How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[XoX]

Let's go on with the PoLR series. This seems to help people with typing.

[schrödinger's cat]

I've been wondering about this myself, so I'm prodding this thread to see if it's alive.

Perhaps a hyperlink to a brief and foolproof definition of Ti might help. There was one definition in another thread but it sounded as if Ti is something one can jolly well do without. Which is probably not true. So, anyone...?

And where are the anecdotes of fellow Ti-PoLRers? All I can think of is this - that the plotlines of my stories are usually full of logical inconsistencies, esp. if I let my imagination run wild.

[Slacker]

Here are two things that might be a result of Ti PoLR:

When I have two options, I have trouble judging which is best and making a choice. No matter which choice I make, I regret it and feel like I should have chosen otherwise.

I hate when someone says to me something like, "You don't know what the hell you're talking about."

[Expat]

I see PoLR when people say one thing now, then something that logically contradicts it some time later, and then get upset if you say, "but what you said just contradicts what you just said five minutes before".

[kopernikus]

Expat: Perhaps that's how a Ti PoLR manifests itself. But I think it can also happen with ethical types in general; we don't always have set definitions for everything. For example I might say that I hate something and then later talk about how I love some aspects of it. Some of my T-friends might nag me for it and see it as illogical, while I see it more as "twisting and turning" a concept within the realms of my subjective experience; as if I were exploring the feelings surrounding an object rather than the thing itself (which would be logics, I suppose).

[schrödinger's cat]

Arrrgh. Nitpickers. Expat, I think I know what you mean. When someone points out such stuff I'm usually frustrated because I think it means that they haven't paid attention to the general drift of what I've said, to the big picture, to the general idea. To me, that's what counts.

Strange, but such comments usually aren't totally hurtful. They're frustrating, and they derail me to some extent, because I half realize that the other person is probably right (they sound so convinced), and often I'm embarassed, either because I was totally oblivious to what turns out to be a glaring mistake, or because I still can't see what all the fuss is about... BUT it isn't the absolute worst thing someone could say. It's disagreeable, but it doesn't have me sit on a bridge clutching a bottle of vodka.

What does bug me is when someone doesn't take me seriously, or patronizes me, or regards me as a charity case... and that could be connected to a Ti PoLR, if Ti really is connected to a healthy sense of "I'm right and you all suck". Still, nowadays I can deal with that too.

What is still stranger is this: if all of the above really is part of a Ti PoLR, then I'm learning to develop my Ti. Is that possible? I'm old, so perhaps it is. Or does it come from living in an ISTj country?

[Expat]

Right, here the description of from the Stratievskaya ESFp description, which I have edited slightly --


It is difficult for the ESFp to be objective as it is in a captivity of the ethical installations, the sympathies and antipaty.

His acts can contradict common sense even because more often they reflect its emotional attitude to an event.

Sometimes in the ESFp's behaviour the logic importance of his acts, it is as though displaced. e. He acts illogically, being based on any primitive logic stereotypes only because " so it is accepted to act ". And, being guided by the logic stereotypes, he often acts to the detriment of the ethical principles: for example, destroys the developed good relations with the relatives only because reacts how it is accepted logically, on the general concepts instead of how he feels ethically: we shall tell, abuses for that, for what is necessary (in the standard, stereotypic understanding) to abuse, praises for that, for what it is necessary to praise.

Sometimes it is expressed in a habit to use superficial logic (and ethical) stereotypes to operate according to these slogans and to utter them in occasion of and without an occasion: " pity humiliates the person ", " are afraid? Means respect ", " is jealous? Means loves ", " where has laid, there and sleep ", " the woman should not show the initiative ", etc.

Sometimes it is logically displaced intonations and accents in speech. Sometimes it eticheski a unjustified mimicry.

Sometimes it is the displaced or unstable interests to the perceived information. For example: listening to explanations, the ESFp often distracts from the main idea, it any absolutely minor moments or insignificant particulars suddenly start to interest. Imperceptibly for himself, he leaves aside from the basic theme or distracts questions of the minor importance. Or questions which at all have no the attitude to a discussed subject.

One more characteristic for representatives of this type feature: ability in occasion of and without an occasion to distract from the set theme on conversations on. (the Bright example? Pushkin lyrical digressions in "Evgenii Onegine".)

To be engaged in classification of concepts or knowledge, to result them in harmonous system? For ESFp boring and unpleasant work. It is difficult for him to concentrate on the logic analysis of any phenomenon, it is difficult to concentrate for consecutive understanding of logic conclusions, it is difficult most to state something consistently: he can begin an explanation directly with the middle and to continue it, constantly coming back to initial and intermediate stages. Thus, in ESFp's statement, the some people even simple explanations are represented rather confused.

Superficiality of representations about many phenomena does not confuse him? He considers it natural (" All of us studied gradually in something and somehow ") the Main thing that the discussed subject was though otdalenno, but a sign, it is impossible to make impression of full incompetence.

He is very cautious in the statements, concerning legal or technical parties of business, does not risk to seem biassed or incompetent

Does not like to study the instruction and a rule? To him it is boring. (the Representative of this type can repeatedly burn through the electrodevice, including it, not having familiarized with the instruction the case of "unsuccessful" cleaning of memory of a computer after which there were erased all programs incorporated in it Is known) And how his personal experience was sad, all the same it is difficult to ESFP to change himself, and it often is necessary not on the instruction in which seldom and a little that understands, and on success, luck and on the intuition in spite of the fact that it often enough brings it.

Experience of another's mistakes too not always makes uponhim sufficient impression: ESFp can confer and consult as much as necessary, but finally will act in own way, counter to all advice and common sense. ESFp is distinguished with a special talent constantly " to fill shishki " on the same place. Deeply to suffer, muchitsja and to ask all and everyone why it is every time occurs to him, and he needs to get rid of what lacks in himself that these misfortunes at last have stopped the enormous patience and endurance Are required (the qualities, inherent to its dual INTp) to accustom ESFp to analyze experience of the last mistakes, t. e. Just what ESFp, , contrary to desire of associates, to do resolutely refuses (both do not ask, and do not persuade!) he acted and acts only as he will like, and differently he cannot simply be oneself.

For ESFp the serious problem is represented with necessity carefully to think over the acts, to behave circumspectly and judiciously. Remarks he does not transfer the Requirement to illogicalities of own actions to be consecutive in actions deduces it from itself(himself). For it is characteristic to act cleverly and logically only until it from it do not demand, while with it respect and with it are considered. But it is necessary to bring to a focus to its illogicalities as all its actions at once cease to be supervised logically and get character of chaotic, panic vanity.

ESFp's charges in an illogicality only aggravate its problems. ESFp very painfully transfers any criticism to the address and as requirements to themselves at it happen overestimated enough, it is difficult for him to recognize at presence of all advantages such lack, as not irreproachable logic. ESFp in general would like to be the person without faults. (and who would not like it?) Therefore ESFp very much experiences, when to his mental faculties someone has a low opinion. It is very difficult for him to dare to not be the cleverest (though this best, that it can make for itself(himself)).

It is necessary to notice, that it is easier to ESFp to be consecutive and logical in the acts after he has understood opportunities of a situation (sequence of work of function). For ESFp to act reasonably? He means to act reasonably, t. e. Providently, far-sighted. The osnovatelnee it will be informed on aspect " intuition of opportunities ", the easier to it to act logically produmanno.

In a word, that in ESFp's acts was less contradictions and vanity, it is necessary to put it in the certain psychological mode in which he will receive the sufficient information on intuition of opportunities, support on intuition of time and, that is very important, absence of criticism on aspect of logic of parities. That is Iwhy INTp's psychological support is necessary for ESFp. His skill to show prospect of a situation in such form that they have not frightened ESFp and have not cast into a panic, to show a possible stock of time, to distract it from vanity and to create to it conditions for the detailed logic analysis. INTp is able to find the most simple and cogitable forms an explanation. It is very methodical in the explanations, is able to illustrate their successful examples. Is able to bring the interlocutor to the necessary logic conclusion, giving to it to be pleased to own opening.

[Slacker]

Having contradictions pointed out doesn't really bother me either. I agree that it just makes me feel like someone isn't paying attention to the whole train of thought and is focusing on a few details. It's annoying and a bit frustrating but it feels like nit-picking and doesn't really bother me.

[Expat]

I did not mean small nitpicking contradictions during a long conversation, I meant major logical contradictions in the main point of the conversation, but right now I can't think of any concrete examples.

[Expat]

And here the description of PoLR for ENFp. The last paragraph describes how it works in the duality with ISTp.

The ENFp loses interest in any subject, when only his curiosity is even superficially satisfied. And to excite this interest or somehow to deepen it it is already impossible: this theme, in opinion ENFp, is studied by him also it already enough is not going to come back to him as on light is so a lot of new and not studied. (ENFp very much are afraid to miss any new opportunities. Therefore do not dare "to jam" that for them already " the passed stage ".)

Unique way to keep interest ENFp this all time "to warm up" his curiosity: to fire up imagination, to intrigue, encourage, constantly to hold back something. In a word, " to hold on a hook " (that, actually, and does his dual ISTp).

ENFp is very inconsistent in the acts and reasonings. And personally he does not consider it as fault? To him so it is convenient, therefore he and acts, but to him it is inconvenient, when so others act, ENFp it is difficult, sometimes it is impossible to collect the thoughts. His attention is constant rassredotachivaetsja. Listening to explanations, easily seizes the general, frequently only superficial sense. Sometimes at ENFp there is an insuperable interest to the analysis of insignificant particulars (and these particulars seem to him supersignificant and necessary for deep and momentary understanding of an essence). Owing to which he withdraws an explanation aside, and sometimes in general breaks it, asking untimely or inappropriate questions and thus persistently demanding the answer to them. And statement of a question sometimes happens so absurd and ridiculous, that explaining at all always knows, how to it to react.

Intuitively comprehending sense of many logic concepts and categories, ENFp often has about them superficial enough representation. Therefore sometimes puts himself in awkward position, stating obviously absurd things most self-assured (?) tone. And "not trivial" point of view ENFp is capable to stump even the most skilled and qualified teacher; as for representatives of this type ability, to conceive debate during the most improper time is very characteristic.

Often tests difficulty in an explanation of any elementary concepts. But even more is at a loss to explain the complex phenomenon simple means. (here an example of how the representative of this type explained to the four-year-old child the nature of a thunder and a lightning:

"The cloud floats, we shall admit, with a sign "plus", and towards to it another? With a sign "minus", and then they collide, and the thunder and a lightning turn out. ") sometimes ENFp begins the explanation too in detail and in details, but subsequently he loses in it interest and continues to explain already more obobshchenno. Often he confuses in own explanations, is nervous and takes offence at the hardly dumnuju an audience.

And nevertheless representatives of this type very much like " all to explain ". For example, having got in inconvenient position, often speak: " I now shall explain all to you! " Also start to explain under the order. " Under the order "? It means from apart. That is: first any collateral and insignificant circumstances are in detail described (" my niece of the husband of the second cousin the colleague "), further to these collateral "circumstances" is given the "intuitive" characteristic (" in every respect the loser "). Attempt to bring ENFp to the essence of a statement it is usual in what does not result? He only is irritated, is nervous, asks to to express " under the order ", and all there begins all over again.

It is always interesting to listen to ENFp, any object explaining a site. ENFp usually describes an arrangement of all nearest objects and concerning them focuss: " On the right, in hundred meters you will see shoe shop, but there do not turn off turn on the left... " ENFp can draw also a map, but it will be too detailed and too confused.

Very much are afraid of something to mix, but it more often and occurs. And they are confused in those things which seem to them easy enough for understanding and storing.

ENFp painfully perceive any accusation of illogicality and inconsistency. Take offence, when criticize their mental faculties. Many of them with pleasure work in an intellectual field. Take a great interest in philosophy and not away porassuzhdat on the abstract themes. Often express in the form of sayings. Some of representatives of this type like to write down the sayings in a writing-book, to quote to their associates and to publish in the newspaper.

They like to state the reasonings with the most significant kind: " If the woman wishes to seem interesting, she should be unpredictable and not clear. " ENFp like to make impression the statements, and they with it very much are helped by their usual self-confident tone. Often at their reasonings there is the exaggerated (false) significance, capable to give "importance" to the most trivial and primitive statements on sense: " In a life of each woman there is something such about what it cannot tell to any to man ".

False significance at representatives of this type is present not only at intonations, but also in a look? In a "promising" sight and in a "mysterious" smile. But in that "illogicality" of emotions expressed by them also is shown, that neither the sight, nor a smile do not reflect their true intentions, and in general by no means with them are not connected. ENFp superb observes and analyzes another's emotions, but only not own. He can is as much as necessary frank and prizyvno to look at representatives of the opposite sex, but thus to not give at all to himself the report in the behaviour (ethics of emotions are realized at it subconsciously). Therefore for it there will be sincere and full unexpectedness a charge that the behaviour it gives an occasion for jealousy.

Only ISTp, his dual, is perceived with behaviour ENFp adequately. He sees any going or "unintentional" hint and perceives in that value in what it moves. Any illogicality in behaviour of ENFp ISTp does not observe? Sees only thin and beautiful ethical game. Even then, when ENFp with a charming spontaneity tries to explain any knowledges, ISTp it only touches. Peculiar ENFp the confused manner of a statement pleasantly weakens it and calms: it perfectly understands, what logic aspect of information ENFp ? It only the minor plan of attitudes, the main thing ethical aspect which behind all costs to these. Therefore the logic mess of ENFp the ISTp perceives as some kind of registration of its ethical game.

[schrödinger's cat]

Thanks for posting that, Expat. I'm not like that, though. Not the way it says here. Probably because I've grown up in an ISTj country, with an ISFj Mum and an ISTp brother, in an ESTp class (aren't all teenagers ESTp?). You spend the first decade of your life being the dreamy, weird kid; the next decade you're the misfit who's constantly making stupid mistakes no one else seems to make; and during the third decade you're slooooowly improving to the point of being considered "almost normal". I'm in my fourth decade now, so I'm at the "astonishingly normal considering what a weird kid she used to be" stage.

So, THEORY: (some?) weak functions are strengthened automatically (?) if you grow up in an environment that has this as a strong(er) function. True/false? I'd say in Germany you don't get far without Ti. With a not-quite-so-bad Te one can bluff one's way along, though.

[eunice]

Examples? For instance, can we say that someone who has lack of appreciation in academics, theoretical subjects and even books in general to be weak in Ti? On the other hand, I have an ESFj friend who is very interested in Psychology to the extent that she buys extra college textbooks (no kidding!) to read even though they are not part of the curriculum. She is not particular about grades and she enjoys reading them for the sake of learning new things. Can I consider this an example of a Ti-seeking behavior?

[Slacker]

I love books, and I love reading new things. There's even a stereotype that ENFps are "professional students" because we keep getting interested in new subject after new subject, wanting to learn about them. It is not true that people with Ti PoLRs are not interested in learning or books by a long shot.

It is about internal types of logic. When I see that, and I see it often right here in this forum, it makes my hair stand on end. When people say they KNOW something and it HAS to be true because it is logically obvious, that bugs me. If it's logically obvious, then IMO it's out there somewhere and you can see and touch it, so you shouldn't need to rely on internal logic anyway.

As for schooling, it depends on the subject. I loved learning about history, language, literature, etc. I hated studying about anything math-related. Particularly geometry. This is probably a Ti PoLR thing. I also really hate rules and regulations. I also always have this need to prove that the rule isn't fair/right/the best choice, and that might be a Ti PoLR thing.

[anndelise]

Examples? For instance, can we say that someone who has lack of appreciation in academics, theoretical subjects and even books in general to be weak in Ti? On the other hand, I have an ESFj friend who is very interested in Psychology to the extent that she buys extra college textbooks (no kidding!) to read even though they are not part of the curriculum. She is not particular about grades and she enjoys reading them for the sake of learning new things. Can I consider this an example of a Ti-seeking behavior?

lack of appreciation (for?) academics, theoretical subjects, and even books in general..... sounds a lot like a simplified SF
(simplified meaning not actively pursuing dual-seeking nor hidden agenda)
(however, there are other ways that ds and ha can show themselves...soo...take it for whatever little it's worth)

ti polr manifest in a few ways, some of which are
* having difficulties accepting connections unless perceiving those connections themself
* disliking having to spell out the connections they do see, often preferring instead to let others see it for themselves
* sometimes a pointing of "the connection is there... it's there, why can't you see it???" without the ability to state what exactly it is that they are seeing
* sometimes making seemingly contradictory statements or holding seemingly contradictory beliefs

[krieger]

From what I can tell it means you are extremely critical to the reliability of information sources, and consequently vulnerable to others' expectations towards you to 'make do' with less than perfectly reliable information. It means wanting to have everything spelled out in detail.

Delta NF sets the stage for the 'perfectionist/idealist' quadra atmosphere. Alpha and beta skip steps to an understanding of matters, which basically means 'cheating' the intellectual game for personal benefit or long range considerations. In an intellectual context, Fi is all about rejecting such pragmatic jumps and trying to get at what the subject is about at it's core. Overwhelming as the whole truth is, this attitude mostly brings a sense of disappointment in ones capabilities to make sense of things, which the Te mindless-data-ordering function compliments perfectly. Together they bring about that 'perfection' which Ti/Fe deems to be unattainable. (although likewise Ti/Fe gives a deep personal understanding, which Fi/Te in turn does not believe in in the same particular sense)

From what I've been able to determine, Ti PoLR's exist on both the master and slave levels.

(to understand this better, imagine Ne as pinned between Ti and Fi, capable of progressing in either direction. left is to coding the intuition into a piece of knowledge that helps you inspire Fe based people, but is still unripe for building real 'tools' from, while right is to acknowledging the lacking quantifyable knowledge in the insight, and appealing to the Te-wielding part of society to fill you in on the details)

[Mea]

I'm not sure if what I'll be describing is Ti PoLR or anything important.
But IRL, when I ask a question, I dislike it when people don't explain it in detail, like elaborating or giving examples of what they're saying.
And it frustrates me when people just say, "blablabla, that's it, I don't know how to explain".
I'm sometimes like that, but I don't like it when people do that. It's incomplete and drives me crazy. Even worse if what they're saying sounds like "this is what I think, therefore this is logical".

Having a Ti PoLR = not interested in reading? I think that's very untrue, 'cause I love reading, almost anything that captures my interest for that moment. And if I don't get bored of it quickly enough, I'd stay on it for a long time.
Theories attract me, any new and out of the ordinary. I don't think I have a lack of appreciation of those things.

ti polr manifest in a few ways, some of which are
* having difficulties accepting connections unless perceiving those connections themself
* disliking having to spell out the connections they do see, often preferring instead to let others see it for themselves
* sometimes a pointing of "the connection is there... it's there, why can't you see it???" without the ability to state what exactly it is that they are seeing
* sometimes making seemingly contradictory statements or holding seemingly contradictory beliefs

I think this makes sense.

[KSpin]

I don't know much about the whole PoLR or even what it stands for, but I can say that I definitely don't like being left in the dark over details. Everything must be told to me completely, otherwise I will start speculating as to exactly what it is that they are saying, and I will come up with multiple answers. Therefore I need more detail to narrow the options down to 1.

For example, if someone says "The scissors are in the drawer near the sink..." I'll usually ask which drawer exactly, rather than go rummaging through 4 or 5 drawers looking for it.

[Park]

I don't know much about the whole PoLR or even what it stands for, but I can say that I definitely don't like being left in the dark over details. Everything must be told to me completely, otherwise I will start speculating as to exactly what it is that they are saying, and I will come up with multiple answers. Therefore I need more detail to narrow the options down to 1.

For example, if someone says "The scissors are in the drawer near the sink..." I'll usually ask which drawer exactly, rather than go rummaging through 4 or 5 drawers looking for it.

I am exactly the same way.

[mikemex]

PoLR is actually very easy to understand. It is the conflict between two modes of thinking that one can exercise but that are not compatible between them. Since they are not compatible, no matter which one you use, the other will always contain invalid information.

That's why PoLR hits are so painful: we can understand right away our mistakes, but we are helpless at fixing them because that would cause a mistake in the creative function.

[eunice]

It is about internal types of logic. When I see that, and I see it often right here in this forum, it makes my hair stand on end. When people say they KNOW something and it HAS to be true because it is logically obvious, that bugs me. If it's logically obvious, then IMO it's out there somewhere and you can see and touch it, so you shouldn't need to rely on internal logic anyway.

As for schooling, it depends on the subject. I loved learning about history, language, literature, etc. I hated studying about anything math-related. Particularly geometry. This is probably a Ti PoLR thing. I also really hate rules and regulations. I also always have this need to prove that the rule isn't fair/right/the best choice, and that might be a Ti PoLR thing.

So basically Ti is like having an internal sense of logic and common sense, and taking for granted that something should be easily understood without going into details?

ti polr manifest in a few ways, some of which are
* having difficulties accepting connections unless perceiving those connections themself
* disliking having to spell out the connections they do see, often preferring instead to let others see it for themselves
* sometimes a pointing of "the connection is there... it's there, why can't you see it???" without the ability to state what exactly it is that they are seeing
* sometimes making seemingly contradictory statements or holding seemingly contradictory beliefs

I have never thought that there would be others who would be bothered by such issues. If those with Ti PoLR hadn't told me how they felt, I wouldn't have noticed it. I posted blog entries of my ENFj friend a while back, and I was surprised that it got negative reactions, presumably due to strong -seeking. I was like reading his entries again thinking, "what had he written to get such a strong reaction?"

[FDG]

An example of a Ti polr hit I involuntarily gave to an ENFp friend lately.

We were discussing about holidays.

He said about 3 minutes apart the following sentences:

"Rimini is mundane"
"Jesolo is like Rimini"
"Jesolo is only for families"

And I told him "You said Jesolo is like Rimini and Rimini is mundane and Jesolo is for families, but cities that are for families are not mundane, so there is a logical contradiction here"

[anndelise]

An example of a Ti polr hit I involuntarily gave to an ENFp friend lately.

We were discussing about holidays.

He said about 3 minutes apart the following sentences:

"Rimini is mundane"
"Jesolo is like Rimini"
"Jesolo is only for families"

And I told him "You said Jesolo is like Rimini and Rimini is mundane and Jesolo is for families, but cities that are for families are not mundane, so there is a logical contradiction here"

now see, i might have noticed that in someone else (not necessarily in myself!!)

i might have said something like "so you think Rimni is only for families?" or "so you think mundane is only for families?"
or made some kind of narrative for/against Rimni being for families or something for/against munande being for families
these questions/stories would come seemingly out of the blue to the other person...
but for the life of me, i would not have been able to actually state it in one sentence
(or if i did finally get around to stating those connections, it would only have been after trying some...more roundabout, less direct..approach...like the questions/narratives above) (not intentionally being roundabout on it...just that it takes a lot of time/energy to figure out how to be more direct about it...and being EP my first thoughts are likely to pop out)

[Joy]

I said this about SEE's in another thread:

They also use me as a resource for information. If there's something they want to know about, they ask me because they know that even if I don't know anything about it, I'll dig up a bunch of information, sort through it and find what's useful and most likely accurate, and then organize it for them in a manner which makes sense to them.

I'm generally good at finding and sorting through a bunch of information from various sources, getting a feel for the subject/concept, which sources are most reliable, and which information makes the most sense. I find that SEE's (and a couple of people who are either SEE or IEE) tend to ask me to do this for them more than any other type. I find out what they're trying to accomplish with the information, then find whatever information would be useful to them. If I give them a lot of information, I generally summarize the information and give them an example or analogy.

Is this how ILI's fulfill their hidden agenda while covering for their PoLR?

[Joy]

Actually, the more I think about this, the less applicable to ISTp/ENFp duality I realize it is.

[Logos]

How would this necessarily be different from an IxTj being asked?

[Joy]

The way the information is presented.

[Ms. Kensington]

Im not sure if a summary or example is a distinguishing factor between how Ti and Te leading types give information, but I do know that an SEE wants reliable information on call. I also notice that if my ENTj dad gives my ESFp sister information she'll get annoyed. It has to be that the giver of information is at her beck and call; I could see an INTp fitting that description more than an ENTj.

[liveandletlive]

I said this about SEE's in another thread:

They also use me as a resource for information. If there's something they want to know about, they ask me because they know that even if I don't know anything about it, I'll dig up a bunch of information, sort through it and find what's useful and most likely accurate, and then organize it for them in a manner which makes sense to them.

I'm generally good at finding and sorting through a bunch of information from various sources, getting a feel for the subject/concept, which sources are most reliable, and which information makes the most sense. I find that SEE's (and a couple of people who are either SEE or IEE) tend to ask me to do this for them more than any other type. I find out what they're trying to accomplish with the information, then find whatever information would be useful to them. If I give them a lot of information, I generally summarize the information and give them an example or analogy.

Is this how ILI's fulfill their hidden agenda while covering for their PoLR?

My boss is ENTj and she is amazing at explaining stuff... it's truly a talent, i think.

Ya know, I'm glad you brought this up because a lot of the i've seen is not sufficient enough for me. this is not the case with the ILIs on the forum.

[Raver]

I feel like I need to know more about this. I'm sure I do it enough times and hardly notice it. I find Ti PoLR in my case usually means saying something that I feel to be right and may even be correct, but logically makes little sense or has little backing. It's kind of annoying too because sometimes I feel it's an interesting idea or point, but because of my Ti PoLR I cannot explain it sufficiently in concrete terms so it is immediately discredited. At least that's how Ti PoLR appears from my point of view. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

[Words]

I don't know if it is as easy as that, PoLRs vary in strength, life experiences and such.

ESFps I've known have no structure to their work environment, esp as supervisors (in the non socionic sense). I want to give them structure (probably socionic related).

ENFps have wild ideas that change without a structure.

Males tend to be more logical and either want to or want help to create a system that works.

Good people skills, which also are important.

[Marie84]

I feel like I need to know more about this. I'm sure I do it enough times and hardly notice it. I find Ti PoLR in my case usually means saying something that I feel to be right and may even be correct, but logically makes little sense or has little backing. It's kind of annoying too because sometimes I feel it's an interesting idea or point, but because of my Ti PoLR I cannot explain it sufficiently in concrete terms so it is immediately discredited. At least that's how Ti PoLR appears from my point of view. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

Yeah pretty much, I think Ti PoLR's are very reluctant to speak and act in absolutes about things without sufficient sources to verify their points, and even than there's a feeling of reluctance towards classification as it counteracts with their more chaotic way of thinking (and in SEE's case, living).
They're, along with Fi bases to a point, extremely bothered when someone nit-picks at their illogical "errors" and "flaws", especially about things they regard as lacking significance to what they might be trying to accomplish.

[silverchris9]

They tend to regard arguments that are not based firmly in concrete reality with suspicion, I think. And they hate it when you cut up their arguments. They think it's cheating or something. I think they tend to ask "how do you know that" a lot.

They don't like absolutes, yeah, or at least, it's an explicit/implicit thing. They don't like explicit absolutes. Implicit absolutes are less absolute-y. They follow a rule, but the rule, being implicit, looks more like it conforms to each situation individually, when in reality it is internally consistent, just on a micro-level; it follows rules invisible to the naked eye.

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

Ti likes straight lines, and mature Ti-valuers will accept a line with a few slope changes as necessary. But Fi-valuers hate straight lines. They like curves.

What else about Ti-polr? They have trouble with theoretical entities where you have to think about it as a series of lines that change their slope. They don't like sets of rules (If x, y or z? z. If z, a or b? b) used to organize information.

Ever seen those charts where it has a set of outcomes at the bottom, and a series of boxes and each box has a choice where you can go like left or right, and the various choices lead you to different boxes? I'm not making sense, but they're hard to describe. Anyway, Ti is like those things, very binary thinking, very clean, very explicit. And Ti-polrs can't stand it, and can't stand systems that are organized that way.

Also, they probably can't stand this post? Why? Because it was built using top-down thinking. It was made using lines of reasoning like "Since Ti has characteristic X, it will manifest in thought pattern Y. Since Ti-polrs don't like Ti, they will dislike thought pattern Y." That's a poor example. But throughout this post, I reached all of my conclusions not by generalizing from my experience, but by taking general principles and working out where their conclusions "must" lead. Ti-polrs don't like that kind of thinking.




EDIT:
@Marie,

Deep. Ti wants coherence of the total system; each piece, "significant" or not, needs to fit with the whole, especially since Fe considers every aspect of communication, even the subtle and implicit ones, as part of the communication (good fit between Ti and Fe there). But Fi doesn't require coherence of the total system, and it naturally weights things with different significance or weight, which is a good fit with Te, which, as it appears, prefers to have thing in discrete sections (which can therefore obviously have unequal weight). This is also a good example of two ways of thinking (Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi), both of which completely make sense and are justified, but which are mutually exclusive.


Also, Ti = "as it appears" for that which has been experienced by not "justified" through deduction. Te = "theoretically" for that which has not been "proven" by experience.

Ti is a highly idealistic function, by the way. (Which is part of why Alpha Ti includes Ni id.) Just read Plato for a good example of Ti over Te: what we experience is totally irrelevant (devaluing Te and Se) 'cause it's constantly changing. What's important is unchanging knowledge arrived at via deduction. It's about what you can trust.

Ti = straight lines; Fi = curves; Te = arrows; Fe = hints (or, in someone else's metaphor--I can't remember who--either you highlight the path or you highlight everything around it. Either way you see the path; either way you see the things around it, but it's about what you focus on, what's positive; what's negative).

[Galen]

They don't like absolutes, yeah, or at least, it's an explicit/implicit thing. They don't like explicit absolutes. Implicit absolutes are less absolute-y. They follow a rule, but the rule, being implicit, looks more like it conforms to each situation individually, when in reality it is internally consistent, just on a micro-level; it follows rules invisible to the naked eye.

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

Ti likes straight lines, and mature Ti-valuers will accept a line with a few slope changes as necessary. But Fi-valuers hate straight lines. They like curves.

I thought about this a lot last night, and I kinda came to conclude that not only does Fi not have lines like Ti does, but Fi doesn't even have a shape of its own. As an internal IE, the form of an Fi structure can't be explicitly known, but it can be hinted at depending on the information it's dealing with. In a strictly literal sense, the only thing absolute about Fi is impossible to know because its shape is constantly determined by the data it's taking in.


(Massive Ne/Si dump coming up, sorry in advance)

Say we have a rubber band. For the sake of comparison, let's say that this rubber band has no true shape of its own. Sure it has a couple specifics to it, like the material or whatever, but it's such a malleable entity that you can't really say that it's of one specific shape. If you lay this rubber band on a table, then you take a finger or a foreign object and push the rubber band on one side, you change its current shape. You can pull it, twist it, tie it in a knot, and its curves will be different depending on each physical iteration. But the rubber band doesn't change at its core every time something new is introduced, since the material doesn't inherently change.

I've come to see Fi as something akin to this rubber band in that it has no shape other than the shapes that everything else makes of it. Depending on what external phenomenon/data are present in the Fi mindset, the "shape" that the framework takes changes to fit the existence of the new points. This is what seems so inconsistent about Fi to Ti valuers because it's a malleable system that can't be directly looked at, which means it has no measurable consistency other than to the individual who experiences it.

This is the kind of "squishiness" that I associate with internal IEs in general. Ne/Ni/Fe/Fi data/structures don't really have shapes of their own, and they can only be determined by the external data/structures that they deal with.

If we think about Fe information as having the same sort of "squishiness," then it makes sense that Fe datum can be fitted into external, lined-out Ti frameworks depending on how malleable each datum really is. It seems to me that points of data for Fe/Ti valuers have no inherent shape to them, kinda like a chunk of Silly Putty that can be shaped around at a whim. Since a lot of (all?) Fe data as it exists by itself without an extrinsic classification doesn't have a strict form, it can be shaped and molded (within its perceived limits) to fit the external classification system of one's own choosing.

In a sense, Ti gives staticness to Fe by fixing it with a form, and Te gives dynamics to Fi by constantly changing its form. I haven't thought more about this point, something I just came up with and like the sound of it. May expand on it later.



I would love to hear from other people what they think of this analogy/description.

[Skeptic]

...

Ti = a president Te = a TV Fi = an apple Fe = an apricot

I like this game, I think the way you use words that only have personal metaphoric meaning is really cool

[silverchris9]

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

This seems like it explains the "Fi is a bitch" thing I get from Alphas/Betas.

Indeed.

It's because we can't process your curves as anything but really fucked-up lines. It's not that curves are bad. It's just that they're not lines, fucked-up or not. So trying to understand them as lines will just result in misunderstanding and frustration.

The analogy works for this purpose. I'd say I feel the line is leaving out some information.

I'm sure. Lines are not very curvy, and if the line doesn't fit you because you've got curves, the line doesn't give a shit, which leaves you uncomfortable and constricted. On the other hand, if you've got a humongous hunk of dough, it's a lot easier to stamp it all out into equally sized linear figures (squares), and if you miss some because you didn't have a complicated enough shape, well... oh well!

It must be frustrating when the lines won't admit that they can't fit life's curves. I don't understand how Ti works with Ni.

[Gilly]

Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

If Info Were Gluttony

= A buffet line. (More food than you need, but quick and easy to pick and choose what you want.)

= A full-course dinner. (Exactly the food you need, but you've gotta sit through the whole thing.)

IMO this is a really good metaphor for extroversion vs introversion in general.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Chris: I'm not sure that Te is an 'arrow' exactly. It just probably feels that way to you cause you have Te polr. =p

But I liked most of what you said in your post.

[force my hand]

Not sure if this post has much use, but I suspect one of my thesis advisors was Ti POLR; it was often difficult to have a satisfying meeting with him.

For example, he seemed to have a fundamental distrust for classification schemes. I had a suite of igneous rocks that I wanted to correlate with a broader (aerially) assemblage on the basis of petrology; that is, the type of rock (i.e. tonalite, granite, granodiorite, etc.). It's a pretty straight-forward task, but it relies on making an accurate determination of what the rocks actually are. For that, you plot the normalized proportions of three end-members - quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase - on a ternary diagram, and the sample will fall into one field or another.

Complications arise when metamorphism or alteration changes the chemical composition of the minerals. Alkali feldspar and plagioclase are end members, but form a solid solution series - so removing calcium and adding sodium or potassium can change your tonalite into a granodiorite, which is a problem if you are doing correlations. Additionally, each rock type has a different origin, so you want to make sure you're effecting the classification scheme to its full potential.

When I brought this problem to my advisor, his response was, "it doesn't matter!" What do you mean it doesn't matter? He refused to acknowledge there was any point in distinguishing between one type from another, and when pressed about it, couldn't explain why it was important to make any distinctions at all. It almost seemed like he wanted to rewrite the entire philosophy behind the practice of classification itself. He did not want to face the particulars of where hard data, arbitrary distinctions, and simplified approximations collided.

When I went to my other advisor, he saw right away what my problem was, and gave me a plan of attack in less than two minutes, no fuss, no muss (which was determine the protolith through metamorphic grade, relict textures, and geochemistry). Not even a mention regarding the classification scheme.

[Trevor]

I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.

[Words]

I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.

Well this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?