How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[chemical]

@Reficulris: I think it's pretty typical at the higher levels of maturity to find the divergences of type to look more subtle than about an inability from the standpoint of cognition to see what might motivate the other's perspective. It's rather that one knows internally that, when that other perspective's subset of valid demands relevant to oneself is addressed well, typically one can address it from one's own perspective (the ego), making appropriate forays into the role/polr to close the gaps. When one is essentially forced to engage with hard problems in the polr's perspective, usually it's experienced as something of a brick wall, where one can certainly see (if mature) why such demands might be made, but where there's a strong sense that the very reason one is feeling compelled to think from the polr's perspective is having hit a brick wall of sorts at addressing the situation with the ego's perspective. One recognizes that if the situation is to be resolved, one would probably have to address significant higher-dimensional concerns of the polr, but instinctively know if you're at this point (especially as a mature instance of your type), it's probably a sign the situation is somewhat unreasonable.

[maniac]

A lot of these comments are just examples of people being 'stupid' and does not have to do with the core of Ti.
The key word is rules. xEEs hate when they have to stick to rules because they see no point in them.

[MisterNi]

A lot of these comments are just examples of people being 'stupid' and does not have to do with the core of Ti.
The key word is rules. xEEs hate when they have to stick to rules because they see no point in them.

True.

[MisterNi]

@Reficulris: I think it's pretty typical at the higher levels of maturity to find the divergences of type to look more subtle than about an inability from the standpoint of cognition to see what might motivate the other's perspective. It's rather that one knows internally that, when that other perspective's subset of valid demands relevant to oneself is addressed well, typically one can address it from one's own perspective (the ego), making appropriate forays into the role/polr to close the gaps. When one is essentially forced to engage with hard problems in the polr's perspective, usually it's experienced as something of a brick wall, where one can certainly see (if mature) why such demands might be made, but where there's a strong sense that the very reason one is feeling compelled to think from the polr's perspective is having hit a brick wall of sorts at addressing the situation with the ego's perspective. One recognizes that if the situation is to be resolved, one would probably have to address significant higher-dimensional concerns of the polr, but instinctively know if you're at this point (especially as a mature instance of your type), it's probably a sign the situation is somewhat unreasonable.

Yes, I agree. Very true.

[squark]

I'm often guilty of doing that and I am a possible LII. I don't want to omit anything that could potentially be useful and potentially be valuable information towards ones understanding of something. I do try to logically organize that information in some way.

That sounds Ne related rather than Ti related perhaps.

I am guilty of the opposite. I leave out a lot of information assuming that it's understood, and then end up having to backtrack to spell everything out when I didn't communicate well.

The main thing is a general lack of organization in their thinking process and/or life.

This is the most accurate representation of Ti polr from my perspective. It doesn't look the same in one person to the next, but this seems to be the root of all of it. In one person it means that they will collect or go through huge volumes of information in order to sort something out, and their explanations are meandering. In another they will miss obvious contradictions. To me, it just seems like they have trouble following the connections between one thing and the next and seeing how they are related. That's why some of them can say one thing, and follow it up with something that completely negates what they just said, and not be aware of what they just did. Or why sometimes they won't see how a single word can change an entire concept, because the connections aren't there.

Since Ti is the external statics of fields (the concrete connections between ideas) it makes sense that Ti polr would have problems in this area. Those with Ti polr are instead relying on Fi which is not concrete, but is subjective and conditional, which means they don't have a solid structure or framework, and so have to take the long way around in sorting out thoughts and ideas.

[MisterNi]

When asked to prove your conceptual points using formal logic. That would set any Ti-PoLR off.

[Beautiful sky]

Duality is a strange thing from the pov of polr. Even though I can be a bit willful and get stuff done like do choirs because I like a clear environment I am met with my dual who keeps me away from expansions of energy because knowing what needs to be done he often finds some tasks unnecessary. I like this because he creates Si "relaxing time" which I love and appreciate. So polr is a function in the conscious block and the person can do it but would rather be told not to as it distracts them from their purpose and the polr is not a natural place to be. And thus I don't mind being ordered, demanded, told, not to do something making me obay authority with pleasure

That sounds Ne related rather than Ti related perhaps.

I am guilty of the opposite. I leave out a lot of information assuming that it's understood, and then end up having to backtrack to spell everything out when I didn't communicate well.



This is the most accurate representation of Ti polr from my perspective. It doesn't look the same in one person to the next, but this seems to be the root of all of it. In one person it means that they will collect or go through huge volumes of information in order to sort something out, and their explanations are meandering. In another they will miss obvious contradictions. To me, it just seems like they have trouble following the connections between one thing and the next and seeing how they are related. That's why some of them can say one thing, and follow it up with something that completely negates what they just said, and not be aware of what they just did. Or why sometimes they won't see how a single word can change an entire concept, because the connections aren't there.

Since Ti is the external statics of fields (the concrete connections between ideas) it makes sense that Ti polr would have problems in this area. Those with Ti polr are instead relying on Fi which is not concrete, but is subjective and conditional, which means they don't have a solid structure or framework, and so have to take the long way around in sorting out thoughts and ideas.

I'm going to be EIE in my next life time

[MisterNi]

In my line of work I need to engage my -PoLR quite often to the point where using isn't painful. What is painful though is when needing to conform to a bunch of based rules that are very biased toward Alphas. I can eek by with Betas but I'm most comfortable working exclusively with Deltas of any type. True story.

[MisterNi]

LII: Teach me how to Parkour, I will pay you even!
SEE: No, you suck at it. I'm not interested in your money.
LII: Please teach me, see? I have all these wonderful Euros and Pounds and German Marks to prove to you that I can afford for you to teach me Parkour!!!
SEE: I'm going to enjoy murdering you one day.
LII: Make it quick and painless; now teach me how to Parkour!

Me: Am I hearing this right?

[MisterNi]

Talking to my physics tutor about philosophy and life.

LII: So what does life really mean to you?
IEE: Well... I don't really have a philosophy on life; I kind of just live knowing I'll grow older, have a family watch my kids grow up then die of old age.
LII: So you're an existentialist?
IEE: Sort of... I don't really like making myself conform to one ideal on life. Seems kind of stifling, you know?
LII: Yes, yes I know what you mean; but some of us need order and not chaos in our lives.
IEE: I understand; however what you consider to be chaos I consider to be the natural way of life. How humans like us have always lived.
LII: I see... yes, I understand.
IEE: Yeah, since the dawn of time.

[consentingadult]

An example of how an IEE might try to prove an LII wrong by using a Ne/Te reasoning, failing to disprove the Ti POV of the LII:

LII: the new law on the restrictions for entering university conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights
IEE: How do you know that?
LII: article 25.2 of the convention says so
IEE (after looking up article 25.2): how do you know that this article applies to the new law?
LII: It's pretty obvious, isn't no? the article states it clearly.
IEE: What about jurisprudence? You are sure the European Court on Human Rights are going to take the Convention literally without interpreting it, taking a stand on the if the article is applicable to the new law? That they are not going to decide other laws or treaties will take precedence?
LII: but article 25.2 clear states... and thus is applicable.
IEE: I hope you never have to go to court for anything, because you do do know the law alright, but you haven't the faintest clue about how the legal system works.
LII: I think article 25.2 is pretty clear about the matter. If someone takes the new law to the European Court, they will surely win the case.
IEE (annoyed about LIIs deafness): have it your way.

[MisterNi]

An example of how an IEE might try to prove an LII wrong by using a Ne/Te reasoning, failing to disprove the Ti POV of the LII:

LII: the new law on the restrictions for entering university conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights
IEE: How do you know that?
LII: article 25.2 of the convention says so
IEE (after looking up article 25.2): how do you know that this article applies to the new law?
LII: It's pretty obvious, isn't no? the article states it clearly.
IEE: What about jurisprudence? You are sure the European Court on Human Rights are going to take the Convention literally without interpreting it, taking a stand on the if the article is applicable to the new law? That they are not going to decide other laws or treaties will take precedence?
LII: but article 25.2 clear states... and thus is applicable.
IEE: I hope you never have to go to court for anything, because you do do know the law alright, but you haven't the faintest clue about how the legal system works.
LII: I think article 25.2 is pretty clear about the matter. If someone takes the new law to the European Court, they will surely win the case.
IEE (annoyed about LIIs deafness): have it your way.

He lost the court case though. You failed to mention that.

[Erk]

An example of how an IEE might try to prove an LII wrong by using a Ne/Te reasoning, failing to disprove the Ti POV of the LII:

LII: the new law on the restrictions for entering university conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights
IEE: How do you know that?
LII: article 25.2 of the convention says so
IEE (after looking up article 25.2): how do you know that this article applies to the new law?
LII: It's pretty obvious, isn't no? the article states it clearly.
IEE: What about jurisprudence? You are sure the European Court on Human Rights are going to take the Convention literally without interpreting it, taking a stand on the if the article is applicable to the new law? That they are not going to decide other laws or treaties will take precedence?
LII: but article 25.2 clear states... and thus is applicable.
IEE: I hope you never have to go to court for anything, because you do do know the law alright, but you haven't the faintest clue about how the legal system works.
LII: I think article 25.2 is pretty clear about the matter. If someone takes the new law to the European Court, they will surely win the case.
IEE (annoyed about LIIs deafness): have it your way.

It might just be me, but I think you got the IEE and the LII switched. The LII should be the one to understand the nuances of the law.

[consentingadult]

It might just be me, but I think you got the IEE and the LII switched. The LII should be the one to understand the nuances of the law.

No, they don't, they are more likely to have a black/white understanding, and especially application, of formal and informal social institutions (i.e. rules, laws, and social norms). Especially if they have no formal knowledge about law or the legal system.

Take for example, Immanuel Kant, LII and the father of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative, extrapolated to a broader meaning than just the ethical and philosophical ones, as a general way of dealing with life, is what is typical of introverted thinkers. Ne-base types, especially the IEE, have a more contextual approach to dealing with things, and as such have a far more situational, contextualist way of dealing with life. In modern western countries, the way the law operates, is more in line with this contextualist approach than with a categorical one.

[Beautiful sky]

ESE: aww my father died goes into hysterical emotional reaction
LSI: calm down, he was a very sick man who was in a lot of pain.

So Fe when reacting blocks out rational thought. Ti restores calming sense.

[Beautiful sky]

IEE don't go into emotional hysterics but they do like and admire how Ti clearly explains things making Ti types attractive to them but not necessary

[anndelise]

This is the most accurate representation of Ti polr from my perspective. It doesn't look the same in one person to the next, but this seems to be the root of all of it. In one person it means that they will collect or go through huge volumes of information in order to sort something out, and their explanations are meandering. In another they will miss obvious contradictions. To me, it just seems like they have trouble following the connections between one thing and the next and seeing how they are related. That's why some of them can say one thing, and follow it up with something that completely negates what they just said, and not be aware of what they just did. Or why sometimes they won't see how a single word can change an entire concept, because the connections aren't there.

Since Ti is the external statics of fields (the concrete connections between ideas) it makes sense that Ti polr would have problems in this area. Those with Ti polr are instead relying on Fi which is not concrete, but is subjective and conditional, which means they don't have a solid structure or framework, and so have to take the long way around in sorting out thoughts and ideas.

I second this.
It seems that, at best, I can try pointing to something. But in the process I start realizing that what I just said could be interpreted a couple of different ways so I try adding some modifications in to try to make it clearer, but then notice that either something else can be interpreted differently or my words seem contradictory, thus requiring yet more attempts to modify my efforts. Meanwhile myself and my 'audience' both get frustrated. I've developed a pretty bad case of social anxiety from this problem. In person, I jump between 'talking too much' (the above problem) or not talking at all (embarrassed and frustrated by the problem). It's just easier to not talk about the things I'm 'currently' interested in or studying.

When I do put more effort into trying to get across the concrete connections between ideas, I do so in a very pedantic manner. Short sentences and spelling out the definition I'm using instead of using a word that has multiple meanings/uses, etc. Yet it's still not "Ti". It's much easier to state the facts or sequence of events, or build up the scenario, or point to someone else's writings, and let the other person make their own inferences/meanings. But they usually come to unintended ones, lol. It also means that I can't argue/debate very well (thankfully I'm not typically interested in that anyways).

[Muddy]

I think this scene might be an good example of Ti polr:

[Sol]

Weak T manifests that people say and do stupid mindless things more than average. Mostly it's because of dominating emotions.
For example, if they don't like some opinion - they will not seek for logical arguments against, they will just refuse or will refuse with stupid arguments. If they need to do something - they will not think how to do it better, they will do how they "feel".
The weaker T - the more of this.
It does not matter much is it Ti in polr of Te, they always are both similarly weak. The difference is in the abbility and interest to follow external recomendations or to copy behavior of other people in region of weak valued function.

[Beautiful sky]

Weak T manifests that people say and do stupid mindless things more than average. Mostly it's because of dominating emotions.
For example, if they don't like some opinion - they will not seek for logical arguments against, they will just refuse or will refuse with stupid arguments. If they need to do something - they will not think how to do it better, they will do how they "feel".
The weaker T - the more of this.
It does not matter much is it Ti in polr of Te, they always are both similarly weak. The difference is in the abbility and interest to follow external recomendations or to copy behavior of other people in region of weak valued function.

Weak T doesn't make anyone inadequate or incapable. It just means we offer information in a different interpretation. For instance, instead of being concise and clear like Ti type, an IEE may offer intuitive insight on something that they've noticed as a pattern

[Chae]

Getting it done > sticking to rules and systematic approaches.

Schedules are hell.

I have a completely erratic lifestyle.

Randomness galore, I can switch or derail topics willingly or without even noticing.

Algebra is like a foreign language to me.

[niffer]

Getting it done > sticking to rules and systematic approaches.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would value a process over getting something done.

Schedules are hell.

I have a completely erratic lifestyle.

I relate

[Chae]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would value a process over getting something done.


I relate

We're both result and Ep types

[niffer]

We're both result and Ep types

Ok but I mean speaking outside of socionics for a sec, like just rationally speaking re: the first thing about getting the job done.

[Chae]

Ok but I mean speaking outside of socionics for a sec, like just rationally speaking re: the first thing about getting the job done.

Some like to focus on the process all while getting it done. I don't care, the end is what counts. That is socionics, aka irrationality. And well, the "right mind" is far from what is really going on in humans. There are more motivations than just succeeding - and this is coming from an E3. The true point of my elaboration though is simply: Te over Ti, and this is all. Oki doki?

[niffer]

There are more motivations than just succeeding - and this is coming from an E3.

Are you serious? : D

The true point of my elaboration though is simply: Te over Ti, and this is all. Oki doki?

Sure obviously, I guess my point was it's unlikely you'll find someone who would put a process over a goal, when the purpose of creating a process/system in the first place is to fulfill some purpose/goal. Usually people would give an answer that's representative of them in their right mind anyway.

[LuckyOne]

Perfect example of PoLR: trying to silence the other when they (even if indirectly and subtly) point out the weakness of their arguments, if they consider the other as being above them in logical terms.

They may try to achieve this through emotional jabs (trying to guilt trip the other for making they feel stupid is a favorite), personal attacks to the person's "reputation" ("That's rich coming from"), pretending the issue never had any real importance anyway (even though they whole behaviour prior to this contradicts the idea) or even by apparently trying to "calm down" the (as seen by them) opponent. This last tactic is particularly baffling for Egos, seen as they were usually never altered to begin with, not to mention the PoLR intentions are transparent.

[niffer]

Perfect example of PoLR: trying to silence the other when they (even if indirectly and subtly) point out the weakness of their arguments, if they consider the other as being above them in logical terms.

They may try to achieve this through emotional jabs (trying to guilt trip the other for making they feel stupid is a favorite), personal attacks to the person's "reputation" ("That's rich coming from"), pretending the issue never had any real importance anyway (even though they whole behaviour prior to this contradicts the idea) or even by apparently trying to "calm down" the (as seen by them) opponent. This last tactic is particularly baffling for Egos, seen as they were usually never altered to begin with, not to mention the PoLR intentions are transparent.

I get this from Te polrs sometimes too, and any type can make use of worthless ad hominems (usually they only seem to be taken as valid and somehow appropriate arguments by Fi valuers though), but yeah generally speaking I see this about 3X as much from xEE types.

You're likely already aware, but this perception of it may be amplified for you (and me) due to Fi polr, is another thing to consider.

[LuckyOne]

I get this from Te polrs sometimes too, and any type can make use of worthless ad hominems (usually they only seem to be taken as valid and somehow appropriate arguments by Fi valuers though), but yeah generally speaking I see this about 3X as much from xEE types.

You're likely already aware, but this perception of it may be amplified for you (and me) due to Fi polr, is another thing to consider.

It always baffles me why somebody would think to include personal comments on things completely unrelated to the subject at hand when counter attacking someone. Same thing when they decide to "defend" someone (as if criticizing or disagreeing is an attack in itself), they always bring up really ridiculous "arguments" like "He/she/they is a really good person!", "They are going through a lot!", "His mom died when he was little!". There's no correlation between what they're saying (irrelevant details about the people involved) and what you've just said, so you're left stunned.

[niffer]

It always baffles me why somebody would think to include personal comments on things completely unrelated to the subject at hand when counter attacking someone. Same thing when they decide to "defend" someone (as if criticizing or disagreeing is an attack in itself), they always bring up really ridiculous "arguments" like "He/she/they is a really good person!", "They are going through a lot!", "His mom died when he was little!". There's no correlation between what they're saying (irrelevant details about the people involved) and what you've just said, so you're left stunned.

I can definitely relate. Most people don't know what a good argument is made up of. Besides that though, in all fairness emotional state and personal matters often do leak into discussions and there's nothing you can do about it except deal with things accordingly. I've learned that it's unfortunately simply not realistic to expect that others will be able to be perfectly objective most of the time, or even half of the time--including yourself from time to time actually, on a primitive level. It took me a long time of focusing on this issue to learn how and where to draw the line between when people are being fair about it, and when they are unwarrantedly ignoring the facts and being excessive. At the end of the day this required me to develop some "Fi" myself (and polr still exists and can be accessed of course--it's just the weakest and least controllable). But I digress.

[LuckyOne]

I can definitely relate. Most people don't know what a good argument is made up of. Besides that though, in all fairness emotional state and personal matters often do leak into discussions and there's nothing you can do about it except deal with things accordingly. I've learned that it's unfortunately simply not realistic to expect that others will be able to be perfectly objective most of the time, or even half of the time--including yourself from time to time actually, on a primitive level. It took me a long time of focusing on this issue to learn how and where to draw the line between when people are being fair about it, and when they are unwarrantedly ignoring the facts and being excessive. At the end of the day this required me to develop some "Fi" myself (and polr still exists and can be accessed of course--it's just the weakest and least controllable). But I digress.

For sure, because I most definitely will refer to "Fi" if it's actually relevant to the point being made, and many times, it's the point itself. Like, I'm always disagreeing with the way people treat others or let themselves be treated, so there's no way to argue aout that without talking about emotions and personal feelings myself.

[niffer]

For sure, because I most definitely will refer to "Fi" if it's actually relevant to the point being made, and many times, it's the point itself. Like, I'm always disagreeing with the way people treat others or let themselves be treated, so there's no way to argue aout that without talking about emotions and personal feelings myself.

Discussing ethics is a great way to develop a handle on it IMO.

[Singu]

They may try to achieve this through emotional jabs (trying to guilt trip the other for making they feel stupid is a favorite), personal attacks to the person's "reputation" ("That's rich coming from"), pretending the issue never had any real importance anyway (even though they whole behaviour prior to this contradicts the idea) or even by apparently trying to "calm down" the (as seen by them) opponent. This last tactic is particularly baffling for Egos, seen as they were usually never altered to begin with, not to mention the PoLR intentions are transparent.

Erm, this isn't really type related, I've seen plenty of ad hominems from Ti egos and virtually any types really.

[niffer]

Erm, this isn't really type related, I've seen plenty of ad hominems from Ti egos and virtually any types really.

You might just experience this less from xEEs because your Ti isn't good enough to set them off in this manner.

[LuckyOne]

Erm, this isn't really type related, I've seen plenty of ad hominems from Ti egos and virtually any types really.

Ad hominems was only one of of several different tactics I said they use, yet you're focusing on it as if hey are the sole reason for my claim lol. Also, you're not Ego, so there's virtually no weight behind your comment, you wouldn't know what it's like anyway.

[Singu]

Ad hominems was only one of of several different tactics I said they use, yet you're focusing on it as if hey are the sole reason for my claim lol. Also, you're not Ego, so there's virtually no weight behind your comment, you wouldn't know what it's like anyway.

Well unfortunately, what you said (not all) were what SLEs are also said to do:

In making a judgment on any subject, Zhukov is not always objective, because, first of all, he is coming from his own, "program" distribution of forces, from his personal interests and goals. Therefore, debating with Zhukov, you should always keep in mind that some of the facts cited by him may not be objective truth, but get voiced to support undeniable recognition of his personal point of view and his belief system. Arguing with Zhukov is often a pointless endeavor. Immediately one can see the bias and speculative nature of his arguments, the tendency towards simplistic conclusions, to resolving problems by method of "yes – no". An impression arises that for him there exists no shades of grey. There are only "black" and "white."

His point of view he will forward and try to prove even against the general public opinion, using all the permitted and not permitted forms of debate: he can raise his voice, use emotional or physical pressuring: in a dispute he is not seeking truth but victory.

When he doesn't have the means of persuading his opponent, he refers to the other participants and observers of the dispute to try to mock and discredit his enemy; he feels the need to triumph in any way possible.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...roverted_logic

And yes, that shit is annoying. Like say, Trump.

Anyway, perhaps LIIs are the least likely to make ad hominem arguments. In my experience.

[niffer]

@Singularity

It's well known that Fi valuing insults and Fi valuing in general tends to focus on people's character traits.

Insanely ironically, you trying to highlight some form of hypocrisy and directing it back at the type of the OP .... is a form of ad hominem attack in itself...

It's ad hominemception.

[LuckyOne]

Well unfortunately, what you said (not all) were what SLEs are also said to do:



http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...roverted_logic

And yes, that shit is annoying. Like say, Trump.

Anyway, perhaps LIIs are the least likely to make ad hominem arguments. In my experience.

I see you had to try twice huh

I wouldn't know, my never failed so much or have I been so desperate as to sink to this level. Never had the displeasure of witnessing a SLE doing it either. I guess I'm lucky

@Singularity

It's well known that Fi valuing insults and Fi valuing in general tends to focus on people's character traits.

Insanely ironically, you trying to highlight some form of hypocrisy and directing it back at the type of the OP .... is a form of ad hominem attack in itself...

It's the epitome of PoLR really, but the existence of it in itself prevents him for realizing it!

[niffer]

@LuckyOne lmao it's a trap

from this exchange you'd think it's Ti that's his polr, but no his Te is even worse. too bad you can only choose one polr.

[Rebelondeck]

I have not read this entire thread so forgive anything repetitive. I find that EXFps don't seem to be able to plan well beyond their latest interests, which can change with every conversation, web page, environment, etc.; they're literally input junkies, which is not a bad thing because they can be superb at ferreting out information. However, they can be challenged with drawing logical conclusions from this data and planning a concrete way ahead to actually produce something tangible. In this world of produce or perish, they can have difficulty finding niches that generate regular income. They're self-motivated but often too omnidirectional so they usually need someone else to steer their ships - to recognize and make use of their insight. They can force themselves to do almost anything but they're usually discontent when tied to an inflexible strategy.....

a.k.a. I/O