How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[Slade]

Perhaps the fact that you have 4D Ti, with your inherent lack of emotional showiness has something to do with it. You would have a higher degree of Ti dimensionality and refined control over your Ti, and refined control over IEs tends to manifest as less "annoying" most of the time. The original poster that I quoted from who had experienced this was an ILE, and LuckyOne and I are both SLEs. It would make sense that our Ti would be more grating on xEEs.

Dimensionality doesn't add an element of control to any function, it just adds a layer of perception, so this hypothesis is wrong. You are also mistaking a 'function' being perceived as annoying, when in actuality its not the function but rather the pressure in the individual to conform to that function that is annoying. This pressure is more often generated by higher dimensional, and valued, functions due to that individual engaging in it more often, more comprehensively, and generating that pressure better in other people to use it.

If you want to see some good examples of Ti PoLR, then here you go :

How it doesn't have to do with anything when the thing being discussed at that point was their responses to a PoLR hit? Indeed here I can see @niffer was right about LSIs and context.

This just proves the very point @niffer made and you revoked: that IxEEs respond emotionally (therefore irrationality) to having their faulty logic pointed out. I don't understand how it escapes you. Tell me what's calm about this kind of response?

I disagree, instinctual variants can sure help at it i.e. I'm Sp second (is my healthy and stable one), so my PoLR is hardly as noticeable as it'd be if I was Sp last for example. Being E8 also helps, because it makes me naturally wired to be on top of things that could go wrong and threatened me. It's a conscious effort and I never said the PoLR could be fixed, just dealt with. It's exhausting for me to fix on and I'm clumsy at it, but not incapable.

You don't have to see the full dimensionality of a function to understand how your incompetence in it can be a problem.

He has taken over the forum like a virus

Correction: the only point you got.

That's irrelevant to the question being asked in the thread in the first place. It's a byproduct of other types reacting to it, not the thing itself. Me and @niffer have only commented on the follow up to the PoLR manifesting after we both provided the thread with several examples of PoLR manifesting, as an interesting aside, not the main point. You're yet to do the same, though I've seen you theorizing on why you think PoLR exists in IxEEs in previous pages.

And you keep throwing the "anyone can" comment around so much one would think there's no connection to behaviour and type at all. So far you have sorely focused on disagreeing with other opinions and pointing out why according to you, they are wrong. The anecdotes you've provided are examples of how they proceed once their PoLR has been hit, not how it manifests, which is the point of the thread. The one who keeps missing it is you in your quest to discredit and dismiss every point being made for whatever reason. You're focusing on a totally nonessential part of the discussion as a whole without providing the input that was asked, is transparent how convenient it is of a position to cherry pick from. Every post you make is derailment of the topic at hand: How does PoLR manifest in ENFps and ESFps? Answer it.

Never said they were the same thing or that it'd help the actual function (which is illogical), only that its position could help a person deal with it's incompetence, because focus is a part of it. These are two different things and yet you're once again attributing incorrect intent behind what's being said. At this point I can't not see it as intentional, coming from a lead.

I'm inclined to believe you're grasping at straws here so you can discourse on function dimension. It's the only explanation to why are you going on about it when it has zero relation to the point I made or the point of the thread. Getting better at PoLR is all I have commented on, yet you're wasting your time stating obvious things as improving =/= being good at. We all know that, thank you.

Difficulty with comprehending logical links, focusing too little or too much on unimportant details (as it relates to understanding), Rejection of logic itself for personal, non linear explanation, etc etc. The irony .

[niffer]

Dimensionality doesn't add an element of control to any function, it just adds a layer of perception, so this hypothesis is wrong. You are also mistaking a 'function' being perceived as annoying, when in actuality its not the function but rather the pressure in the individual to conform to that function that is annoying. This pressure is more often generated by higher dimensional, and valued, functions due to that individual engaging in it more often, more comprehensively, and generating that pressure better in other people to use it.

It's not a hypothesis. It is practically accurate.

Dimensionality adds control because it increases accumulated experience from the added layers of perception. Otherwise why would the vulnerable function be considered the weakest and least under control one?

You are full of it.

[Myst]

Dimensionality doesn't add an element of control to any function, it just adds a layer of perception, so this hypothesis is wrong. You are also mistaking a 'function' being perceived as annoying, when in actuality its not the function but rather the pressure in the individual to conform to that function that is annoying. This pressure is more often generated by higher dimensional, and valued, functions due to that individual engaging in it more often, more comprehensively, and generating that pressure better in other people to use it.

This is a nice bit to point out, about how the output of an IE will affect others.

Otoh, strength in the function does add control. (I do disagree with the hypothesis following after that, but this part is fine.) How do you see it as not allowing for more control over that type of information? What's the whole point of Socionics theory then? This is like one of the core ideas.

If you want to see some good examples of Ti PoLR, then here you go :

I don't think @LuckyOne is Ti PoLR, nah. However I do think Ep for her. @niffer is probably right and she's SLE.

Difficulty with comprehending logical links, focusing too little or too much on unimportant details (as it relates to understanding), Rejection of logic itself for personal, non linear explanation, etc etc. The irony .

I am not seeing difficulty there with that. To me the explanation was logically reasoned just fine. I don't agree with all of it, no (I disagree with some of the assumptions for example).

[squark]

Thank you Mr. 10 posts, for offering your post as a contribution to the thread. I don't see why you don't know your type yet, shouldn't it be clear now?

Also, can't help noticing the interesting timing of your arrival here and the familiar content, wording and tone of your posts elsewhere. Starts almost every post by disagreeing with the points being made and "corrects" people in basic understanding of the theory (lol), claims examples given by others aren't accurate because any type can demonstrate said behaviour... @niffer does it feel like deja vú for you too?

Rather than acting like there is some kind of conspiracy, it's a little more reasonable to consider that maybe multiple people are disagreeing with you simply because they disagree.

I agree with his assessment that your Ti is weak, but rather than discussing that (and maybe even contributing to the thread) you go straight for personal attacks and trying to discredit him?

[LuckyOne]

Rather than acting like there is some kind of conspiracy, it's a little more reasonable to consider that maybe multiple people are disagreeing with you simply because they disagree.

I agree with his assessment that your Ti is weak, but rather than discussing that (and maybe even contributing to the thread) you go straight for personal attacks and trying to discredit him?

If conspiracy it's the point you think I made, then it says more about you than me. I'd like to see some proper interaction between you two though. Just as a curiosity.


Funny you mentioned it, because my sometimes registering as inadequate to me is precisely one of the points I just made to @niffer about why I can't be SLE. I seek it and demand it, and have no trouble in admitting it. Is it my PoLR though as @Slade tried to claim? No.


Also, what was personal about my "attack" (I wonder what's your definition of it though, cuz if this registers as one...)? Citing observable facts? You mean, like he did quoting me as to prove I have no logic? Then use some yourself. Pottle, kettle.


Interesting timing...again. Just an observation

[ashlesha]

This thread has been getting too focused on personal antagonisms so I did my best to move the less on-topic posts to the graveyard. Turn the heat down a notch, yall.

[niffer]

-.-

[ashlesha]

[LuckyOne]

@lunngs are you're ESI by any chance? I'm asking because this kind of intervention it's a common occurance

[Myst]

As for the @squark and @LuckyOne convo, there was misunderstandings on both sides, that happens...

One of the big points of misunderstanding with missing some of the points of each other's seemed to be about how LuckyOne focused on the whole topic strictly from the standpoint of the Ti PoLR topic while squark did comment on something else too in niffer's original post and then LuckyOne saw those comments as irrelevant while squark missed some of her points made inside the strict Ti PoLR context.

I do agree that squark was relativizing things a lot. I disagree though that any of this was done intentionally or whatever. Just seems like something squark typically likes doing.

With this socionics theory, the relativism is somewhat understandable lol, Model A (and other similar alternative socionics function models) really does not cover much in the way of many concrete mechanisms to be explained that people want to explain with the socionics model. It does explain certain thinking patterns very neatly but not anything else is accounted for in a directly usable way, only provides generalities for those (which can still be helpful but only if we don't forget that it is only that and not more).

Then, I don't think that squark is LII. She definitely isn't Ne in ego. Otherwise, I don't know if this is type related, I don't like this much relativizing, I'm willing to do only a little of it even in socionics theory (if it needs too much of it then I just ignore the topic/stop analysis). But then squark already told me she doesn't think we are the same type, she thinks I'm SLE, lol.


By the way, in my own experience with Ti PoLR types, I haven't consciously noticed IEEs focusing on tone too much instead of trying to understand the content but that doesn't mean they weren't doing it. I'm not aware of it is all I can say.

xEEs however do get upset over Ti stuff after a while if I keep pushing it on them, that is, if we keep interacting with me not holding back enough, and then sometimes even if I do make my best to hold myself back from saying anything strongly Ti. That upset is visible emotionally. So the difference in experience for SLEs here is not really due to dimensionality differences in Ti. I, with 4D Ti, still upset them. I just don't perceive it as them wanting to have the ultimate control over the emotional aspects. Fe HA problem? Since I don't pay attention to that myself. And btw that part in @niffer's post, I didn't see how it related to Ti PoLR specifically, just to their strong Fe yeah?

Why they get upset, yeah, they feel it's limiting without flexibility (like Ti demo would be) and cold (too unresponsive to Fi creative's way of "manipulation" of feelings).

Never said they were the same thing or that it'd help the actual function (which is illogical), only that its position could help a person deal with it's incompetence, because focus is a part of it. These are two different things and yet you're once again attributing incorrect intent behind what's being said. At this point I can't not see it as intentional, coming from a lead.

Ti isn't about attributing the right intent... that's Ne.

Noticed how you went into explaining what is in the post? I mean it about the teaching thing, I've seen this behaviour many times from LIIs, but never LSIs.

I would explain if someone asks or when I think it's relevant for a point. I don't know what @squark's motive was for adding that explaining. I do not see the way she does it as LII, at all. Ne ego would explain a lot more smoothly with regard to the Ne aspect. So smoothly that to me it becomes way too abstract and definitely loses connection to anything tangible to anchor it in.

[LuckyOne]

As for the @squark and @LuckyOne convo, there was misunderstandings on both sides, that happens...

One of the big points of misunderstanding with missing some of the points of each other's seemed to be about how LuckyOne focused on the whole topic strictly from the standpoint of the Ti PoLR topic while squark did comment on something else too in niffer's original post and then LuckyOne saw those comments as irrelevant while squark missed some of her points made inside the strict Ti PoLR context.

I do agree that squark was relativizing things a lot. I disagree though that any of this was done intentionally or whatever. Just seems like something squark typically likes doing.

With this socionics theory, the relativism is somewhat understandable lol, Model A (and other similar alternative socionics function models) really does not cover much in the way of many concrete mechanisms to be explained that people want to explain with the socionics model. It does explain certain thinking patterns very neatly but not anything else is accounted for in a directly usable way, only provides generalities for those (which can still be helpful but only if we don't forget that it is only that and not more).

Then, I don't think that squark is LII. She definitely isn't Ne in ego. Otherwise, I don't know if this is type related, I don't like this much relativizing, I'm willing to do only a little of it even in socionics theory (if it needs too much of it then I just ignore the topic/stop analysis). But then squark already told me she doesn't think we are the same type, she thinks I'm SLE, lol.

I don't see any misunderstandings here, I see incompatibility and unwillingness to compromise from both sides. We simply disagree about basically everything and while I have made efforts to lower my guard down and display a more humble side (like admitting to make mistakes and being weak in certain areas), I was not met halfway.

I find it interesting how you admit she was relativizing things (which she clearly likes to do not only here, but in other threads as well) and say you dislike it, yet you think you're both LSI. It makes perfect sense for you to dislike the practice since you're PoLR and Ego, but why does she like it so much if she has the same type configuration? That's what I'm trying to understand here, aren't Egos into specification? Because whatever type I am, that's what I'm looking for: I hate anything vague or shapeless.

By the way, in my own experience with Ti PoLR types, I haven't consciously noticed IEEs focusing on tone too much instead of trying to understand the content but that doesn't mean they weren't doing it. I'm not aware of it is all I can say.

xEEs however do get upset over Ti stuff after a while if I keep pushing it on them, that is, if we keep interacting with me not holding back enough, and then sometimes even if I do make my best to hold myself back from saying anything strongly Ti. That upset is visible emotionally. So the difference in experience for SLEs here is not really due to dimensionality differences in Ti. I, with 4D Ti, still upset them. I just don't perceive it as them wanting to have the ultimate control over the emotional aspects. Fe HA problem? Since I don't pay attention to that myself.

Why they get upset, yeah, they feel it's limiting without flexibility (like Ti demo would be) and cold.

I never implied their upset response was about wanting to control emotional aspects because I don't see the connection, that's more related to me. But yes, you're obviously going to miss or misinterpret cues at times due to its position in your stacking.

Ti isn't about attributing the right intent... that's Ne.

I would explain if someone asks or when I think it's relevant for a point. I don't know what @squark's motive was for adding that explaining. I do not see the way she does it as LII, at all. Ne ego would explain a lot more smoothly with regard to the Ne aspect. So smoothly that to me it becomes way too abstract and definitely loses connection to anything tangible to anchor it in.

So that explains it: it isn't her that it's faulty, it's the lack of . Thank you really, it explains a whole lot about so many things not partaking this situation.

I can't ever see as truly abstract (rather it's just obvious, though sometimes irrelevant) so I can't relate, but my issue was not with it being unwanted and unasked for (which it was), but with the tone in which it was delivered.

In short: it doesn't matter to me one bit that me and she disagree, it matters a great deal what kind of attitude she gives me. If I hadn't received such a bad one, I'd have agreed to disagree and dropped the discussion a long time ago.

[niffer]

@niffer's post, I didn't see how it related to Ti PoLR specifically, just to their strong Fe yeah?

Ti polr person doesn't get something ---> they flip out / attack it

i was explaining everything *around* the scenario of / my experience interacting with Ti polr in a way that's related to their polr. it included the factor of their difficulty understanding things, due to their Ti polr. strong Fe is connected to Ti polr too. just because i did not explicitly spell out the connections doesn't mean they did not exist there. it was about Ti polr specifically.

[niffer]

Ironically I highly doubt any Ti polrs reading my post missed the connection there....

[LuckyOne]

Ti polr person doesn't get something ---> they flip out / attack it

i was explaining everything *around* the scenario of / my experience interacting with Ti polr in a way that's related to their polr. it included the factor of their difficulty understanding things, due to their Ti polr. strong Fe is connected to Ti polr too. just because i did not explicitly spell out the connections doesn't mean they did not exist there. it was about Ti polr specifically.

Wait,wait,wait: did @Myst delete this post? Because I can't believe we're seeing yet another lead miss the point when it was very obvious and well explained in the first place. Like, it just isn't possible, what's their for them, nitpicking on irrelevant mistakes? While deleting any evidence of their own glaring ones...Putting 1+1 together doesn't require .

Ironically I highly doubt any Ti polrs reading my post missed the connection there....

Oh my God, I thought I was going crazy. But I see it now, so clearly

[niffer]

lmfao at this scenario of both Ti and Ne polrs relying on others to help them understand shit and dragging things out to extract unintended meaning

[LuckyOne]

lmfao at this scenario of both Ti and Ne polrs relying on others to help them understand shit and dragging things out to extract unintended meaning

The only solution: a ILE/LII.

[niffer]

Putting 1+1 together doesn't require .

Well the thing is... in a sense, it does. polr makes you extremely averse to being willing to put 1+1 together on your own unless you have absolutely no other choice left. And even then you might not want to. You'd rather have someone else do it for you. But we'll save this discussion for a thread on polr.

[LuckyOne]

Well the thing is... in a sense, it does. polr makes you extremely averse to being willing to put 1+1 together on your own unless you have absolutely no other choice left. And even then you might not want to. You'd rather have someone else do it for you. But we'll save this discussion for a thread on polr.

Then by all means I must either find or create one, because this makes zero sense to me, logically

[niffer]

Then by all means I must either find or create one, because this makes zero sense to me, logically

is about making external intuitive connections, right? It's "putting 1+1 together", but in another, non-mathematical realm.

[Myst]

On Ti PoLR, and PoLR in general too

While I have a lot more experience irl with SEEs than IEEs, nothing in what she wrote sounds much like how either type reacts, or would react. Or they don't react this way to me at any rate. I've been yelled at to "stop being so logical" lol which just made me confused, because. . . what?

Ha ha, IEE I knew last year would tell me "stop using your Ti" (he was familiar with Socionics). I didn't see it as offensive because it was clear he was not doing it out of ill-will, just his usual emotional self.

But, overfocusing on tone of voice? Or overreacting to someone's emotions? I haven't ever seen this, and it doesn't make a lot of sense in context of the type. What I have seen is the more emotional someone else gets, the calmer the Fi creative gets, and they dampen and kind of absorb the extra-emotionality to calm people down. It's a good strategy and works well with some people, not as much with others, but like any behaviour, this can be learned.

I actually do the same reaction of getting calmer in certain emotional situations and I'm not Fi creative and I don't do it with the conscious intention to calm people down. It seems to work for that too, tho'.

As an aside - the complaints to stop being so logical, was during disagreements where they expected me to take something on faith, or to accept something because of how they felt about it, and they didn't like that I took a different approach.

For me it's, again, due to them feeling like I place constraints on their idea generating (for IEEs) or just constraints in general (SEEs) and expecting them to be at least a little bit sensible in their behaviour.

Everyone can use their polrs in a rudimentary way, and there will be times you have to. You can get better at certain aspects of it, but that's all. If you think about dimensionality in a physical way, then a 1-dimensional fxn operates along a single line. You can improve how well you travel that line, but you can't jump off of it or expand it in other directions. You can find ways to work around it, to make it less of an issue, but that's by using your other, stronger fxns, or asking for input from someone who can see more than you can. I don't think I suck at Ne in the ways that I am able to use it (for problem-solving, considering options etc,) but Ne bases show that there's a whole lot more to it than that, things that would never even cross my mind. It's a matter of you don't know what you don't know. So while a person might think they're improving their polr, they're only improving it in ways that they can see and work with - it's still one-dimensional.

Yeah, "improving" it doesn't change its dimensionality for whatever reason. I suppose because a lot more improving and focus on it would be required for it for the IE's one-dimensional "bits" of information to jump up a level of abstraction to be able to form so-called two-dimensional "norms" of patterns in information.

Yes sometimes you have to use it. Many of those times I still have too much of an aversion to it so I still avoid it. Cases that I will explain below are the exceptions (for the next excerpt from you that I'm responding to).

Anyway, I'm curious (if you ever decide to respond to my post) as to the ways you use Ne for problem solving and considering options. The way I consider options not immediately in front of me or not found by using familiar (logical) methods is just by collecting more concrete data, familiarizing myself with the topic / issue at hand more (more analysis included) or gaining direct experience to then be able to choose from more actually experienced options or options very closely linked to actual experience (linked logically or just simply being close/similar). None of that is Ne use as far as I'm concerned. As for problem solving, I can see and analyze what's in front of me and where it requires considering more options, see above.

So how do you not suck at Ne in the ways you use it? Are you sure they are not just concrete Se options in front of you (or deducable by logical methods) for problem solving?

While I can't say everyone with Ti-polr reacts this way as it could just be those particular people, it's I think one demonstration of how Fi can take precedence over Ti. In general, the only time I've seen people actually get upset about someone else's use of their polr is when it conflicts with their creative. You can appreciate the use of it up until it starts interfering with what you see as more important to focus on. That's when it becomes irritating and people can lash out. For instance, I can see the value of Ne and how people can utilize it, and can even accept Ne input until it becomes too unrealistic or starts distracting from the real issue at hand. And the complaints of Ti polrs in this thread have followed a similar line - Ti is fine, up until it starts getting in the way of their more valued fxns.

Seeing other people use your polr isn't really an issue in most cases, and you might even like that someone else has that area covered. I don't think there's a whole lot of hate directed at the element in the polr position, most of the time you're just blithely unaware of it and only use it in a rudimentary way when you have to. If anything, it's a blindness and you don't even know what you're missing.

I'd rather not use it in the rudimentary way either lol. I see it as distracting from the real issue rather fast, immediately basically. Other than that, it's often just a subtle block (in generating ideas, options for outcomes, whatever) that I don't even notice, I just simply don't think about it. So there is a lot of blindness to it by default, sure.

And, it irritates me even when I'm not to actively use Se. It does by being too random in some people without any agenda that would be beneficial to me or to the situation that I could see (strengthened Ne creative is absolute death to me rather fast ). Say, in xIEs it does serve some other agenda that's ok.

In theory I see the value of Ne if used as Ne demonstrative. So, yeah, generate ideas, many, if you want (and don't tell me about too many of them), but for some real purpose beyond just having the idea for its own sake. Purpose being improving understanding or real life goals, material, emotional, whatever.

The only times I seem to be accepting of ego Ne is, firstly when I try to improve my understanding in some abstract area for the goal of educating myself. Even then it's not something I like on its own, let it come with as much Ti as possible, then I can survive it. And the other time I seem to be accepting of it is when I really need to try literally everything to get out of some real bad shit, getting out of being stuck, past an obstacle, whatever. Real pain in the ass.

"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.

I also leave out a lot as a bad habit when communicating interactively. I don't explicitly assume it's understood, I just don't think of putting it out there for others. If people then need more explaining, I'm happy to provide it if asked.

However, when not in the middle of interactive communication, I will flesh it all out like @chips and underwear said it. It definitely takes time and effort but I just have to do it. Not that I'd put it like "potentially useful", it's simply about what's relevant to making the explanation unambiguous.

"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.

Lack of organization like that is 1D Ti. I've seen Fe bases (with their 1D Ti) act with seemingly strong contradiction too though for different reasons than Ti PoLR Ep's. Ti PoLR of course doesn't so easily take up Ti information so there's the difference.

What do you mean by using conditionals leading to no solid structure? "If then" is a conditional too and is logical... so I'm not really following your reasoning here for the last sentence, sorry.

[Myst]

I don't see any misunderstandings here, I see incompatibility and unwillingness to compromise from both sides. We simply disagree about basically everything and while I have made efforts to lower my guard down and display a more humble side (like admitting to make mistakes and being weak in certain areas), I was not met halfway.

I guess I wasn't paying attention to that aspect. I did definitely see misunderstanding (=without bad intentions), too.

I find it interesting how you admit she was relativizing things (which she clearly likes to do not only here, but in other threads as well) and say you dislike it, yet you think you're both LSI. It makes perfect sense for you to dislike the practice since you're PoLR and Ego, but why does she like it so much if she has the same type configuration? That's what I'm trying to understand here, aren't Egos into specification? Because whatever type I am, that's what I'm looking for: I hate anything vague or shapeless.

I dunno about that. Does she like doing so or does she do it (while it's quite annoying at the same time) because she thinks it's needed to parse through some stuff on Socionics forums?

Yeah I don't like vague/shapeless crap, either. I however do cut out what's irrelevant by specifying so. I can't actually tell if she's doing that, too.

I never implied their upset response was about wanting to control emotional aspects because I don't see the connection, that's more related to me. But yes, you're obviously going to miss or misinterpret cues at times due to its position in your stacking.

No one implied that you implied that. I was talking about niffer's post there ("they think that only THEY can be emotionally showy or expressive because they have such perfect control over it with their Fe demo").

So that explains it: it isn't her that it's faulty, it's the lack of . Thank you really, it explains a whole lot about so many things not partaking this situation.

Glad it helped.

I can't ever see as truly abstract (rather it's just obvious, though sometimes irrelevant) so I can't relate, but my issue was not with it being unwanted and unasked for (which it was), but with the tone in which it was delivered.

It's abstract vague to me specifically.

In short: it doesn't matter to me one bit that me and she disagree, it matters a great deal what kind of attitude she gives me. If I hadn't received such a bad one, I'd have agreed to disagree and dropped the discussion a long time ago.

I didn't pay attention to those attitude aspects, sorry.

Wait,wait,wait: did @Myst delete this post? Because I can't believe we're seeing yet another lead miss the point when it was very obvious and well explained in the first place. Like, it just isn't possible, what's their for them, nitpicking on irrelevant mistakes? While deleting any evidence of their own glaring ones...Putting 1+1 together doesn't require .

I didn't delete any post. Wtf is this paranoia?

Nitpicking implies a certain intention that I definitely was not having here. No bad attitudes towards you or anyone here.

I was simply presenting what I saw since I wanted to follow what was being talked about and noticed those things that I then pointed out.

Ti polr person doesn't get something ---> they flip out / attack it

i was explaining everything *around* the scenario of / my experience interacting with Ti polr in a way that's related to their polr. it included the factor of their difficulty understanding things, due to their Ti polr. strong Fe is connected to Ti polr too. just because i did not explicitly spell out the connections doesn't mean they did not exist there. it was about Ti polr specifically.

I assumed that first, that you explained everything around that scenario but then it seemed to go off on a little tangent here: "Or that too much emotional showiness from others will bowl them over--they think that only THEY can be emotionally showy or expressive because they have such perfect control over it with their Fe demo."

But then, I may have misinterpreted what "bowl over" means. I'm not a native speaker of English. Also, the part on how only they can be emotionally showy definitely did seem like a tangent to me. If it's directly related to the Ti PoLR response stuff you were describing, feel free to lay out how.

[niffer]

@Myst it was a tangent or another story aside from my main point where I was elaborating on what I quoted. But not a tangent in the sense of deviating from my overarching goal of explaining behaviours I've experienced coming from Ti polrs. Again, I was partly describing a manifestation of strong demonstrative Fe, which is effectively the exact same thing as Ti polr.

[LuckyOne]

is about making external intuitive connections, right? It's "putting 1+1 together", but in another, non-mathematical realm.

Sure, but were the points you were trying to make mathematical in form or essence? I'd say they were conceptual, not exact. I just don't see how she turned into an holistic direction, yet doesn't seem to comprehend things holistically herself. Makes no sense, since it's counter-productive, but I guess blind spots can work like that

I'm opening a thread on how SLE's works, so it'll settle the issue.

No one implied that you implied that. I was talking about niffer's post there ("they think that only THEY can be emotionally showy or expressive because they have such perfect control over it with their Fe demo").

That's how I see it when somebody includes a point/comment I didn't make when referring to/summarizing what I was talking about. There was nothing else there for me to conclude it wasn't about me, but ok, i get it.

You're blind to while it's all I see and sets me off, how could I be SLE is beyond me.

I didn't delete any post. Wtf is this paranoia?

Paranoia is about imagination, this is a semantics issue: edited, that's the correct term.


You offered your opinion on the whole issue first, and just now it's backtracking to respond to previous posts made by @squark. Out of curiosity do you always do things out of order/backwards? I find this practice very unsettling myself, preferring to waste time so the sequential order is preserved.

[Myst]

Well the thing is... in a sense, it does. polr makes you extremely averse to being willing to put 1+1 together on your own unless you have absolutely no other choice left. And even then you might not want to. You'd rather have someone else do it for you. But we'll save this discussion for a thread on polr.

Yep, that's exactly me about not wanting to do the Ne if 1+1 means putting together bits to assume some meaning behind stuff when it's still ambiguous as to whether there is at least one more possible meaning behind. When things do not click together properly in a concrete and distinct enough way (distinct, where everything is identified fully and neatly).

Ni is better because it's just somehow more obvious to me that one thing followed from another thing (in the Dynamic Ni way between events, rather than taking bits of a Static situation).

[niffer]

Sure, but were the points you were trying to make mathematical in form or essence? I'd say they were conceptual, not exact. I just don't see how she turned into an holistic direction, yet doesn't seem to comprehend things holistically herself. Makes no sense, since it's counter-productive, but I guess blind spots can work like that

No, they weren't mathematical. I did say that Ne has to do with non-mathematical connections, and yes, I did mean conceptual with what I said.

I would imagine that squark did what she did to glean more context in a roundabout way, because she couldn't personally relate to what I was describing. I think Ne polr is averse to trying to imagine unfamiliar scenarios while having to glean context on their own to understand it. If it's not immediately understandable to them they may reject it as invalid.

[Myst]

@Myst it was a tangent or another story aside from my main point where I was elaborating on what I quoted. But not a tangent in the sense of deviating from my overarching goal of explaining behaviours I've experienced coming from Ti polrs. Again, I was partly describing a manifestation of strong demonstrative Fe, which is effectively the exact same thing as Ti polr.

Yeah so I think it's more about Fe HA, that part. (Which was my point originally.)

Sure, but were the points you were trying to make mathematical in form or essence? I'd say they were conceptual, not exact. I just don't see how she turned into an holistic direction, yet doesn't seem to comprehend things holistically herself. Makes no sense, since it's counter-productive, but I guess blind spots can work like that

I'm opening a thread on how SLE's works, so it'll settle the issue.

No I'm not holistic in that way (I'm holistic only spatially and logically). I already said that I didn't pay attention to how you felt you tried to be humble etc to resolve the emotionally bad aspects. I mean, I didn't pay attention to the emotional side.

The one thing I am sure about however is that you didn't really parse out fully everything that I said, making assumptions instead. It's not important however, feel free to drop it. (I won't expect SLEs to parse it out all anyway like LSI does it. ) No hard feelings here, I see this as an unintended misunderstanding too.

That's how I see it when somebody includes a point/comment I didn't make when referring to/summarizing what I was talking about. There was nothing else there for me to conclude it wasn't about me, but ok, i get it.

I was not referring purely to your post there, I put it in a different paragraph, was more about the entire thread. And no problem.

You're blind to while it's all I see and sets me off, how could I be SLE is beyond me.

If all you see is Fe and no Fi then you are Fi PoLR

Paranoia is about imagination, this is a semantics issue: edited, that's the correct term.

Erhm? I did not delete any posts. So yes it's imagination

You offered your opinion on the whole issue first, and just now it's backtracking to respond to previous posts made by @squark. Out of curiosity do you always do things out of order/backwards? I find this practice very unsettling myself, preferring to waste time so the sequential order is preserved.

I did it in my own order: I picked out all posts I wanted to respond to, then organized them so I responded to different themes in different posts. The squark posts I responded to later had nothing to do with your argument with her, just PoLR stuff in general, so a different theme.

I was not following the thread's order, sure. If that's what you meant by it being backwards.

What seems unsettling in it to you?

[LuckyOne]

No I'm not holistic in that way (I'm holistic only spatially and logically). I already said that I didn't pay attention to how you felt you tried to be humble etc to resolve the emotionally bad aspects. I mean, I didn't pay attention to the emotional side.

The one thing I am sure about however is that you didn't really parse out fully everything that I said, making assumptions instead. It's not important however, feel free to drop it. (I won't expect SLEs to parse it out all anyway like LSI does it. ) No hard feelings here, I see this as an unintended misunderstanding too.



I was not referring purely to your post there, I put it in a different paragraph, was more about the entire thread. And no problem.



If all you see is Fe and no Fi then you are Fi PoLR



Erhm? I did not delete any posts. So yes it's imagination



I did it in my own order: I picked out all posts I wanted to respond to, then organized them so I responded to different themes in different posts. The squark posts I responded to later had nothing to do with your argument with her, just PoLR stuff in general, so a different theme.

I was not following the thread's order, sure. If that's what you meant by it being backwards.

What seems unsettling in it to you?

LOL, I was NOT talking about you! I was talking about @Slade, so the misunderstanding comes from your side. I'm not holistic in the way you described it, so there you have it, different values.

I never said I don't see , in fact, I didn't even mentioned it, so assumptions. It's > for me, not one or the other.

I know English it's not your first language, but I assume you know the difference between "delete" and "edit", so as you can see I corrected it lol.

Interesting method, I could never do the same. I can go in tangents and follow them, no problem, but I don't skip steps (points) in conversations, ever. If I do I inform the person i.e. "I'll be responding to that in a minute once...". Lack of sequence is perfectly understandable in a story for example (in fact I greatly enjoy putting the pieces together), but in exchanges it's confusing and frustrating.

[niffer]

I agree that so far only Fe HAs have reported experiencing that, but it's only been in relation to Ti polr people, so it still completely applies for the purposes of the thread.

[Myst]

LOL, I was NOT talking about you! I was talking about @Slade, so the misunderstanding comes from your side. I'm not holistic in the way you described it, so there you have it, different values.

I never said I don't see , in fact, I didn't even mentioned it, so assumptions. It's > for me, not one or the other.

I know English it's not your first language, but I assume you know the difference between "delete" and "edit", so as you can see I corrected it lol.

Interesting method, I could never do the same. I can go in tangents and follow them, no problem, but I don't skip steps (points) in conversations, ever. If I do I inform the person i.e. "I'll be responding to that in a minute once...". Lack of sequence is perfectly understandable in a story for example (in fact I greatly enjoy putting the pieces together), but in exchanges it's confusing and frustrating.

As for Slade: OK. But you sound stuck on whose side misunderstandings come from. I never stated it was just from your side, I actually said it was both you and squark and that I did not see the emotional side of it. So what need was there to say now that the misunderstanding came from my side?

And I guess I misunderstood the Slade thing because you kept criticizing before that too, for which I saw no reason, while accusing me of shady intentions of deleting / editing posts. Just really, I do not want to waste time on this topic anymore. If you have a problem with me specifically, state so directly. Don't generalize "one LSI seemed to have bad attitude towards me so this LSI is also probably deleting/editing posts bla bla". Or whatever it was, if not that, but I'm sensing something is really off and I have no time to deal with figuring out what went wrong. I'll just quickly respond to the points listed here.

So. I did not edit any posts like that, either. So let go of that idea, too. If you go back, you can still find what I wrote about niffer etc. If you have trouble finding it, let me know what it is and I'll show you.

As for Fe vs Fi. I said "IF". That sentence was a conditional, not an actively executed assumption. Though I do type you as SLE, but that's due to other reasons.

And, I did inform people about the new theme ("On Ti PoLR, and PoLR in general too"). This is a forum, not IRL interactive talking which is fully sequential, sure. It would be confusing to me too there.

[Myst]

I agree that so far only Fe HAs have reported experiencing that, but it's only been in relation to Ti polr people, so it still completely applies for the purposes of the thread.

Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't applying for the thread. My point was that this is why the experience differs, not directly because of no 4D Ti. (Of course, Fe HA has no 4D Ti, sure, I'm talking about the actual mechanism at play there for that experience specifically.)

[LuckyOne]

As for Slade: OK. But you sound stuck on whose side misunderstandings come from. I never stated it was just from your side, I actually said it was both you and squark and that I did not see the emotional side of it. So what need was there to say now that the misunderstanding came from my side?

I'm not stuck in anything, I'm correcting an erroneous claim about me, when it happens to you do you just let it pass? I don't. If you don't mind taking the blame (this sounds much more dramatic than it is, but I don't know how else to phrase it) for something you didn't then fine, but I do.

The misunderstanding I said you've made was about assuming the "she" I was referring to in my post to @niffer about the whole counter-productive behaviour was you, when it wasn't. But whatever, I'm done with this subject. I loath explaining myself and this is all I do here, so enough.

And I guess I misunderstood the Slade thing because you kept criticizing before that too, for which I saw no reason, while accusing me of shady intentions of deleting / editing posts. Just really, I do not want to waste time on this topic anymore. If you have a problem with me specifically, state so directly. Don't generalize "one LSI seemed to have bad attitude towards me so this LSI is also probably deleting/editing posts bla bla". Or whatever it was, if not that, but I'm sensing something is really off and I have no time to deal with figuring out what went wrong. I'll just quickly respond to the points listed here.

Ok so let me understand your stance: apparently when I criticize Slade's opinions and ideas I'm criticizing him? Because I only criticized his attitude after it was directed to me, which I believe is fair, but then again I don't see why you'd think you have anything to do with that. But since you now seem to think I'm shady, really can't you see our viewpoints are just vastly different? You understand other Egos stances and see no problem with what they say, compare that with own my interactions with them go and isn't it clear we're not the same?

Lol I don't have a problem with you, if anything you are the one dragging this subject out when even the other people involved seem to have abandoned it. And indeed, I was never doing what you described in the first place, I had no thoughts of you since this argument started except for being thankful for the links you've sent me The off thing you're feeling should be clear by now.

So. I did not edit any posts like that, either. So let go of that idea, too. If you go back, you can still find what I wrote about niffer etc. If you have trouble finding it, let me know what it is and I'll show you.

As for Fe vs Fi. I said "IF". That sentence was a conditional, not an actively executed assumption. Though I do type you as SLE, but that's due to other reasons.

And, I did inform people about the new theme ("On Ti PoLR, and PoLR in general too"). This is a forum, not IRL interactive talking which is fully sequential, sure. It would be confusing to me too there.

Oh do share your reasons on a PM. Precisely because it's in written form that non sequential content confuses me more,I also have no idea what you mean with the "theme"thing.

[Myst]

I'm not stuck in anything, I'm correcting an erroneous claim about me, when it happens to you do you just let it pass? I don't. If you don't mind taking the blame (this sounds much more dramatic than it is, but I don't know how else to phrase it) for something you didn't then fine, but I do.

I will just highlight the irrelevant personal part instead of responding to it.

The misunderstanding I said you've made was about assuming the "she" I was referring to in my post to @niffer about the whole counter-productive behaviour was you, when it wasn't. But whatever, I'm done with this subject. I loath explaining myself and this is all I do here, so enough.

Alright, I see.

It was easy to misunderstand since you already babbled on about that stuff before about squark and me.

And I don't like wasting time, so it's all good.

Ok so let me understand your stance: apparently when I criticize Slade's opinions and ideas I'm criticizing him? Because I only criticized his attitude after it was directed to me, which I believe is fair, but then again I don't see why you'd think you have anything to do with that. But since you now seem to think I'm shady, really can't you see our viewpoints are just vastly different? You understand other Egos stances and see no problem with what they say, compare that with own my interactions with them go and isn't it clear we're not the same?

"because you kept criticizing before that too" = "because you kept criticizing me/LSIs before that too"

"while accusing me (=Myst) of shady intentions of deleting / editing posts" =! "Myst thinks LuckyOne is shady" (...I never said anything like that.)

Never said we are the same, either. No way.

Lol I don't have a problem with you, if anything you are the one dragging this subject out when even the other people involved seem to have abandoned it. And indeed, I was never doing what you described in the first place, I had no thoughts of you since this argument started except for being thankful for the links you've sent me The off thing you're feeling should be clear by now.

Again highlighting the personal bs that I have no interest in responding to.

The "off" thing is not clear, no, still not clear why you had to accuse me of deleting or editing posts. But I'm not interested in knowing the why. Just leave it.

Oh do share your reasons on a PM. Precisely because it's in written form that non sequential content confuses me more,I also have no idea what you mean with the "theme"thing.

Theme thing as explained before: "I did it in my own order: I picked out all posts I wanted to respond to, then organized them so I responded to different themes in different posts. The squark posts I responded to later had nothing to do with your argument with her, just PoLR stuff in general, so a different theme."

[squark]

I actually do the same reaction of getting calmer in certain emotional situations and I'm not Fi creative and I don't do it with the conscious intention to calm people down. It seems to work for that too, tho'.

I do too, but thought I had picked it up from an SEE in my family as that's how I always saw her react.

Anyway, I'm curious (if you ever decide to respond to my post) as to the ways you use Ne for problem solving and considering options. The way I consider options not immediately in front of me or not found by using familiar (logical) methods is just by collecting more concrete data, familiarizing myself with the topic / issue at hand more (more analysis included) or gaining direct experience to then be able to choose from more actually experienced options or options very closely linked to actual experience (linked logically or just simply being close/similar). None of that is Ne use as far as I'm concerned. As for problem solving, I can see and analyze what's in front of me and where it requires considering more options, see above.

So how do you not suck at Ne in the ways you use it? Are you sure they are not just concrete Se options in front of you (or deducable by logical methods) for problem solving?

Well, I say I don't suck, but not sure how people on the outside are seeing it. . . Anyway it's when I can't get something to work, nothing I have tried is working, so I'll mentally step back from the situation and entertain whatever ideas come to me until I see one that I can use. It's kind of an "Aha, I could do that!" kind of thing. It does draw on past experience, trying to find a solution in those experiences, but one that can be applied in a different way to solve the current problem. It's easiest described as targeted mind-wandering - just letting my mind wander over the situation until it hits a good idea. It's nothing like how Ne egos use Ne, and it's only when I'm stuck on some problem.

I also leave out a lot as a bad habit when communicating interactively. I don't explicitly assume it's understood, I just don't think of putting it out there for others. If people then need more explaining, I'm happy to provide it if asked.

I'll explain as long as it's reasonable to do so. Sometimes it turns out that there are books worth of background information to fill in that isn't easily summarized. Was talking to someone else not long ago who does the same thing I do. He was telling me how sometimes he'll be researching and thinking about something for months and building an idea of it, and then he'll come to a conclusion and just say the conclusion expecting everyone to know what he's talking about. It's easy to forget that not everyone has read the same material or is drawing from the same sources, or collects information mentally in the same way. Sometimes I just get frustrated and don't want to explain anything at all.

Lack of organization like that is 1D Ti. I've seen Fe bases (with their 1D Ti) act with seemingly strong contradiction too though for different reasons than Ti PoLR Ep's. Ti PoLR of course doesn't so easily take up Ti information so there's the difference.

Perhaps so, I wasn't really thinking of them since the thread was about Ti polr, so I just thought of the SEEs and IEEs that I knew.

What do you mean by using conditionals leading to no solid structure? "If then" is a conditional too and is logical... so I'm not really following your reasoning here for the last sentence, sorry.

Conditional as in changing based on different conditions. Meaning, when they feel one way towards a person one "rule" applies, but with a different person or situation that they feel different towards, it no longer applies or something else does, so there's no continuity. If everything is an exception, then there is no rule.

Well the thing is... in a sense, it does. Ne polr makes you extremely averse to being willing to put 1+1 together on your own unless you have absolutely no other choice left. And even then you might not want to. You'd rather have someone else do it for you.

This is completely wrong for any Ti ego, as Ti is about putting things together, organizing information etc. I definitely have no need for anyone to do that for me. I think Lucky was complaining more about all the parts of her posts that I skipped entirely. I skipped all the parts where she was throwing out personal insults or just randomly bitching and only addressed the other sections. So, it may have looked like I missed points, but it was more like I didn't see those as points worth responding to.

[niffer]

This is completely wrong for any Ti ego, as Ti is about putting things together, organizing information etc. I definitely have no need for anyone to do that for me.

If that's the case, then why is it that Myst claimed she could relate to my post?

[Myst]

I do too, but thought I had picked it up from an SEE in my family as that's how I always saw her react.

Oh, hm, I'm not aware I picked it up from anyone, it's just I need to see the situation clearly and see it especially well because it's getting so emotional, so my own emotionality, if I even had any to begin with, will have to be turned off.

Well, I say I don't suck, but not sure how people on the outside are seeing it. . . Anyway it's when I can't get something to work, nothing I have tried is working, so I'll mentally step back from the situation and entertain whatever ideas come to me until I see one that I can use. It's kind of an "Aha, I could do that!" kind of thing. It does draw on past experience, trying to find a solution in those experiences, but one that can be applied in a different way to solve the current problem. It's easiest described as targeted mind-wandering - just letting my mind wander over the situation until it hits a good idea. It's nothing like how Ne egos use Ne, and it's only when I'm stuck on some problem.

Yeah that's where I just have that subtle block mentally. No brainstorming like that. I can consciously, deliberately use methods to find options but not this thing about targeted mind-wandering. Interesting. To me it sounds like I'd have to go contemplative, almost meditative. (And then that to me is more Ni and it's not as much a block as Ne is but it often still needs time etc.)

I'll explain as long as it's reasonable to do so. Sometimes it turns out that there are books worth of background information to fill in that isn't easily summarized. Was talking to someone else not long ago who does the same thing I do. He was telling me how sometimes he'll be researching and thinking about something for months and building an idea of it, and then he'll come to a conclusion and just say the conclusion expecting everyone to know what he's talking about. It's easy to forget that not everyone has read the same material or is drawing from the same sources, or collects information mentally in the same way. Sometimes I just get frustrated and don't want to explain anything at all.

Yeah if there are good resources on it, best to just point the person to them. I don't really expect anyone to have read the same material/have the same information as me. My LIE ex did always expect that from people and I conflicted with him a lot on that.

Conditional as in changing based on different conditions. Meaning, when they feel one way towards a person one "rule" applies, but with a different person or situation that they feel different towards, it no longer applies or something else does, so there's no continuity. If everything is an exception, then there is no rule.

Gotcha, yeah, if it's all exceptions then there is no rule, otoh, you can create rules with conditions. Now if these are not kept to then it's like what you said.

This is completely wrong for any Ti ego, as Ti is about putting things together, organizing information etc. I definitely have no need for anyone to do that for me.

Yeah that was ambiguous the way put, because it didn't specify it was about Ne information. Ne PoLR doesn't put Ne information together well.

[squark]

is about making external intuitive connections, right? It's "putting 1+1 together", but in another, non-mathematical realm.

No, it's not about connections at all - the field functions are about connections, which Ne isn't.

[squark]

If that's the case, then why is it that Myst claimed she could relate to my post?

Ask her. I'm not going to respond for someone else.

[niffer]

Ask her. I'm not going to respond for someone else.

And yet, you are ok with saying what I said isn't true for any Ti ego, being confident enough to speak for all Ti egos here and unbeknownst to you...

[squark]

And yet, you are ok with saying what I said isn't true for any Ti ego, being confident enough to speak for all Ti egos here and unbeknownst to you...

based on what Ti is, the definition of it within socionics, yes.

[niffer]

No, it's not about connections at all - the field functions are about connections, which Ne isn't.

Ne is internal statics of objects, and perception of those effectively allows one to see the connections between different things.