PoLRs as social critiques

[The Exception]

I found this interesting article on Personality Cafe about PoLRs.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...critiques.html


How much do you resonate with what it says about your own PoLR?


Here's what it says for Se PoLR:

xII (Se PoLR): Too much force creates unnecessary conflict where there needs to be none. Sometimes being forced to act too soon and too quickly only creates a lot of stress that burns you out instead of allowing you to act within the boundaries of where you feel comfortable; while it is important to be able to sometimes mobilize, it as important to be allowed to rest after mobilization since human energy isn't limitless. What matters is not just the ability to move forward and get where you want to be, but sometimes we also need to take a time-out and sit down and just enjoy life and ourselves. By re-focusing on ourselves, we feel more refreshed and comfortable so we can continue what we were doing and eventually get where we want to be in life. Taking decisive action is important, but not to the point where we are simply mindlessly moving forward and forget about the finer pleasures in life and how such things can infuse us with as much endurance and vitality as constantly moving forward/acquiring things can.


I agree with this exactly!


On the other hand, I least identify with the Si one:

xIE (Si PoLR): Too much focus on comfort and pleasantry makes us stagnant and hinders us in our ability to move forward. Sometimes we must press forward even when it makes us feel uncomfortable and we are outside our own comfort zones. Without force, we cannot mobilize and if we do not mobilize, we cannot act to satisfy our desires. Putting pressure on ourselves and our environment helps us to stay focused and engaged with the present and acquire/accomplish the things we seek out to acquire/accomplish. Satisfaction does not only come from our inner sense of physical comfort, but satisfaction also comes from our ability to gain a sense of material power, position and wealth. Physical comfort and pleasantness is important but not at the expense of being unable to take decisive action in order to push forward and get the things we need in order to accomplish that comfort.


I greatly dislike being forced out of my comfort zone when I am not ready. I also find physical comfort and pleasantness essential to my well-being. If I don't have it, then things are truly not okay and I won't be able to effectively move towards goals.

[ashlesha]

I don't relate to the Ne polr one at all. Hidden motives, interconnectedness, and examining contexts are important to me. There were bits of the Fe and Ni polr descriptions that rang true for me (fear of emotional manipulation, not wanting to wait on an uncertain future).

[Chae]

Ti PoLR was pretty good, especially emphasizing that when the result is the same it doesn't matter how you got there. No long-winded stuff needed unless it's for the exploration of it.

Fe was also nice, I appreciate the sincerity and no bs

Ne and Si PoLR descriptions: oh man Didn't like them just one bit. So I know what I need, at least that's something.

[dot]

xEI (Te PoLR): Too much focus on productivity, efficiency and facts lead to group think instead of people being able to individually develop their own ideas and how things should be like. Instead of thinking for themselves people simply parrot the ideas of others and then we no longer know what truth really is because everyone says the same thing without trying to figure out why they are saying it. How can we assess how things work if all we have are unverified facts? Similarly, adhering to a proper structure is simply not just following the correct methods in order to produce the quickest results; it is equally important to make sure that your thinking is sound and thorough which includes questioning the established order of things and how much sense it makes to you. Without soundness and thoroughness we run the risk of creating various inconsistencies and errors that could be avoided if we simply took the time to follow the logical reasoning to its very end. Efficiency is important but efficiency cannot be produced without a strong sense of hierarchy and structure where every object has its role and function clearly defined within the system.

Very accurate description. I believe that the IEIs role is to indeed question the established system, laws and rules (thus so many of them were leaders of social movements). Rules only exist to make the life of people and society more easy/establish a common ground. If society, its values, its environment, needs and so on change, the rules have to change too. A system has to be flexible and not stagnant in order to keep up with our ever changing world. Also personal 'rules' should be adapted according to situations or exceptional/emergency situations.

[Bertrand]

xEI (Te PoLR): Too much focus on productivity, efficiency and facts lead to group think instead of people being able to individually develop their own ideas and how things should be like. Instead of thinking for themselves people simply parrot the ideas of others and then we no longer know what truth really is because everyone says the same thing without trying to figure out why they are saying it. How can we assess how things work if all we have are unverified facts? Similarly, adhering to a proper structure is simply not just following the correct methods in order to produce the quickest results; it is equally important to make sure that your thinking is sound and thorough which includes questioning the established order of things and how much sense it makes to you. Without soundness and thoroughness we run the risk of creating various inconsistencies and errors that could be avoided if we simply took the time to follow the logical reasoning to its very end. Efficiency is important but efficiency cannot be produced without a strong sense of hierarchy and structure where every object has its role and function clearly defined within the system.

Very accurate description. I believe that the IEIs role is to indeed question the established system, laws and rules (thus so many of them were leaders of social movements). Rules only exist to make the life of people and society more easy/establish a common ground. If society, its values, its environment, needs and so on change, the rules have to change too. A system has to be flexible and not stagnant in order to keep up with our ever changing world. Also personal 'rules' should be adapted according to situations or exceptional/emergency situations.

the weird thing about this is I don't know any Te ego that would deny the truth to any of this. Te is always trying to improve. Its not content with some kind of Kafkaesque bureaucracy everyone seems so afraid of. It competes with itself by constantly iterating and freely acknowledges that as goals change methods should change to suit them--that is efficiency. Understanding how things work creates better methods, so there is always value in understanding things, although it needs to be weighed against the totality of concerns in play, if understanding a thing is useful it will be by definition the proper Te conclusion. this feels like a crazy projection onto Te strawmanning it into how it appears to people who don't fully understand it, or is simply criticizing the admittedly bad instances of Te, usually instances perpetrated by non Te egos. This reads to me how Te acts when Fe types try to Te, which is a counter productive absurdity (all this applies more to the behavior of an ESFJ manager I know than any actual Te user), etc etc

inasmuch as it prevents non Te egos from using Te, I guess its a good thing, but as a matter of an intellectually honest assessment of Te it is way off base. I guess its the psychological perspective of a person bad at something who then of course should not be engaging in it--if they're going to use it in that way... inasmuch as that is the case there is (a form of self-referential) "truth" to it (this way of thinking performs the valuable function of keeping the non Te person in check, and is true for them, specifically), but this is a caricature of Te, not an objective look at Te

[Singu]

^ The whole thing was actually written by an ILI, so whatever.

Anyway, the whole method/idea seems to be that "You criticize your PoLR with your hidden agenda", which I'm not too sure about, but ok.

[Bertrand]

^ The whole thing was actually written by an ILI, so whatever.

Anyway, the whole method/idea seems to be that "You criticize your PoLR with your hidden agenda", which I'm not too sure about, but ok.

Yeah I know the guy who wrote it, before he wrote it. He also left out Te because he was struggling with it and consulted with Fe types to write it, so despite the fact that none of this bears on what I said, I hope that addresses your (non) point that ostensibly means something.. because my point remains the I find the criticism very hollow in comparison to the other well written ones.

If I had to write about the weakness of Te it would be that empirical data is limited and that Te judgements needs to be hedged from the point of view of values, lest they dehumanize everything and reduce out the entire point of doing anything at all--for the benefit of humanity. Te is worst when it contradicts its ultimate end, which is the betterment of all, which is what happens when you don't engage in sufficient data gathering and are insufficiently morally grounded. When Te commits atrocities it is useless, worse than useless actually. sometimes it needs to be frustrated simply for the fact that it needs to be held to account for itself. it is the same reason courts need opposing council--even if 99% of their points are bad--their function is to force the other to prove their point, which is extremely important. Fe critiques of Te usually take on that character--usually asinine--but valuable nonetheless... The Fe masses in virtue of their strength in numbers form a counterweight to Te precisely to ultimately benefit Te (and by extension the rest of humanity). Fe functions as both "morality for dummies" and also servant to Te inasmuch as it sharpens it. If you ever wondered why God made so many stupid people, its because someones gotta ask the dumb questions (and you need a lot of them or they just get ignored), lest Te get carried away

[Singu]

My criticism of Te is that it tends to go mindlessly with the "established facts", like "If it's on the news/newspaper, then it must be right" "If it's an established fact, then it must be right". Which seems to be what this PoLR criticism seems to be talking about.

But Fe egos typically have different criticism of Te, like being too greedy or not caring about the effects it has on people. It's a Fe critique of Te, not Ti critique of Te.

[Bertrand]

My criticism of Te is that it tends to go mindlessly with the "established facts", like "If it's on the news/newspaper, then it must be right" "If it's an established fact, then it must be right". Which seems to be what this PoLR criticism seems to be talking about.

except Te never thinks "if its on the news, it must be right", which was exactly my point

But Fe egos typically have different criticism of Te, like being too greedy or not caring about the effects it has on people. It's a Fe critique of Te, not Ti critique of Te.

"too greedy" is by definition a bad thing and applicable to literally any judgement (greedy for what, by the way?--Fe is greedy for blood, as far as I can tell), because of the word "too"--this is just an empty tautology manifesting out of a subjective bias against Te (might as well just say "te is bad! baaad!"). "not caring about the effects it has on people" is vague and a matter of degree. where is the line? in what situation? this is just another empty blanket criticism. I feel like Fe doesn't care about the effects it has on people

[Singu]

except Te never thinks "if its on the news, it must be right", which was exactly my point

It does:

Function #1 – objective logic (Te)

He is the type who trusts anything printed; he considers any printed material to be a reliable source of information because it seems to be recognized by the society so he approves of it too.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...28Stierlitz.29

[Bertrand]

It does:


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...28Stierlitz.29

its funny because you're obviously projecting and the fact that you reference and trust the given source is a real time example of what all I've been saying

you engage in worthless Te, thus you assume that is Te

I guess its for the best you don't value it

[Singu]

its funny because you're obviously projecting and the fact that you reference and trust the given source is a real time example of what all I've been saying

Lol, I knew you were going to say something like that. Who cares? It's an example. Anyone can obviously observe this fact, if they wanted. What else am I supposed to reference? This is Socionics, and I'm giving you Socionics data.

you engage in worthless Te, thus you assume that is Te

I guess its for the best you don't value it

"What I don't agree with is not real Te. Only I alone know what real Te is". You're so stupidly biased that it's not even funny. One wonders why you're even learning Socionics...

[Bertrand]

Lol, I knew you were going to say something like that. Who cares? It's an example. Anyone can obviously observe this fact, if they wanted. What else am I supposed to reference? This is Socionics, and I'm giving you Socionics data.



"What I don't agree with is not real Te. Only I alone know what real Te is". You're so stupidly biased that it's not even funny. One even wonders why you're even learning Socionics...

and here I thought you were in favor of free thinking. further, I alone do not know what (real, sophisticated) Te is, but I do know what it isn't and this isn't it. I also know this is probably too fine a logical point for you to comprehend

[Singu]

and here I thought you were in favor of free thinking. further, I alone do not know what (real, sophisticated) Te is, but I do know what it isn't and this isn't it. I also know this is probably too fine a logical point for you to comprehend

No, you alone are dismissive of anything that contradicts your idea of real Te, and you ignore any other data that contradicts your own views and thinking.

You're the one who is talking in absolutes, like "Te never thinks", etc.

You're just someone who can never accept criticism or admit that you were wrong, which must be an E1 thing, or what...

[Bertrand]

No, you alone are dismissive of anything that contradicts your idea of real Te, and you ignore any other data that contradicts your own views and thinking.

You're the one who is talking in absolutes, like "Te never thinks", etc.

You're just someone who can never accept criticism or admit that you were wrong, which must be an E1 thing, or what...

naw you just don't get it

Te never thinks it must be true. Rather, and allow me to use my demonstrative here: they're saying it is more unlikely that this news story is both unreliable and at the same time widely accepted. thus, as a cost-benefit analysis in regards to spending my efforts trying to uncover a conspiracy, vs moving on with my life, I will choose to rely on this information as if it were true until the time at which it is shown to be credibly challenged. given that there are plenty of people who prefer to engage in solipsistic conspiracy theorizing, ill leave that valuable work to them, and operate on the assumption that if the news is in fact unreliable, the Fe/Ti types will eventually bring it to light, or spin their wheels trying. either way as a practical matter I will function as if this were true, since it is in my best interest to do so. Do I think it is metaphysically true--always and forever? no, that is the realm of Ti not Te! (hence your obvious projections) Te does not work from first axioms in such a way as to interpret everything from the ground up.

your, singularity's, entire line of thinking is a caricature (unquestioning Te acceptance of and exaggeration of) a caricature (a Ti ego take, it looks like, on Te that used careful language not to say what you think it says) rooted in poor Te

I can say all this not because I can't admit when I'm wrong, in fact, e1 is all about doing exactly that--but thanks for bringing in a data point that works for me not against me, as you (erroneously assume)... which seems to be another manifestation of poor Te.

this is like Te PoLR on parade

edit: I mean, its pretty funny that you're trying to spin this as Te types tending to fall prey to bullshit when, if the US election has taught us anything, it is Fe, precisely because Fe/Ti is so immune to facts and only wants to believe what appeals to it (we call those "alternative facts" now). ill leave it to you now to figure out for me if trump getting elected was actually fake news

[Singu]

Oh... you never give up, do you.

Te never thinks it must be true. Rather, and allow me to use my demonstrative here: they're saying it is more unlikely that this news story is both unreliable and at the same time widely accepted.

Obviously, no one is saying that it must be true because it's on the news. It's more to do with "I am following an established fact".

thus, as a cost-benefit analysis in regards to spending my efforts trying to uncover a conspiracy, vs moving on with my life, I will choose to rely on this information as if it were true until the time at which it is shown to be credibly challenged. given that there are plenty of people who prefer to engage in solipsistic conspiracy theorizing, ill leave that valuable work to them, and operate on the assumption that if the news is in fact unreliable, the Fe/Ti types will eventually bring it to light, or spin their wheels trying. either way as a practical matter I will function as if this were true, since it is in my best interest to do so. Do I think it is metaphysically true--always and forever? no, that is the realm of Ti not Te! (hence your obvious projections) Te does not work from first axioms in such a way as to interpret everything from the ground up.

So, how does the PoLR criticism of Te not apply to this? Basically the criticism addresses all this.

[Bertrand]

Oh... you never give up, do you.



Obviously, no one is saying that it must be true because it's on the news. It's more to do with "I am following an established fact".



So, how does the PoLR criticism of Te not apply to this? Basically the criticism addresses all this.

because it would reach a point where Te would take care of itself in regards to "investigating the news" as soon as it became as likely as not to be reliable. at no point is Te relying on anything on faith, only shit Te does that--or rather Ti projections of Te and Fe "acting out" Te

you might say "well how would they know??"--because they're grounded in objective reality! to suppose they could miss it is hopelessly metaphysical. the only people trying to perpetrate metaphysical swindles on that level are betas, which is perhaps why theyre so sensitive to the possibility, and why they cant get along with eachother. at the end of the day though, unless they really are Gods, Te is going to see through that at precisely the moment it becomes important to do so, because the nature of Te is to be sensitive to objective reality as it presents itself

you might say the philosophical development of "phenomenology" as a concept is the overcoming of exactly this swindle that more or less freed us from our beta metaphysician overlords. if betas are ever to rise again they're going to have to overcome phenomenology in order to allow metaphysics back in

trump's made a good effort, but there's no foundation, he's running on fumes and he's not long for the world just like the rest of the dinosaurs who believe in him... if he's contributed anything its going to be an object lesson in how democracy can be conned, and it will force gammas to articulate better laws and understanding to prevent a worse catastrophe in the future. its Fe in service of Te in a nutshell--trump is forcing us to answer stupid questions like: "why do we have the EPA?"

[Singu]

because it would reach a point where Te would take care of itself in regards to "investigating the news" as soon as it became as likely as not to be reliable. at no point is Te relying on anything on faith, only shit Te does that--or rather Ti projections of Te and Fe "acting out" Te

Sure, keep telling yourself that . You're just arrogant enough to think that Te is all you ever need for anything.

You might blame it on "shit Te", but the PoLR criticism applies to your own description of Te. I don't care about the rest of whatever, because what we're talking about is the "PoLR criticism", which I may or may not agree, but I think it has some merit. It has nothing to do with projections or caricatures or whatever that you think it is. No one is saying that anyone is relying on faith.

[Bertrand]

Sure, keep telling yourself that . You're just arrogant enough to think that Te is all you ever need for anything.

You might blame it on "shit Te", but the PoLR criticism applies to your own description of Te.

does it? how?

I see a bunch of words, but I can't make much sense of it. it looks like you're just flat out saying "nuh uhhhh!"

No one is saying that anyone is relying on faith.

So we agree then?

I'm not saying Te doesn't have a legit PoLR criticism. In fact, I think Jesus feeding the five thousand is a metaphor for Te PoLR (have faith and be good to one another and the logistics take care of themselves). I just think this particular one is more rooted in projection and is not a very good criticism because its essentially a strawman and not actually aiming at the real target. I will say this "social criticism" itself is a kind of Te analysis which could explain why theres a weird malformed Te flavor to the Te description itself. Its like trying to critique the idea using a retarded version of the same idea. How a stupid person views a smart one, etc. The flaws are in the subject though not the object of criticism. Perhaps the project is in tension with itself by its very nature

[Singu]

How does this not apply to what you just said?

"Too much focus on productivity, efficiency and facts lead to group think instead of people being able to individually develop their own ideas and how things should be like.

Similarly, adhering to a proper structure is simply not just following the correct methods in order to produce the quickest results; it is equally important to make sure that your thinking is sound and thorough which includes questioning the established order of things and how much sense it makes to you. Without soundness and thoroughness we run the risk of creating various inconsistencies and errors that could be avoided if we simply took the time to follow the logical reasoning to its very end. Efficiency is important but efficiency cannot be produced without a strong sense of hierarchy and structure where every object has its role and function clearly defined within the system."

So we agree then?

I mean, I don't disagree that the criticism is a bit funny on some parts, but the basic idea is there and understandable.

[Bertrand]

How does this not apply to what you just said?

"Too much focus on productivity, efficiency and facts lead to group think instead of people being able to individually develop their own ideas and how things should be like.

Similarly, adhering to a proper structure is simply not just following the correct methods in order to produce the quickest results; it is equally important to make sure that your thinking is sound and thorough which includes questioning the established order of things and how much sense it makes to you. Without soundness and thoroughness we run the risk of creating various inconsistencies and errors that could be avoided if we simply took the time to follow the logical reasoning to its very end. Efficiency is important but efficiency cannot be produced without a strong sense of hierarchy and structure where every object has its role and function clearly defined within the system."



I mean, I don't disagree that the criticism is a bit funny on some parts, but the basic idea is there and understandable.

I don't know how it applies or how it doesn't apply. I find it sort of baffling. Please explain

I believe I literally started with addressing this question, but it sounds like you're venturing something new--so therein lies my confusion. What are you saying in regards to what, that hasn't already been covered? This is why I said it sounds like a flat out denial, but without any substantive support

[Singu]

Ok... you're saying that "My own efficiency and productivity are more important, and I'll leave the dirty work to the Fe/Ti types", while the criticism is "Sure, efficiency and productivity are important, but if you focus on that too much, then you might get things wrong, and all you will be doing is parrot established facts without going through them thoroughly and thinking on your own".

[Bertrand]

Ok... you're saying that "My own efficiency and productivity are more important, and I'll leave the dirty work to the Fe/Ti types", while the criticism is "Sure, efficiency and productivity are important, but if you focus on that too much, then you might get things wrong, and all you will be doing is parrot established facts without going through them thoroughly and thinking on your own".

Yeah and my position is that's not a critique of how Te operates, which is as soon as you start getting things wrong Te naturally shifts to investigating facts and new ideas. Its a static caricature of how Fe types tend to employ Te which lacks all nuance and therefore is a strawman. Te types are content to let Fe types do that sort of investigating for as long as they're around, because its pointless to duplicate their effort... but it is not an intrinsic property of Te to be this way. Rather it is in consequence of Fe/Ti being the way it is that Te works around it in the way it does. I also think that high level Te works to benefit everyone-- that Maslow's concept of synergy starts to come into play; that when Te/Fi are perfected pursuing what gratifies the self also benefits the collective. Elon Musk is a pretty good example of this. So Te is only selfish when it sucks, which is precisely how Fe uses it, and therefore views it, but it is a product of perspective, not reality

[Singu]

Sigh... ok, I'm not saying that Te can't ever self-correct itself or that Te can never get anything right. I mean, anyone can do that, it's not function related. But the whole point of the criticism is basically "If you focus too much on productivity and efficiency, then you might get things wrong".

[Bertrand]

Sigh... ok, I'm not saying that Te can't ever self-correct itself or that Te can never get anything right. I mean, anyone can do that, it's not function related. But the whole point of the criticism is basically "If you focus too much on productivity and efficiency, then you might get things wrong".

if you focus too much on X then you might get Y wrong is trivially true and applies to absolutely everything and therefore nothing (has no specific domain)


I guess in the end the Te PoLR "criticism" is a weird manifestation of Te PoLR in action is all I'm saying, which is self supporting because I wouldn't want Te PoLR engaging in Te based off how terrible it is (see, I don't know, like my first post)

[Singu]

if you focus too much on X then you might get Y wrong is trivially true and applies to absolutely everything and therefore nothing (has no specific domain)

Well duh, that's what the whole criticisms seem to be based on. But you seem to agree on the other criticisms with the same premise, so this must mean that you're simply biased.

You just can't get over how God-like and awesome Te is, and how it is the most perfect and flawless function, the pinnacle of humanity! Maslow's concept of synergy or whatever the fuck you're talking about!

Lol, you're just likely completely detached from reality and living in the bubble of your own self-made and God-like image of perfection. I think this has nothing to do with Te, but the fact that you're likely an unhealthy E1...

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The Fe polr one is a little stupid imo because it's not like you can't be both very expressive AND incredibly genuine and honest about your feelings at the same time. Feelings aren't more real just because you're more constipated with them.

I kinda relate to the Te polr one but I have to think more about it.

[wasp]

i like how these descriptions showcase the positive side of each type's PoLR. i related to Fi, Se, and Te PoLR the most.

i don't like it when i have to worry about people carrying over past grudges into new interactions, whether in relation to myself or others. i can be quite sensitive as well, but there's a difference between unresolved problems existing between you and another person, which you can easily sort out in private, and being a buzzkill for no goddamn reason.

Ne PoLR doesn't make any sense? shouldn't it be the exact opposite of what's written? maybe i misunderstand what it means to be Ne PoLR, but, if you relate it to xSIs HA, which is "to believe", then why would they staunchly discourage sniffing out hidden motivations and meanings? at any rate, interconnectedness is absolutely important to me.

lol Ni PoLR fits my LSE dad to a T. it reminds me of my ESE supervisor as well. that bitch drove me bananas. "FASTER, FASTER, FASTER! DO IT NOW! GOGOGO!" you'd think we were fucking by the way she yelled at me. don't rush me

[Bertrand]

Well duh, that's what the whole criticisms seem to be based on. But you seem to agree on the other criticisms with the same premise, so this must mean that you're simply biased.

You just can't get over how God-like and awesome Te is, and how it is the most perfect and flawless function, the pinnacle of humanity! Maslow's concept of synergy or whatever the fuck you're talking about!

Lol, you're just likely completely detached from reality and living in the bubble of your own self-made and God-like image of perfection. I think this has nothing to do with Te, but the fact that you're likely an unhealthy E1...

take note: this is the exact moment IEI abandons reason entirely and sends out a (subconsciously oriented at their dual) Fe plea for mercy. Unfortunately our victim is not dealing with SLE, rather ILI, and Fe PoLR remains unmoved. So unless a SLE hunts me down and hits me over the head at my computer, consider this IEI's last gasp

[Alomoes]

Question, is this an example of how someone with the PoLR thinks? Because I relate to not wanting my emotions to be watered down. It is why I don't curse very often. My rational is that if you are known for not cursing, it'll be more effective. It isn't true in all cases though, from what I learned.

[Bertrand]

Question, is this an example of how someone with the PoLR thinks? Because I relate to not wanting my emotions to be watered down. It is why I don't curse very often. My rational is that if you are known for not cursing, it'll be more effective. It isn't true in all cases though, from what I learned.

I think its criticizing Fe from a mostly Fi point of view, where a true PoLR critique is a synthesis of functions not a singular one. In other words, a true Fe PoLR critique would be one that encompasses Ip/Te/Fi and not just Fi. That is essentially what PoLR is--not just a value statement reflecting preference of attitude, which is what some of these amount to, and that is not a PoLR critique at all. A real PoLR Fe description would be something like: (unchecked) Fe is counter productive to its own goals which is promoting positive emotion because it operates to the exclusion of Te and (somewhat Fi) which leads to a paradoxical decrease in positive emotion inasmuch as problems and values go ignored in favor of a positive atmosphere. In the final analysis, if Fe is not stopped at the gate, and demanded that an account be given, we all end up hell, not heaven.

edit: although you could say that Fe is not really in the business of "promoting positive emotion"--rather, simply manipulating emotion as an energy source in various ways; which does hew closer to the original description, which is using emotion purely as a form of energy to be used in whatever way does ultimately dilute its potency, because every emotional expression that does not have a sincere groundedness cheapens the expression in the mind of anyone who suspects it does not reflect something true, but is being used merely as a means to an end. inasmuch as they think that is the case they are free it ignore it, which undermines the very power it seeks to employ... in the end it has the same consequence of the first paragraph though, which is, on the whole, things get worse, not better, by basically any metric

[Pinnochio]

This commentary could be accurate for some; for others, not so much. The fact that it fails to differentiate between the values of business partners, as if both relate to their vulnerable in the same way, is a huge oversight. The author does seem to recognize the vulnerable as rejected in favor of the mobilizing, but does not seem to extend this relation to the interplay between suggestive/role and mobilizing/vulnerable. For that reason, it's ultimately a commentary that misses the point, and that excludes the experience of many expressions of the two types it attempts to describe.

[Muddy]

My take on these:

Fe/Fi Polr- I don't care enough about either of those elements enough to be able to argue for one over the other.

Si polr- This one I can relate to word by word. Over time I've come to realize that a lot of my inner frustration and discontentment of my life situation have been stemming not having enough challenges in my environment to harden myself from.

Se polr: I can kind of get what it is saying, but I been taking it easy and sitting it out for most of my life and it has gotten me nothing but depression and a feeling of inferiority towards others who are actually advancing somewhere.

Ni/Ne polr: I'm pretty middle-ground here. I do think looking ahead and having a goal is important, but so is keeping an eye out for things in order to avoid martyring yourself for a future that may never come.

Ti polr: Agree. I get very frustrated when people nitpick about specific right or wrong details rather then evaluating how something or someone is performing holistically.

Te polr: I agree that over focusing on productivity can sometimes be bad but only in the kind of situations where factory workers are getting whipped in order to line the pockets of wealthy business owners. Otherwise I don't see what could be wrong about someone trying to do something the best most efficient way they can.