NI POLR???

[Morcheeba]

I just recently started seeing someone that I originally thought was LSI; but after spending more time with him, realized that he is LSE (wishful thinking on my part )
He told me that he used to be in the military and that he killed 7 people during an operation in Colombia. I asked him what he was thinking as this occurred, and he said that he was only doing his job; though he did tell me that he was slightly depressed for awhile afterwards.
So I realized that he didn't really get the enormity of his so called "job". Is this related to polr somehow?

[nilv]

Wow, that's intense.

But yeah, from my perspective, Ni PoLR often means being oblivious to the larger context of actions and failing to perceive the hidden implications of things, choosing instead to focus on the apparent and immediate.

However, I suspect that given the situation, any type could resort to this rationalization. I mean, if you're in a situation where you're forced to kill someone, you're probably going to try to make yourself feel better by searching for simple explanations that might come across as superficial to others. You'd know a lot better than me, but maybe he just doesn't want to think / talk about it?

[Morcheeba]

Yeah, I would think talking about it would be somewhat difficult for a male LSE, that would involve alot of and interaction. I just can't imagine being able to separate the bigger picture implications and just doing it because that's what is expected.
I'm sure any type could resort to this kind of behavior as a coping mechanism like you said, but I would think that an intuitive would ruminate much more.

[Satan]

Yeah, I would think talking about it would be somewhat difficult for a male LSE, that would involve alot of and interaction. I just can't imagine being able to separate the bigger picture implications and just doing it because that's what is expected.
I'm sure any type could resort to this kind of behavior as a coping mechanism like you said, but I would think that an intuitive would ruminate much more.

to someone they don't know?

[Morcheeba]

to someone they don't know?

No, I'm saying just anyone. I'm sure it would be easier talking that sort of thing over with a close friend or family member.

[Trevor]

...I asked him what he was thinking as this occurred, and he said that he was only doing his job; though he did tell me that he was slightly depressed for awhile afterwards.
So I realized that he didn't really get the enormity of his so called "job". Is this related to polr somehow?

It's related to being a soldier. Being a soldier is related to being a ST. ESTj is one of the STs. ESTj is Ni PoLR. ESFj is Ni PoLR as well.

[Park]

Well, I don't think Ni-PoLR makes you less introspective or less thoughtful or anything like that. Also, if someone is less inclined to consider the bigger implications and meaning of the actions they take, or think about the underlying concept and purpose of what they are doing, that doesn't automatically make them Delta, or sensory. What would differ from type to type is their personal motivation and perspective from which they approach things.

From what you've told us so far, that guy could be any type, really. I'm not disagreeing with tuturutu that STs are quite likely the predominant club among soldiers etc, but that [+ your info] is far from enough to make a hypothesis about your dude's type, IMO.

[somavision]

I think that to say something like that requires a great deal of detachment (expecially emotional detachment) and focus specifically on the given task.

It's related to being a soldier. Being a soldier is related to being a ST. ESTj is one of the STs. ESTj is Ni PoLR. ESFj is Ni PoLR as well.

So I agree with this. It's how soldiers are supposed to answer and think otherwise they wouldn't be able to do there job. If you think too much you die.

And the psychological damage that's caused by this can last the rest of their lives. Post0Traumatic Stuff and people ending up in psychiatric units when their mind finally allows them to deal with what's happened.

I think that in that sort of situtation you would need to block out alot of the emotions for a long time after to deal with it properly. Although I'm not entirely sure.

So highly conditioned training combined with personality. I would think that the comment would most likely be said by an ST type for the above reasons. I also think it's possibly club related rather than Ni POLR related.

[Marie84]

I don't really think this is related to a lack in . It seems like a more logical approach, so to speak, as in, ignoring the ethical implications to justify logical ones
Not to say that I think all logical types approach these situations the same way or that ethical types can't live by "the ends justifying the means", rather the argument being made seems to imply a rational viewpoint in order to extinguish his feelings towards what he did

[Morcheeba]

In what way should he have reacted?

I wasn't judging him; I was merely pointing out the difference in viewpoints. I would react differently... well first of all I wouldn't even put myself in that position, but I can see how someone of a different psychological disposition would react in that way, that's all.

[munenori2]

But HOW would an LSI you expected him of being reacted???

[Jarno]

I just recently started seeing someone that I originally thought was LSI; but after spending more time with him, realized that he is LSE (wishful thinking on my part )
He told me that he used to be in the military and that he killed 7 people during an operation in Colombia. I asked him what he was thinking as this occurred, and he said that he was only doing his job; though he did tell me that he was slightly depressed for awhile afterwards.
So I realized that he didn't really get the enormity of his so called "job". Is this related to polr somehow?

no it's a common soldiers reaction.

just like when you ask them why they go to war and who they fight for, nobody answers their country or their general or their family, they all answer for the guy next to me. And they are not all Fi types. You just can't explain everything in single information element.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JohnDo]

A rough arrangement of types by their readiness to kill someone on purpose. It would vary greatly with the circumstances, but as an idea of my observations. They are arranged from the lowest to the highest.

EII EIE IEE ILI LIE ILE LII SEI SLI IEI ESE LSE SLE SEE ESI LSI

Interesting. I know an IEE who commited grievous bodily harm resulting in death. IEEs may react very impulsively. I also know an EIE who attempted second-degree murder. Many EIEs are very selfish. I really don't understand why ESI or LSI should be the most murderous types...

My opinion:
Lowest: IEI, EII (strongest , weakest )
Highest: SLE, LSE (strongest , weakest )

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Armies do their best to de-sensitise soldiers to killing, his slight depression from killing is normal for soldiers, indeed he may have nightmares and stuff about it. Even with all the training, people still don't want to kill, but not type related ... if it didn't concern or affect a human being at all they are likely phsycotic.

Another way to do it is to de-humanise the enemy, whether dehuminise them as people (ie sub human in some fashion) or further distance from killing... it is easier to press a trigger in a plane to kill someone than it is to look them in the eye and pull the trigger.

Apparently, in wars, many people shoot to miss.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[DirectorAbbie]

I just recently started seeing someone that I originally thought was LSI; but after spending more time with him, realized that he is LSE (wishful thinking on my part )
He told me that he used to be in the military and that he killed 7 people during an operation in Colombia. I asked him what he was thinking as this occurred, and he said that he was only doing his job; though he did tell me that he was slightly depressed for awhile afterwards.
So I realized that he didn't really get the enormity of his so called "job". Is this related to polr somehow?

Sounds like my IEE dad with acting. He can get on stage without a care and do whatever. Then afterword he worries about what he did.

To me, PoLR is a sense of futuristic futility.

[The Greeter]

I just recently started seeing someone that I originally thought was LSI; but after spending more time with him, realized that he is LSE (wishful thinking on my part )
He told me that he used to be in the military and that he killed 7 people during an operation in Colombia. I asked him what he was thinking as this occurred, and he said that he was only doing his job; though he did tell me that he was slightly depressed for awhile afterwards.
So I realized that he didn't really get the enormity of his so called "job". Is this related to polr somehow?

No. This is an ethical question, not a Socionics one.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JohnDo]

Man, I said killing on purpose - cold blood. I know how aggressive IEEs can become when angry but not killing as a job, or something.

Okay then.

You have to check some things about functions... IEI is strong , weak then LSE is strong and weak . See Introduction into Socionics.

I don't need an introduction.
The strongest functions are base and demonstrative (4-dimensional). The weakest functions are vulnerable and suggestive (1-dimensional).

Killing people indicates strong . Not killing people indicates weak .
SLE and LSE both have 4-dimensional and 1-dimensional .

[marooned]

Not wanting to kill people but being able to = strong, unvalued
Wanting to kill people but not being able to = weak, valued

while is concerned with killing people (professionally if possible), is more about understanding the benefits that could arise by not killing them. one of these benefits is that they would still be alive.

[Trevor]

You're all insane. Anyone can kill.

[Park]

You're all insane. Anyone can kill.

Even the insane?

[Trevor]

You know what I was trying to say.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[nilv]

Killing people indicates strong . Not killing people indicates weak .

Uhh, if this were true, there would probably be a lot more dead people in the world.

Not wanting to kill people but being able to = strong, unvalued
Wanting to kill people but not being able to = weak, valued

while is concerned with killing people (professionally if possible), is more about understanding the benefits that could arise by not killing them. one of these benefits is that they would still be alive.

Hmm, so now if someone is trying to decide between SLI and ILI, we can just ask them which of the following they relate to more:

- Do you want to kill people but find yourself unable to do so? (ILI)
- Do you kill people even when you don't really want to? (SLI)

Or maybe to decide between SLE and ILE:

"Are you more interested in killing people (SLE) or not killing people (ILE)?"



But seriously, people kill for a lot of reasons, not because they're a certain type. Trying to explain murder in terms of socionics type isn't oversimplification -- it's just wrong.

[Morcheeba]

Uhh, if this were true, there would probably be a lot more dead people in the world.


Hmm, so now if someone is trying to decide between SLI and ILI, we can just ask them which of the following they relate to more:

- Do you want to kill people but find yourself unable to do so? (ILI)
- Do you kill people even when you don't really want to? (SLI)

Or maybe to decide between SLE and ILE:

"Are you more interested in killing people (SLE) or not killing people (ILE)?"



But seriously, people kill for a lot of reasons, not because they're a certain type. Trying to explain murder in terms of socionics type isn't oversimplification -- it's just wrong.

I hope I didn't rectify an old stereotype about ST's in general. I was just curious since the way he had described the scene reminded me of a mentality of not getting the bigger picture of your actions. In no way was I implying that I think ST's are heartless or cruel; I was just trying to get a better sense of what might go on in an LSE's head when they are faced with traumatic circumstances.

[JohnDo]

I agree that my reply to you was not actually clarifying, but what you've written is wrong and reveals a lack of understanding:

- the conventional "strongest" and "weakest" are not strongest and weakest in the way implied by you.

Dimensionality of functions is one of Bukalov's newer theories. Maybe I should have mentioned that I mean Bukalov's theory. Nevertheless, it is in no way wrong and does not reveal a lack of understanding.
Base and Demonstrative are "very strong", Creative and Ignoring are "strong" functions. You don't value your demonstrative function but you are very good at using it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[marooned]

Hmm, so now if someone is trying to decide between SLI and ILI, we can just ask them which of the following they relate to more:

- Do you want to kill people but find yourself unable to do so? (ILI)
- Do you kill people even when you don't really want to? (SLI)

Or maybe to decide between SLE and ILE:

"Are you more interested in killing people (SLE) or not killing people (ILE)?"

Yes, typing made easy. I was so confused before, but now I understand.

[JohnDo]

I see... why isn't written there that the four dimensional functions are "the strongest"?

The article is in the category "Incomplete pages" but "dimensionality of functions" can obviously be understood as "strength of functions"

What makes you think that I'll deny the objective observations and what's already known and sensible about types just because you invoke a known socionist?

LSE has very strong Se, IEI has very strong Fi. This "dimensionality of functions" simply makes clear what "strength of functions" actually means...

What? So an ILE is good at long-term planning? An IEI is a traditionalist?

Long-term planning is related to Ni which is ILEs ignoring function. The ignoring function is strong but unvalued and most often ignored as the name says. So ILEs are quite good at long-term planning but they hardly ever do it.
I think traditionalism is related to weak intuition. LSE, LSI and ESI are often traditionalists. IEIs have very strong intuition so why should they be traditionalists?

You seem sure on what you say, do you have extra information, are you sure that this is applied over all the ex Soviet Union? Not that it would make you right in the above matter, but I am curious what they apply this on, in typing or what?

Thread
Gulenko's article

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JohnDo]

OK, Te is actually implementing a plan, following a procedure - ILEs are bad at this and it's a fact. ILEs can't fulfill most plans even if they really want it or if that puts them in difficult situations (eg. financially).

I don't think so. Te is algorithmic logic but not necessarily long-term planning. ILEs use Te rather for short-term planning and are very good at it, they are very tactical but not strategical (Reinin).

Ni is not the most used functions in planning, you should consider the fact that LSEs, which are probably the best planners and managers along with LIEs, have Ni on the 4th position.

I disagree. LSEs are very good at short-term planning but very bad at long-term planning. Like ILE they are tactical, not strategical!

Ni is an internal function, it doesn't even affect practical matter so much, it has little to do with long-term planning (IEIs are actually among the worst planners, they need continuous unexpected variation).

IEIs are also tactical, not strategical

Doesn't SEE have "weak intuition" (equal to ESI) as well? If we use your theory, the SP types would be the most traditionalist, which is obviously absurd because Irrationals are, we may say, by definition not traditionalist.

Being a traditionalist is clearly related to weak intuition. But it has something to do with the j/p dichotomy, too. Not STs but SJs are the traditionalists I think. NPs and SJs are tactical types, NJs and SPs are strategical types.

I'd call the SJs "tactical traditionalists" - They like to plan and go traditionally by-the-book but are not good at long-term plannning and very bad when a situation changes suddenly.

NPs could be called "supreme tacticians" - They don't like planning at all but are very good at improvising.

SPs are "strategical improvisators" - They set goals without knowing how to get there and achieve their goals by improvising.

NJs could be called "supreme strategists" - They like to set long-term goals and also like to plan how to achieve them.

Then, why isn't ESE in the top (4-dimensional Se)? I put it pretty high because I know their determination when they want something, it can happen to step over some of their principles to obtain what they want at the time. So rather Fe and Si, not because of Se.

ESE's main drive is to help other people, not to kill them...

Your approach is pure speculation, you are basically rewriting the type descriptions.

I don't rewrite anything. You should read the stuff Gulenko wrote about functions and the stuff Reinin wrote about dichotomies. Not everything can be explained by functions. Sometimes it's better to analyze dichotomies...

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Absurd]

Don't do it, John.

[Rubicon]

John's not gonna to be offended!