank. I must understand the bigger_picture/depth of everything before I can process it. For this though, I must choose a path: Is this person fucking with me, or does he mean exactly what he said? I must assume an intention, before I can process it. However, in public messaging (rather than 1v1 talk) this is very hard. IRL for instance, I often know the intention better then the subject speaking the words. Also sometimes here on this forum. However, because of my deep understanding (which may be based on the false presumptions of intention / false discernment of concrete perception) I have a wider canvas to think in. A canvas, that for the other parties may not be accessible, making conversations hard, as I am a directive I must speak the discernment of my own thoughts rather than to discern that what would be perceived as it is intended (surfaced verbalization / Adaptiveness).
So from this, you can conclude that I always am speaking the words of my mind, the words of a certain persona whom is in a certain environment talking to a certain target in monologue (which is directiveness). (This is what makes directives great speechers). The intention of the monologue is always to clarify/discern Internal Perception (which can result in many different things). The clarification, must have purpose too. This is because without purpose, a monologue can't take place.

Now comes the funny part, what is my purpose of the monologue? Well... that differs but what doesn't differ is that the purpose always have a positive purpose for the self. This can thus only be positive emotions. What emotions can there be? Relief, Love, Completeness, Achieving, Humor, Being a part of something, Clarification (bringing understanding) etc.

Whatever the intention of the monologue is, it must be spoken with truth (an actual reflection of the self) (The Objective Discernment Je, or Internal Perception Pi). The self, is the persona that is being chosen to be in the monologue, which actually becomes the self. (This causes A LOT of confusion, as I for instance always think contradictory with myself). So I have no opinion. What is an opinion? I have no clue, because I have never really had one. My opinions are chosen perspectives to pursue. (Don't take having no opinion prejudgment, Every single personality-type can be argued to have no opinion!)

So now we are coming to the core. What is my intention, for pursuing a perspective?
Or am I not pursuing a perspective, and have I chosen to pursue another perspective for the sake of ...?
The tricky part about it is, that I can never know my previous intentions (I could merely guess). So I may for instance have chosen a humor perspective. But it gets certain feedback from the environment, which doesn't comply with the canvas I was in. Then I would naturally go into clarification mode, taking everything, including the perspective of which it's intention was humor, seriously.

This is what makes us directives the need to think in 1 go. If we lose the thought we are in, we lose the monologue. We forget where we were in the monologue... And we will assume something, and go from there. However, this combines different perspectives into one, making it abstract and subjective.

Conclusion: I am always speaking from the heart. (I can't do otherwise.) My intentions, can only be positive and honest (positive can also be positive for the future. Ergo, a directive could kill a person if that reason would e.g. involve that we humans are over populated) (Or I could lie by making up a canvas whereas the lie would be truth). Am I fucking with you? Perhaps, as my intention may be humorous or not to be taken serious by the target in my monologue.

Sorry for the TL;DR. I just wanted to grant you a bigger understanding of Directives (INFJ in particular)

And, now for instance, this whole message was merely a perspective. Is that perspective relevant enough to the concrete world to make it truth? I never know. All I can do is hope for it to be received positively. That is what makes us require Je feedback from the world.

 

[own8ge]

Expand on this please. What do you think Si is*?

* Those last two words beautifully mirror each other

You misquoted (It says that you are quoting me while you aren't). Though, I can offer my intellectual understanding which I will as it is free, for now...

Si, like Ni, is an internal perceptive function. All it does, is internally perceive. Ready to be judged by the other directive function, Je.

Pi and Je are bonded (Directiveness). Objectively discerning Pi in order to develop the thought further. (Pi + Je result in Directive-Thought, Pe + Ji result in Adaptive-Thought. Those 2 things are the only kind of thoughts of which we are aware of that we have).

Judgment must be based on perception, always. A perceptive platform, ready to be discerned in order to develop that perceptive platform in order to then discern it again (This is what creates Thought-Flow).

Now the sensation. Perception is merely perceiving sensation. Internal sensation (Pi) or external sensation (Pe). Discernment functions are used to define those sensations in order to give it a proper context.

Si, is concrete internal perception. Thus the internal sensation is being perceived concretely by the consciousness. Well what does that mean? It means that the perception is based on what is concretely known. It stays within the concept of the known. (Ni is the concept of the unknown).