Sensing the Facts

[LPolaright]

I've been puzzled with the thought of improving my Si. Recognizing small details, seeing facts as an organized pieces that fit together... Looking at facts and ordering them with my introverted thinking.

But the problem is, that I can't find any good methods to do this. I'm playing detective games, filling my head with mnemonics and trying to visualize items but I don't seem to advance anywhere near the level of ISTP's and their quick thinking and precision.

I want to be able to analyze small details about a person and then bunch them into a whole with my introverted thinking and then throwing it back to the big machine of introverted intuition to produce unique results (kind of like a machine that puts together a puzzle) that will eventually lead to the power of deduction in much greater depth. But obviously my missing ingredient is my (I don't know if to call it really...) underdeveloped Si.

Here is what I tried:
-Mnemonics
-Visualizing
-Stimulate my sensing (being blindfolded for one or more hours... etc.)

(I didn't go through all of the mnemonic methods but I did for most of them. I can now recall a deck of 52 cards [quite possibly even more] but it doesn't really help me remember the face of the joker on the two extra cards - if you know what I mean)

Now, obviously I'm missing something.
And I know, many will probably jump and say these are not methods of developing my Si at all... But these are great methods to recall what my Si "recorded".

Sure I'm leaning a lot towards the big picture, but I want to be able to focus on the insignificant seamless concrete details aswell.

For example these fictional characters use overdeveloped Si:
Sherlock Holmes (Good example is the new TV series called "Sherlock")
Cal Lightman (Lie to Me)
Patrick Jane (The Mentalist)
Dr. House (House M.D.)
Criminal Minds (They all focus on little details)
Sean Spencer (Psych)
Dr. Temperance Brennen (Bones)
Dexter (Dexter)

I want to be able to walk into a bar and when I get out - recall:
How many males there are,
How many females,
How many drinks were poured,
and many other details...

Now, the real question is - Do you people have any suggestion on to how can I develop my Si to such an extent? I fear a lot of you will say "practice and experience" but are there methods Si users use in order to make it easier for them? I searched the forum but there was nothing too much of an Si specific.

Care to help?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

A cat cannot develop gills in one lifetime.

Did you know over-focusing on Si can result in OCPD?

 

[LPolaright]

A cat cannot develop gills in one lifetime.

Did you know over-focusing on Si can result in OCD?

Metaphorically - yes, I am the cat. But "one lifetime" is just a really long time, and I have loads of time in my hands... I'd like to see my "lifetime" as atleast 5 cats lifetimes.

Did you just edit that post? I could've sworn there was intuition there.

Actually I did know that fact (OCD), but right now I'm more worried of my underdeveloped Si rather then overdeveloped. And yes I do realize you wrote over-focusing and not over-developed, I'm just too tired to edit this post.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yea, there was intuition, but it was omitted. I mean OCPD; I was sinking down that hole, but pulled out by kicking my obsessive music listening habits.

I advise you not to violently alter your natural tendencies and instead focus on Si when it genuinely needs to be regarded.

 

[LPolaright]

I advise you not to violently alter your natural tendencies and instead focus on Si when it genuinely needs to be regarded.

It still doesn't really resolve the issue here of trying to develop it.

I'm not trying to change my natural tendencies, it's more of trying to develop one more tool for me to use in case I need to (or rather juggle between my natural selection and my will). Like sort of a switch I turn in my head.

Now that I think about it, it's more like of a "focus shift".
Bus drivers do it, they change their focus on their cognitive functions when they are driving on the bus. But when outside, they'll have a very different skill set.

Different works demand us to develop different functions in us so we'd be more productive...
Why can't I demand this on a meta-cognition basis, rather than an subconscious one?

But that question is hardly the issue here, as stated in sentence #1.

What I really wanna know, is how can I develop a better Si?

Yea, there was intuition, but it was omitted. I mean OCPD; I was sinking down that hole, but pulled out by kicking my obsessive music listening habits.

I knew my imagination is not that good!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I understand where you are coming from, but the only way to develop a skill is to focus on it, directly or indirectly. You can start being more judgmental of Si related things upfront or you can perceive them silently. For instance, I developed my sense of aesthetics in music by listening to all kinds of music. I now have developed a certain part of Si, it may seem like there are no side effects, but sometimes I can be overly critical of the music other people prefer(silently, however, I'm not outwardly judgmental but it's still there).

 

[Words]

I'm thinking there is more detail in intuition than detail itself...

 

[LPolaright]

I understand where you are coming from, but the only way to develop a skill is to focus on it, directly or indirectly. You can start being more judgmental of Si related things upfront or you can perceive them silently. For instance, I developed my sense of aesthetics in music by listening to all kinds of music. I now have developed a certain part of Si, it may seem like there are no side effects, but sometimes I can be overly critical of the music other people prefer(silently, however, I'm not outwardly judgmental but it's still there).

Surely there is another method to develop your Si other than knowing all the "cards" upfront. What you did there is noticing the overall aesthetics in music by grouping them together - isn't that kind of Ni of you? I would of expected an Si function to treat each song as unique and perceive which instruments are played on what order. I don't know, the example you gave is quite confusing to tell you the truth.

Judgmental vs Silent Perception...
I don't really understand the point you present because from one point of view it seems as though you are telling me that Si function can be either Judgmental outward or inward... But if it's outward wouldn't that be Se? Being extraverted about the sensing? Silent perception is what I aim for, self analysis of what I perceive.

I'm thinking there is more detail in intuition than detail itself...

Surely there is, but details themselves can be beneficent as-well... Even more so when you re-digest it like a cow using a different stomach.

It seems that people are attracted to the "Why?" question more than "How?" in this post for some reason.

 

[Words]

Surely there is, but details themselves can be beneficent as-well... Even more so when you re-digest it like a cow using a different stomach.

It seems that people are attracted to the "Why?" question more than "How?" in this post for some reason.

Isn't that the trademark of rational decision? You question your goals first before you actually start doing things, else you are just wandering aimless.

The re-digestion of details.. Do you not think it would be easier to utilize cameras instead? If you are INTP, then I'm assuming you don't actually like the activity of sensing. It is sad to lead a life you are disinclined to.

 

[LPolaright]

Isn't that the trademark of rational decision? You question your goals first before you actually start doing things, else you are just wandering aimless.

The re-digestion of details.. Do you not think it would be easier to utilize cameras instead? If you are INTP, then I'm assuming you don't actually like the activity of sensing. It is sad to lead a life you are disinclined to.

I know my goals. You questioning them only repeats what is already in my mind, and maybe even making it worse by taking the defensive position while you attack with your "why?". Because if you dig deep enough you don't really find a reason to live. My goals are set in stone, whether I want to share it with you guys or not probably depends on how persistent you are, and I ask you not to be.

You don't have a camera and time to analyse everything at any time you choose, sometimes you gotta rely on your mind on the right now and the present to make decisions.

As an INTP I love the possibility of acquiring a new skill set and tools to get into a higher state of mind to read and understand people around me. Sensing isn't that bad, I just prefer my intuitive side.

I assure you, if I'd want to - I'd probably stop developing my Si. Actually you guys make me feel like it's addictive, although I'm pretty sure it's not, just another pawn to use on the big chess board of life.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

Uh, funny you mentioned visualization. Everytime i am learning anything, i always draw a sketch of the working system in my mind. Whenever i need to remember it, the system is there, working in my mind, so all i need to do is simulate whatever i need to. But it's a kind of big picture focused simulation for me, i guess. I had always associated that with Ti.

When i'm using what i believe to be Si, i'm making a set of rules for my system. For instance, if one says that i can't open a given door. In my next visualization, that door will be regarded as a impassable door. And i'll look for another ways of working the system.

So for me, functions act this way: Ti makes sense out of chaos, Ne does simulations, then i'll use Si to remember what is allowed, and Fe to use that for something/someone.

I'm not sure if that makes sense in Typology terms (I'm not entirely sure about the functions' functions), but what i'm trying to say is that i don't use Si to remember details by themselves, but to correct what is wrong on my big picture view. In other words, to remember the exceptions to the rules.

 

[Words]

I know my goals. You questioning them only repeats what is already in my mind, and maybe even making it worse by taking the defensive position while you attack with your "why?". Because if you dig deep enough you don't really find a reason to live. My goals are set in stone, whether I want to share it with you guys or not probably depends on how persistent you are, and I ask you not to be.

I go by the belief that different people(which includes different types) will require different goals. This is why I wonder. I'm also thinking that imagination can cover for the lack of detail. If the intention was to increase effectivity on deduction, you'd only need to emphasize more on intuition. That is, relevant details will be intuitively remembered. Well, the value behind better memory still bothers me(which relates back to the importance of strong foundation(which relates back to questioning reality)).

You don't have a camera and time to analyse everything at any time you choose, sometimes you gotta rely on your mind on the right now and the present to make decisions.

But wouldn't intuition analyze and lead you to relevant details? It's only a matter of what is priority: noticing plain concrete specificity or noticing specificity that has connection to the greater idea of figuring something out.

As an INTP I love the possibility of acquiring a new skill set and tools to get into a higher state of mind to read and understand people around me. Sensing isn't that bad, I just prefer my intuitive side.

I assure you, if I'd want to - I'd probably stop developing my Si. Actually you guys make me feel like it's addictive, although I'm pretty sure it's not, just another pawn to use on the big chess board of life.

By training yourself to look at specifics, do you not at the same time lose strength in what you already prefer doing? Deeper understanding and reading, aren't these mainly intuitive strengths?

 

[LPolaright]

Uh, funny you mentioned visualization. Everytime i am learning anything, i always draw a sketch of the working system in my mind. Whenever i need to remember it, the system is there, working in my mind, so all i need to do is simulate whatever i need to. But it's a kind of big picture focused simulation for me, i guess. I had always associated that with Ti.

When i'm using what i believe to be Si, i'm making a set of rules for my system. For instance, if one says that i can't open a given door. In my next visualization, that door will be regarded as a impassable door. And i'll look for another ways of working the system.

So for me, functions act this way: Ti makes sense out of chaos, Ne does simulations, then i'll use Si to remember what is allowed, and Fe to use that for something/someone.

I'm not sure if that makes sense in Typology terms (I'm not entirely sure about the functions' functions), but what i'm trying to say is that i don't use Si to remember details by themselves, but to correct what is wrong on my big picture view. In other words, to remember the exceptions to the rules.

Quite interesting and brilliant, enforcing laws in an imaginative world could certainly develop the Si and self discipline. Question is, when does it get too much about self discipline development and less Si? Where does the line cross in such a way to use the visualization? What do you think?

When you develop certain Si functions, do you actually develop the whole method of Si and thus resulting your detail intake into a higher deeper level? Or will it leave this behind? Or perhaps it's just another tool to get the tool working more properly and fitting?

Loads of question for me to think about!

I go by the belief that different people(which includes different types) will require different goals. This is why I wonder. I'm also thinking that imagination can cover for the lack of detail. If the intention was to increase effectivity on deduction, you'd only need to emphasize more on intuition. That is, relevant details will be intuitively remembered. Well, the value behind better memory still bothers me(which relates back to the importance of strong foundation(which relates back to questioning reality)).

But wouldn't intuition analyze and lead you to relevant details? It's only a matter of what is priority: noticing plain concrete specificity or noticing specificity that has connection to the greater idea of figuring something out.

By training yourself to look at specifics, do you not at the same time lose strength in what you already prefer doing? Deeper understanding and reading, aren't these mainly intuitive strengths?

Imagination is fine, I don't mind using it... Hell, I love using it, and it's a great way to deduct things, but it only goes for so long till you realize something is missing out of the equation here - which are the basic details that you imagine the ideas from.

Emphasizing more on intuition is certainly correct in deduction, I'm not arguing about that and I'm agreeing with you on this one. But remembering the details to glue them together is important as-well, if not equally. I do not believe though that intuition gives you the same memory capabilities as sensing does... but I'm not saying it gives more value into remembering something more accurately - I'm saying it's a different kind of memory and I would like to fuse both of them together when I "focus-shift" myself. (but that's a topic for another thread)

I believe the process for deduction should be sensing first and intuition later and then sensing to confirm, and then intuition to re-validate and all of that in matter of not more than minutes (maybe sometimes skip the re-validation of the intuition, or even looping the process for more accuracy). I believe the priority here should change in dependency to the situation we face upon (lack of facts or imagination).

I think that clarified my position. I'd like to juggle around with the skill set I acquire once I learn to develop my Si to recognize small details - you are right though about the part that one will weaken the other, but not necessarily... You view the sensing and intuition as two opposites polars, but what I'm actually trying to do is to connect the both to get better deduction skills - remembering small details and connecting them in my mind. Maybe even at the price of a time consuming process that will cost me my decision making and thinking later.

I hope I have satisfactory answers for you, I'm probably going to answer only tomorrow for the next posts.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It seems that people are attracted to the "Why?" question more than "How?" in this post for some reason.

I was merely trying to save you from the consequences. If you want your answer, it is just a matter of immersion.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

Quite interesting and brilliant, enforcing laws in an imaginative world could certainly develop the Si and self discipline. Question is, when does it get too much about self discipline development and less Si? Where does the line cross in such a way to use the visualization? What do you think?

When you develop certain Si functions, do you actually develop the whole method of Si and thus resulting your detail intake into a higher deeper level? Or will it leave this behind? Or perhaps it's just another tool to get the tool working more properly and fitting?

Loads of question for me to think about!

I don't know if that will answer everything, but here it goes.

Si seems to be concerned with what is steady more than what's possible. If you
find yourself cluttered by information instead of having that information as a tool to further define your understanding, chances are that you went too far over Si-land. I'll try to exemplify this:

Lets think you have a test tomorrow. You think you know the subject, but you're not entirely sure if you do. Then, you'll go and grab a book on the subject and start reading.

You try to go and look for everything that you think that matters to the test, you'll find yourself reading lots of pages to get the information you need. And in the end, you do not have a real understanding of the subject, as it feels like you're a parrot, just repeating what you've been told.

Instead, you go over the subject with whatever knowledge you already have. Once you find a dead end (and those happen a lot), you look up on the book to find what happens on that situation. The feeling you'll get is that you truly understand it, as you've thought about any relevant situation in the system.

Also, you'll be guiding yourself through the exploration of the subject. As long you don't procrastinate too much, and mantain a reasonable amount of focus, it will all connect rather easily. Also, it will be easier to remember, as it's part of the bigger understanding you have.

We, INTPs, have Si as a tertiary function. It should act as a complementary way to your Ne, and that's how i use it. As someone already mentioned, if you Si outweighs your Ne, chances are that you'll become an unhealthy person.

And detail intake is a consequence of getting the tool to work better. It's not like looking for details makes the understanding to further expand, is exploring the understanding that makes you look on to details to expand it further.

I couldn't understand what you meant with method of Si, care to expand it later?

 

[LPolaright]

Si seems to be concerned with what is steady more than what's possible. If you
find yourself cluttered by information instead of having that information as a tool to further define your understanding, chances are that you went too far over Si-land. I'll try to exemplify this:

Lets think you have a test tomorrow. You think you know the subject, but you're not entirely sure if you do. Then, you'll go and grab a book on the subject and start reading.

You try to go and look for everything that you think that matters to the test, you'll find yourself reading lots of pages to get the information you need. And in the end, you do not have a real understanding of the subject, as it feels like you're a parrot, just repeating what you've been told.

Instead, you go over the subject with whatever knowledge you already have. Once you find a dead end (and those happen a lot), you look up on the book to find what happens on that situation. The feeling you'll get is that you truly understand it, as you've thought about any relevant situation in the system.

Also, you'll be guiding yourself through the exploration of the subject. As long you don't procrastinate too much, and mantain a reasonable amount of focus, it will all connect rather easily. Also, it will be easier to remember, as it's part of the bigger understanding you have.

I do not disagree. But switching between Si and Ni continually will provide a clearer understanding with much more vividness and detail... Otherwise you will be left out with deep understanding but almost no practicality and experience that will drown you to an abyss with no tools to get out of it.

For example:
Math - You obviously need the ideas to sink in, and you've gotta understand it on a different level (rather than remembering), but sooner or later you will be given with real assignments that you've got to solve. Problem is that the understanding does not really provide you with tools - actually coming up with the tools will be a new process separate from the subject, it will be a new problem that lowers your productiveness in that problem solving case. Ergo, you gotta learn how to use math as detail-oriented subject as well as an understanding level to gain maximum capabilities and flexibility. (Surprisingly, we do it unconsciously. Probably because math has very repetitive patterns that we can memorize more quickly)

But the question is not how to develop your Si to get a better understanding of a subject, the question is how to develop your Si to higher your detail in-take.
It is more of a specific Si function developing (possibly with adjacent functions to make it smoother for the Ni method to take it's place on analyzing it).

We, INTPs, have Si as a tertiary function. It should act as a complementary way to your Ne, and that's how i use it. As someone already mentioned, if you Si outweighs your Ne, chances are that you'll become an unhealthy person.

My point is to make it work along side Ne (or Ni) rather than complementary.

And detail intake is a consequence of getting the tool to work better. It's not like looking for details makes the understanding to further expand, is exploring the understanding that makes you look on to details to expand it further.

This is one way to look at it, yes. But one could argue it is the exact same opposite - you look at details and facts to see patterns and understand better the process by doing so. It's a dead end regarding what is better, I'm sure Si users tend to go by the understanding I counter proposed in this paragraph.

But I'm not looking to develop my understanding, I'm looking to develop my detail intake - I'm pretty sure it doesn't really matter which way you spin this, eventually you will try to get there and eventually you will use the same methods to develop your detail intake. (All roads lead to Rome)

Question is, what are the methods to develop your detail intake?
and if you want to add a "Why?" you could ask:
Why do Si users tend to be better at detail intake more than Ni or Ne users?
(the answer is probably because they practice and devise new "tools" to remember the details and see them more clearly in their minds - and here the question rolls again: What are the "tools" they devised?)

I couldn't understand what you meant with method of Si, care to expand it later?

What I mean about "method" is actually a "function" but saying "the Si function" and "a function of Si" can be confused very easily, I wanted to separate it in order to give a better understanding for what I want to achieve. Not the best choice of words, I concur.

I was merely trying to save you from the consequences. If you want your answer, it is just a matter of immersion.

It is always about immersion when it comes to develop your functions - and what it gains you is tools to make the process easier...
Now, what are these tools? (read what I wrote up there to Words on the subject to better understand what I just said)

I've got a feeling I forgot to answer on something... How weird. (and interesting)

Now that I think about it I feel like I'm confusing "Si" with "Se", I'm going to look into that but keep that in mind that throughout all the thread I might have confused the names.
I'll get back and post a comment after I research it more in-depth.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

I do not disagree. But switching between Si and Ni continually will provide a clearer understanding with much more vividness and detail... Otherwise you will be left out with deep understanding but almost no practicality and experience that will drown you to an abyss with no tools to get out of it.

For example:
Math - You obviously need the ideas to sink in, and you've gotta understand it on a different level (rather than remembering), but sooner or later you will be given with real assignments that you've got to solve. Problem is that the understanding does not really provide you with tools - actually coming up with the tools will be a new process separate from the subject, it will be a new problem that lowers your productiveness in that problem solving case. Ergo, you gotta learn how to use math as detail-oriented subject as well as an understanding level to gain maximum capabilities and flexibility. (Surprisingly, we do it unconsciously. Probably because math has very repetitive patterns that we can memorize more quickly)

But the question is not how to develop your Si to get a better understanding of a subject, the question is how to develop your Si to higher your detail in-take.
It is more of a specific Si function developing (possibly with adjacent functions to make it smoother for the Ni method to take it's place on analyzing it).

My point is to make it work along side Ne (or Ni) rather than complementary.

Ah, then i had misunderstood what you meant. I agree with what you have just said, theoretical understanding by itself isn't going to do much if any help isn't allied. I thought that , as an INTP, Si was to be used as a complement to the top two functions. Of course, i might have narrowed my views on that.

I kept switching those minus sign for add ones in my math exercises.

This is one way to look at it, yes. But one could argue it is the exact same opposite - you look at details and facts to see patterns and understand better the process by doing so. It's a dead end regarding what is better, I'm sure Si users tend to go by the understanding I counter proposed in this paragraph.

But I'm not looking to develop my understanding, I'm looking to develop my detail intake - I'm pretty sure it doesn't really matter which way you spin this, eventually you will try to get there and eventually you will use the same methods to develop your detail intake. (All roads lead to Rome)

Question is, what are the methods to develop your detail intake?
and if you want to add a "Why?" you could ask:
Why do Si users tend to be better at detail intake more than Ni or Ne users?
(the answer is probably because they practice and devise new "tools" to remember the details and see them more clearly in their minds - and here the question rolls again: What are the "tools" they devised?)

I believe Keirsey, when addressing this, made a good choice of words to that. Instead of sensing/intuitive types, he has chosen the words concrete/abstract types. Since S types take information in a concrete, factual way, it's easier to them remember what they had contact with, since they haven't perceived any other interpretation for it. Therefore, they have a higher detail intake, as their perceptions about an experience aren't interpreted as they're perceived, and thus, the experience itself will be remembered.

Of course, we cannot be so frivolous. That doesn't mean that S types do not interpret any experience, but what i'm saying is that Se and Si aren't concerned with the possible meanings of an experience, but with the experience itself. That seems to lead to a higher detail intake.

Lenore thompson wiki has an interesting article about "experiencing different functions", you might want to give it a try.

 

[LPolaright]

I kept switching those minus sign for add ones in my math exercises.

I kept confusing dy with dx (and sometimes du) in calculus.

I believe Keirsey, when addressing this, made a good choice of words to that. Instead of sensing/intuitive types, he has chosen the words concrete/abstract types. Since S types take information in a concrete, factual way, it's easier to them remember what they had contact with, since they haven't perceived any other interpretation for it. Therefore, they have a higher detail intake, as their perceptions about an experience aren't interpreted as they're perceived, and thus, the experience itself will be remembered.

What you, or should I say, Keirsey, said is very interesting... It basically means that with less involvement of your intuition and interpretation abilities you could theoretically perceive a greater detail intake. But it still doesn't really make sense to me: if a sensing person can recall things around him in a factual way, can't he interpret that later in his mind?

I guess one solution to that problem is the fact that "interpretation" means seeing patterns and connections around but it has to be accompanied by a time span - more of induction from the short "animation".

And looking at the "opposite", sensing would probably mean that a person can "freeze" moments in time to recall later on in his head, but since he can't possibly "freeze" thousands of moments that creates a time span then they cannot perceive the patterns and connections and find them later on (missing information)

Ofcourse this is only theoretical, and I can only assume what Keirsey meant. But it seems rather accurate sounding, though I'm sure it is more complicated than that.

Of course, we cannot be so frivolous. That doesn't mean that S types do not interpret any experience, but what i'm saying is that Se and Si aren't concerned with the possible meanings of an experience, but with the experience itself. That seems to lead to a higher detail intake.

Exactly, the experience of the environment seems different (atleast from what I've got so far from this conversation).

So basically I'd say that the developing of the S abilities consists of being able to "freeze" a moment in time with much detail, disabling any pattern recognition in the same instance and when recalling later - to try and look at the concrete factual details and not try to fill in details with imagination (or atleast differentiate between the imaginative details and the factual ones).

Questions again. How do I really disable pattern recognition? How do I develop detail differentiation? and is it possible to develop this skill towards "freezing" a time span, so later on I could just recall the situation and do the process with "no sweat"?

Can a person use his sensing skills for several moments to "freeze" an object and then move on to use his intuition skills back - doing so for every object he sees as necessary?

Lenore thompson wiki has an interesting article about "experiencing different functions", you might want to give it a try.

Amazing, just amazing thing there... I wrote my theory before visiting the site and it seems to agree.

The introverted sensing methods talk about exactly that: developing the differentiating abilities and how to disable pattern recognition with two main methods.

The extroverted sensing however seems to focus on detail perception which is also very important for deduction - how important a detail is and what is it's effects?

Ergo, my confusion with Se and Si is still there, but it seems that I focused on the right one here - Si.

Anyone disagrees? anyone agrees? Everyone seems kind of quiet all of the sudden - I would of expected an INTP to jump at the opportunity to develop his detail intake. It seems to be a three man conversation here (the fourth one "words" disappeared).

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

Sorry to rain on your parade but the people you mentioned dont necessarily use overdeveloped Si. In fact Temperance Brennon and doctor house are both INTP, and use simple deductive logic to make their observations. Patrick Jane is an ENTP i believe but it is still the same thing, deductive logic. (I would venture as far as to say the rest of the people you said are probably some sort of NTP but it would just be wishful thinking) Actually after second thought, i watch criminal minds and i have seen psych, they all use deductive logic too, aside from Dr. Reid, he definitely works around an extremely overdeveloped memory. And if you look at Criminal minds, Hotch and Rossi are the intuitive types, who make all the main observations, using bits of information gathered by the team, so it is more of a group effort than the solo analyst you are looking to be.

You don't necessarily want to focus on Si, you just want to strengthen your understanding of whatever it is you want to look for in people. With more depth of understanding, it will be easier to perceive the small details you are trying to seek out, instead of hunting down bits of information individually with Si.

 

[LPolaright]

Sorry to rain on your parade but the people you mentioned dont necessarily use overdeveloped Si. In fact Temperance Brennon and doctor house are both INTP, and use simple deductive logic to make their observations. Patrick Jane is an ENTP i believe but it is still the same thing, deductive logic. (I would venture as far as to say the rest of the people you said are probably some sort of NTP but it would just be wishful thinking) Actually after second thought, i watch criminal minds and i have seen psych, they all use deductive logic too, aside from Dr. Reid, he definitely works around an extremely overdeveloped memory. And if you look at Criminal minds, Hotch and Rossi are the intuitive types, who make all the main observations, using bits of information gathered by the team, so it is more of a group effort than the solo analyst you are looking to be.

You don't necessarily want to focus on Si, you just want to strengthen your understanding of whatever it is you want to look for in people. With more depth of understanding, it will be easier to perceive the small details you are trying to seek out, instead of hunting down bits of information individually with Si.

Temperance Brennen and Dr. House both look for extremely small details that make the difference in their diagnosis, sure they use a lot of deductive logic to make their observations - I never said they didn't, and I never said you don't need to be an INTP to do that - all I said is that it seems like you need Si to accompany you with the process of the deduction.

I disagree with you on the type you gave Patrick Jane, but that is not very important, he is too, in help with the small details that appear on the people or on the objects they posses, (Si quality) and simple deduction finds what is the probable situation with them, connections and their affects.

I think you misread my intention. I want to focus on the development on my Si, not the Si itself when I use my deduction. I know how to use deduction and what it means, but I also know that I need some Si skills like described above to actually deduct in a right and accurate way.

In criminal minds, I agree it is more of a group effort.

And no, actually I think I agree that all of them are NTP's (Maybe with the exception of Dexter which is definitely J and in my taste Patrick Jane is also not an ENTP but an INFP).

Again you use a method that was already suggested - you assume that after you get use to intuitive methods you will eventually find "intuitively" small details and eventually find methods to find, differentiate and use them in more preciseness.
But I think there is an alternative method somewhere here, where you can first look at the little details, find a method to locate, differentiate and use them in connectivity and harmony with pattern finding of your intuitive side.
It's a question of order... But it makes a difference.
Eventually they both sum up to the same destination - you need to develop your detail intake with methods, or more accurately - tools, to make the process easier. Si users for example, already have these methods embedded in them subconsciously through "practice and experience" but I want to find them in a meta-cognitive kind of a way. My question here, has anyone been down that road? what tools did you find?

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

I never insisted you depend solely upon intuition In fact i would incline that deduction is more of a group effort of functions. Not entirely throwing out your thoughts about introverted sensing, but more throwing out your thoughts about training your sensing. I would more or less agree with EyeSeeCold in saying that it is a function that should develop itself naturally.

I would simply suggest, again, that you seek to understand psychological traits, mannerisms, body language, things like that. The people you are talking about, given they are fictional, if they were real, they would have gotten to the point they are at by either being natural geniuses, or focusing a lot on observing behavior.

Basically my entire point is that, as an INTP, if you have a deep understanding of behavior and psychology, you should have no problem pinpointing bits of behavior, or be able to make accurate assumptions about someone by looking around their home etc. Knowing what to look for is far more important than noticing the details themselves. Anyone can notice something, but if they dont know what it means, its useless.

For example, i have calluses on the tip of every finger on my left hand except my thumb, tell me why.

 

[LPolaright]

I never insisted you depend solely upon intuition In fact i would incline that deduction is more of a group effort of functions. Not entirely throwing out your thoughts about introverted sensing, but more throwing out your thoughts about training your sensing. I would more or less agree with EyeSeeCold in saying that it is a function that should develop itself naturally.

If you read the entire thread, you'd see I claim the same. No one should depend solely upon intuition or sensing when it comes to deduction (or may I even say any other action in life).
But I just take a different approach than you and EyeSeeCold and treat it as a separate feature rather than a combined one - it's just something to define myself.
What's interesting about deduction is the fact that sometimes you see yourself using the functions one at a time and separately, rather than together and combined (but only sometimes, with great dependency on what kind of a deduction it is).

I would simply suggest, again, that you seek to understand psychological traits, mannerisms, body language, things like that. The people you are talking about, given they are fictional, if they were real, they would have gotten to the point they are at by either being natural geniuses, or focusing a lot on observing behavior.

People seem to be a lot more nice than I have expected... (So long for the wrong generalization of INTP's as cold hearted sons of bitches) and I guess I should have made it clearer that I'm seeking advice on how to develop my Si in order to help (not base) my deduction skills. Maybe if I would of omitted the fact that I want it for deduction skills people would have treated it differently.

But yes, in order to get my deduction skills better I looked (still looking and learning) into:
- Criminology (Criminal Minds obviously affected that decision, the profiling facts that could help me understand the "bad" part of humanity and what makes it tick)
- Body Language (Perhaps the best tool to identify deception?)
- Manipulation Psychology (To be more exact, the part in psychology that discusses manipulation - to higher up my skills to detect subconscious and conscious manipulations)
- Game Theory (Math, Numb3rs made me realize that this is also an important skill to learn)
- Mentalism (This is probably the "weirdest" place to look, because it is filled with trickery and most books discuss on the how to do the trickery rather than explaining why it works. But there is a big discussion on Cold Reading when it comes to Mentalism that helps greatly. Funny thing though that there is an illusion to make yourself look as an observant deductive person with the Forer Effect, also called "Shotgun Effect" that "sprays" around general attributes that will fit to any person)
- Micro Face Expressions (Inspired from Lie to Me)
- Verbal leaks (Again, when it comes to deception it is a great skill to have)
- Hand writing analysis

As you see, I've done my research and I don't seek for any critical help on the subject because I'm still studying the things I have on my list (and as an INTP it's quite hard for me not to move on to different things all the time, but since I have a pretty much big variety I jump around in the list)

Also as a child I was considered being very manipulative and observant and developed certain tools naturally... So no, it doesn't take a "genius" to acquire these attributes, just a specific kind of childhood and environmental effects.

Basically my entire point is that, as an INTP, if you have a deep understanding of behavior and psychology, you should have no problem pinpointing bits of behavior, or be able to make accurate assumptions about someone by looking around their home etc. Knowing what to look for is far more important than noticing the details themselves. Anyone can notice something, but if they dont know what it means, its useless.

Sure, it develops your ability to differentiate the importance of each object (which is an Se feature by the way) and find details that you never thought to look at before and eventually it does fit in as pattern rather than small concrete data, but still it is not the same as actually developing the skill to view these little details on it's own.

It's hard for me to explain because it's not something physical that I can describe but it can go like that:
When people draw, some will start from top to bottom, others will draw little details first and then continue to the bigger picture, other people will draw basic shapes an on top of them they will add the details... Each method eventually develops a different style of drawing, some even fuse together to methods like painting basic shapes and on top of them details while on other parts of the picture they decide to start with the details.
Basically what I'm trying to do is to "draw" and develop my deduction from both aspects - starting with the details when the situation needs me to for effectiveness and looking at the bigger picture while breaking it down to the smaller details slowly.

(Quite frankly I'm sick of writing "details")

For example, i have calluses on the tip of every finger on my left hand except my thumb, tell me why.

You're a guitar player! (It's quite obvious for me since I am too, a guitarist)
The fact that you press with your fingers on the fret board harden the skin on the tip of your fingers except for the thumb that is usually under the fret.
Probably not a Jazz player (they make a lot of use of the thumb if I'm not mistaken).

Did you happen to watch the movie "The Fountain" (Just a small deductive piece I might have found and wondered for awhile about you)?

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

Blast! I knew it was too easy of a task. It was too probable that you at least play some kind of instrument. Besides you could google such information. So onward.

As for the whole Si exercise, i don't know man. It has never really been anything that bothered me, if anything i have always just assumed that i had a fairly balanced if not well developed personality. Keen observation has never been a problem, i would probably be a pretty good analyst if i worked at it, but its just not my thing.

 

[LPolaright]

As for the whole Si exercise, i don't know man. It has never really been anything that bothered me, if anything i have always just assumed that i had a fairly balanced if not well developed personality. Keen observation has never been a problem, i would probably be a pretty good analyst if i worked at it, but its just not my thing.

My target is not being an analyst, but more of a super-deductive person like Sherlock Holmes (especially the one portrayed on the new show "Sherlock") or Cal Lightman, and I foresee that in the future I will have a very keen observation if I keep paying attention to develop my Si, but alongside I will also develop my Se, Ni and Ne... With a little bit more leaning to the functions I feel more comfortable with (which ultimately will provide me with my own style and character).

Balanced is good, but is it really for your aspirations? Think about what you want from this world and then think about how could you get it. Just food for thought - this thread exists only because line of thought similar to that exists within me.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Sherlock Holes was intuitive..

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

Really if we want to talk about Sherlock Holmes and his keen eye, I recently watched a documentary that said he had an extensive problem with shooting up cocaine.

Not really likely that it had anything to do with his observation skills but hey, who doesnt like little fun facts.

 

[LPolaright]

Sherlock Holes was intuitive..

I didn't say he wasn't.
I said he was super deductive which is a skill that can be learnt by an intuitive aswell.

Really if we want to talk about Sherlock Holmes and his keen eye, I recently watched a documentary that said he had an extensive problem with shooting up cocaine.

I think he had loads of problems and addiction to investigate and/or danger.

Not really likely that it had anything to do with his observation skills but hey, who doesnt like little fun facts.

Not INTPs P:

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

Your just no fun if you dont think Sherlock Holmes being all coked up is interesting. When you understand that it was simply a new product though, and many people were getting addicted to it because it was included in so many products, it isnt really all too interesting. They mentioned all kinds of people who used it in that documentary, mark twain was one of the people they mentioned who consumed copious amounts.

Course Holmes was shooting it up so its not like he got hooked on some spiked cough syrup or something, he was going hardcore.

 

[LPolaright]

Your just no fun if you dont think Sherlock Holmes being all coked up is interesting. When you understand that it was simply a new product though, and many people were getting addicted to it because it was included in so many products, it isnt really all too interesting. They mentioned all kinds of people who used it in that documentary, mark twain was one of the people they mentioned who consumed copious amounts.

Course Holmes was shooting it up so its not like he got hooked on some spiked cough syrup or something, he was going hardcore.

Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, thus I don't really care if he "was" coking up or even being gay - because it doesn't really reflect on a normal human being. A documentary that would have mentioned Sherlock would probably say his fictional - and would probably not rely on him at all.

We all know Sherlock was addicted, thus Dr. House is addicted aswell - because House is basically based on sherlock (they both live on 221B). So it's not such a shocker.