PoLR vs. Role functions

[SlavaPHP]

Why is polr weaker than role function. .. both are in the super ego...

[Amber]

because it goes in the direction opposite to your base in terms of rationality/irrationality and extro/introversion, unlike the role.

[SlavaPHP]

Why would a producing function be weaker than an accepting function in the super ego block

[Kpz]

Why would a producing function be weaker than an accepting function in the super ego block

3th a stable because of accept function. 4th is faster because of producting but can't maintain itself long time.

[Pookie]

Why would a producing function be weaker than an accepting function in the super ego block

When any skill is used, you become better at it. Experience points and practice makes perfect, that stuff.

Ok, so Super Ego is the block where we don't like to use the elements in it. Polr is produced and Role is accepted. It's logical that One will use their Polr Less than their Role, because Polr expends the energy outwards, whereas Role just has to listen to someone else. It can be used with less mental energy, just like The Base can be used more than the Creative, it requires less energy to do something that is in your natural temperament.

Now, there's exceptions to any rule, and the more we classify and break down these concepts the less applicable they become to reality. But even though i feel my PolR is stronger than my Role personally, i believe that it makes sense(within the system and common sense) That PolR is typically less exercised than Role.

[SlavaPHP]

When any skill is used, you become better at it. Experience points and practice makes perfect, that stuff.

Ok, so Super Ego is the block where we don't like to use the elements in it. Polr is produced and Role is accepted. It's logical that One will use their Polr Less than their Role, because Polr expends the energy outwards, whereas Role just has to listen to someone else. It can be used with less mental energy, just like The Base can be used more than the Creative, it requires less energy to do something that is in your natural temperament.

Now, there's exceptions to any rule, and the more we classify and break down these concepts the less applicable they become to reality. But even though i feel my PolR is stronger than my Role personally, i believe that it makes sense(within the system and common sense) That PolR is typically less exercised than Role.

It seems like super ego functions work together like how creative function draws from the base function

[The Ineffable]

3th a stable because of accept function. 4th is faster because of producting but can't maintain itself long time.

I agree in a way with this time-based metaphor, just that the info conflict occures right "when" the creative function acts, so to speak.

I would explain it this way:

The Base is one's world view, the Creative is its bricks. The Creative information is taken for granted, for a fact so to speak, there is not room for negation.

As a reminder, never forget that in Socionics, Base X function is at the same time Role Y function, the two Information Elementss (of the two functions) being opposite. Same with Creative and PoLR. For instance, Ti-Creative is the same thing as Fi-PoLR, there is no such thing as Ti-Creative "and" Fi-PoLR. Avoid the trap of reifying the IEs as pieces nested in the psyche separately.

The type of information (IE) the Creative function is set on is painful and immediately rejected because it threatens, contradicts the core elements of one's world view. And this only happens when it comes in the Base form from the other (Conflictor, Supervisor).

Let us put an alegory up: the existence of a soul in things, as a dichotomy (analogous to such a contrary IE pair).
1. Me: things have souls (Base). The other: things don't have a soul (Base). This is my Base VS the other's Role, the Role is one's alternative, backup view. Relationships with: Look-Alike, Super-Ego (their Base).
2. Me: some things have a soul (Creative). The other: there are things that don't have a soul (Creative). My Creative VS their Creative. Interation: fine, so what? Relationships with: Kindred, Super-Ego (their Creative).
3. Me: things have souls (Base). The other: there are things that don't have a soul (Creative). My Base VS one's Creative. I don't care I think things have souls. Relationships with: Supervisee, Conflictor (their Creative).
4. Me: some things have a soul (Creative). The other: things don't have a soul (Base). My Creative VS one's Base. Now I have a problem with them: this guy is a dogmatic dumb obtuse motherfucker who just insists in his extreme world view with any occasion. If there were no souls then the notion of the soul itself wouldn't exist in the first place! But this is what I am dealing with daily, and fine, he is taking a different (say scientific) approach, but I am interested in others' souls, subjective as they are, so this guy is zero to me. Relationships with: Supervisor, Conflictor (their Base)

[SlavaPHP]

I agree in a way with this time-based metaphor, just that the info conflict occures right "when" the creative function acts, so to speak.

I would explain it this way:

The Base is one's world view, the Creative is its bricks. The Creative information is taken for granted, for a fact so to speak, there is not room for negation.

As a reminder, never forget that in Socionics, Base X function is at the same time Role Y function, the two Information Elementss (of the two functions) being opposite. Same with Creative and PoLR. For instance, Ti-Creative is the same thing as Fi-PoLR, there is no such thing as Ti-Creative "and" Fi-PoLR. Avoid the trap of reifying the IEs as pieces nested in the psyche separately.

The type of information (IE) the Creative function is set on is painful and immediately rejected because it threatens, contradicts the core elements of one's world view. And this only happens when it comes in the Base form from the other (Conflictor, Supervisor).

Let us put an alegory up: the existence of a soul in things, as a dichotomy (analogous to such a contrary IE pair).
1. Me: things have souls (Base). The other: things don't have a soul (Base). This is my Base VS the other's Role, the Role is one's alternative, backup view. Relationships with: Look-Alike, Super-Ego (their Base).
2. Me: some things have a soul (Creative). The other: there are things that don't have a soul (Creative). My Creative VS their Creative. Interation: fine, so what? Relationships with: Kindred, Super-Ego (their Creative).
3. Me: things have souls (Base). The other: there are things that don't have a soul (Creative). My Base VS one's Creative. I don't care I think things have souls. Relationships with: Supervisee, Conflictor (their Creative).
4. Me: some things have a soul (Creative). The other: things don't have a soul (Base). My Creative VS one's Base. Now I have a problem with them: this guy is a dogmatic dumb obtuse motherfucker who just insists in his extreme world view with any occasion. If there were no souls then the notion of the soul itself wouldn't exist in the first place! But this is what I am dealing with daily, and fine, he is taking a different (say scientific) approach, but I am interested in others' souls, subjective as they are, so this guy is zero to me. Relationships with: Supervisor, Conflictor (their Base)

I think every function is based on the same mechanism but in a different information space context....

Take cause and effect logic for example.....

A implies B implies C ... after thinking you realize that A implies C

Now take evaluation...

A is less than B is less than C ... after evaluating you find that A is less than C

We can't do both at the same time, therefor we "specialize", and feed each other the results


Having strong cause and effect logic will make you suck at greater and less than problems... both are just as valuable, which is how weak functions manifest ... lack of caring/ability to do what you don't specialize in.

[The Ineffable]

I think every function is based on the same mechanism but in a different information space context....

Take cause and effect logic for example.....

A implies B implies C ... after thinking you realize that A implies C

Now take evaluation...

A is less than B is less than C ... after evaluating you find that A is less than C

We can't do both at the same time, therefor we "specialize", and feed each other the results


Having strong cause and effect logic will make you suck at greater and less than problems... both are just as valuable, which is how weak functions manifest ... lack of caring/ability to do what you don't specialize in.

I disagree, but you might try to find out (and let us know) that under the hood there is the same mechanism in all. It would be awesome.

The Information Elements/Aspects are actually obtained through three dichotomies, while these dichotomies use two partitions. This way one could say that they do use the same mechanism, but this is what makes them expressing in different areas of cognition - the eight should cover the cognitive roots of everything, at least to our species.

FTR, I think you talk about the Information Elements (Te, Ti, etc) there, not functions (Base, Creative), since "we can't do both at the same time", which is correct and this is what I am doing as well.

So, what you have noticed is something actually occurring, just it can't be generalized to all the functions. You are pretty much describing the Dynamic/Static [1] dichotomy. Yes, the Static IEs will "fill" one ring of functions of one type, one "half" of the psyche, while the others, the Dynamic functions, will fill the other. So when a Psyche is conscious (the Mental ring) on one category of IEs, like Static, the the others will necessarily be subconscious [2] (the Vital ring).

Just otherwise we can't generalize. In some cases, the relationship between two IEs is more like between the semantic relationship between the subject and the predicate of a sentence. It is not even applicable to say whether they are doing the same thing or not.
---

[1] - Dynamic IEs: Te, Fe, Si, Ni; Static IEs: Ti, Fi, Se, Ne
[2] - I prefer using "subconscious" rather than the usual "unconscious" because it is to my understanding more appropriate. There is awareness on the Dynamic aspects even when the focus is Static, the Vital aspects are not sunk down there somewhere.

[SlavaPHP]

extraverted intuition = internal statics of objects
extraverted sensing = external statics of objects
extraverted logic = external dynamics of objects
extraverted ethics = internal dynamics of objects
introverted intuition = internal dynamics of fields
introverted sensing = external dynamics of fields
introverted logic = external statics of fields
introverted ethics = internal statics of fields

http://socionics.us/theory/information.shtml

The math type comes down to socionics domain theory, but all domains specialize in one of the above information spaces per function....

[blackburry]

I use Ne for evil ~~~~~~~ hence.. Its my polr.

(Actually I worry a lot and...yeah).

[ConcreteButterfly]

Polr is producing, role is accepting. Polr doesn't have an "agenda" on its own it only works via the priorities of the role, and if the role lacks priorities, which it often does due to it being an alternative to the base, the polr is basically switched off. And it is limited in range by what information has been accumulated via the role. Generally the strength of the base sets the bar for the rest of the accepting functions, and the creative, the rest of the producing.
Also superego as a whole needs energy of the same kind from the environment to be continually expressed, unlike the kinetic ego block. Ideally this would come from the ID block of your dual. Lacking this support, polr output is short lived and volatile, if expressed at all.
There's another thing to consider: when the polr is expressed it does so only after the creative, meaning the two have to work in tandem. If there are changes in the creative it will mean instability in the polr. For example the ILI will only express emotions once satisfied that to do so is logical, according to the facts (Te creative, Fe polr). If new facts are brought to light, the ILI may appear emotionally inert, or at the other extreme, become emotionally explosive, damaging his relationships.
The 1D character of the polr means it only has personal experience to go by, so if a person accumulates a lot of negative experiences on their polr, they usually will become fearful about expressing it again, causing it to stay weak. But fortunately the demonstrative balances this out, it keeps on picking up information subconsciously that relates to polr and gives a person the incentive to try again.

[Olly From Wally World]

Basically what Agni said.

It's easier to be conscious with the role's issues and try to correct them because it plays the same role as your base even if diametrically opposite in its focus (S vs N, T vs F). If your base is introverted perception, your role is also introverted perception. So as an introverted perceiver who's base, dealing with is easier than it is with since it's also an introverted and perceiving function even if it's unvalued while is my unvalued extroverted and judging function.

What I share in common with SEIs is my Ip temperament and, even though an extroverted judging function may assist me, Exxj is opposite of Ixxp. That's probably why we get along better with Exxps (which our duals are) and can find Exxj's too demanding, bossy and fussy whereas Jung says that Exxjs may see us Ixxps as 'the most useless of men' since we may look too relaxed and lazy while they often feel depressed if they're not doing something or constantly active. We look like we're doing nothing since the importance lays within (the fields of imagination/vision or inner sensory storehouse/comfort). So having a base that is perception of the same orientation as my role makes it easier to deal with my role than it is to deal with my polr since that is opposite (extraverted and judgment). It's the weakest since three other functions come before it in consciousness, hence a stronger insecurity dealing with matters pertaining it than with my role.

[silverchris9]

Hmm. Yeah, lots of cool thoughts about Polr/Role but to answer the OP, I would also point to the producing/accepting dichotomy insofar as we are more likely to be criticized and feel shame and other negative feelings relative to a producing function rather than an accepting one. By contrast, to criticize our accepting functions is more to criticize "how we are" since the accepting functions should have more to do with how we process information in the first place, rather than the actions we select in response. The role, then; receives relatively little criticism because it is, as it says on the tin, a role, a way of thinking we take up occasionally but do not live in; accordingly, people are relatively unlikely to "see" the role function as frequently and clearly as the polr.

I'd also point to the temperament issue. If you're an ExxJ, and you're constantly doing and acting and changing an deciding, when someone tells you to focus on your polr, they're telling you to slow down and relax and take your internal temperature and everything that is totally foreign to your usual way of being. Or if you're EP and you're in constant, frictionless motion, running from thing to thing to thing and then someone says no, stop, analyze what you're doing, reflect critically on it, you're like... but I wanted to keep moving! I like moving! I miss moving! I don't want to sit around and think about what I've done, I want to keep doing. So you're kind of acting too far outside of your natural state. It's not a comfortable stretch as it is moving from base to suggestive, or even base to role. And on top of that, you already *have* a way of checking in with yourself and your internal world as an EJ, or making instantaneous decisions about the outside world if you're an IP, and it's called your creative function. And, bonus, you're so good at your creative function you don't even really have to stop what you were doing to use it. Not so with this dumb polr function.

It's like you have a round hole, and you mostly have square pegs, in fact you have a big stack of them, and first you're like, argh, this would be so much easier if I could use my abundance of square pegs... but whatever I have some round pegs I have relatively easy access to... So you go over to your slightly smaller but still substantial pile of round pegs, try one... and then those round pegs don't quite fit. So you spend some time trying to shove the not-quite-fitting round pegs in and when that STILL doesn't work you remember that there are special weirdly-shaped round pegs, and yeah okay, you have like two or three of those lying nearby and you don't see why you HAVE to use them but OK, if I have to... And then you've used up your supply of weird shaped round pegs and there are still like a billion weird shaped round holes left. So you have to go hunting in the toy box for the correct-fitting round peg and you can barely tell it apart from the not-correct-fitting round peg and by the time you get a couple holes filled all you can think is, I hate these stupid weird-shaped round holes. If only I had square holes to begin with, this would have gone 500% faster and I'd still have time for tea afterwards. Harrumph.

[silverchris9]

I suppose in this metaphor the role function is a weird-shaped square peg that you have a surprisingly large secret stash of, but you don't *like* to use them if you don't haaaaaaave to, you know? But when you do, there's usually enough to go around, and on the rare occasion that there isn't, you can probably slip in one of the normal-shaped square pegs and like... they won't reaaaaaaaally be able to tell the difference. I mean it doesn't fit as well but if you really shove it in there, you know, it'll work.