Originally Posted by
Nyx
Because it involves the PoLR; if you put work into building a functional demonstrative, it implies working on PoLR problems as well. It just does. The functions are philosophical duals. It's like knowing good because you know what's bad. Knowing good without knowing bad doesn't make any epistemological sense. It's the same way with Fi and Te and all the function pairs; to know one implies other.
I mean you want an example, okay, but there's going to be many ways it manifests. Poorly developed functions are more reactive, while developed act more than react. Reactive creates PoLR problems, but it also creates suggestive problems. They are pretty similar in a way, I guess. I mean Fi demonstrative can range from outbursts of what a person thinks is right or wrong or metaphorically telling someone to back off (making things worse or not) to knowing how to set boundaries successfully, while also thinking about other people and how things can get done to help those people as well. Fi is kind of useless if there's no way to do anything about it.
I don't know, I'm sure that's not what you want to hear, but I don't like coming up with basic descriptions for things. I see the functions, the types, etc. as an architecture for seeing how a person is developing.