Demonstrative function - no choice?

[ConcreteButterfly]

does this sound right to you guys:
the demonstrative function isn't a choice, you can't produce it "on demand" when subconsciously you don't sense a need for it. it's purely a reference for your creative function. when the creative function is doing OK, connecting the individual to the world, the demonstrative becomes relatively inert. however when there is a problem connecting with others via your creative function, the demonstrative involuntarily "leaks" information to the surrounding, and collects feedback of the same kind from others. and that gives the creative function more to go on.
in conjunction with this involuntary expression, the demonstrative is also largely non verbal. the only times it becomes verbal is when the POLR function is threatened. verbalization of the demonstrative is a response to psychic stress, it relieves pressure on the vulnerable POLR function. the more pressure there is on the POLR, the more exhibitionist becomes the demonstrative. on the contrary, a lack of expression of one's demonstrative is a good sign of psychic security. even more secure is when a person takes others' lead in their demonstrative, subordinating themselves.

[strangeling]

I think it's just another side of the same coin - the creative. It can be good or bad or psychically beneficial or stressful.

Main problem with the demonstrative is that it's philosophically related to the PoLR function, since they are a dualism of each other. It can be be a way of encountering PoLR problems, but also a way to guard and alleviate the PoLR by learning from the problems you encounter and then reworking your subconscious to avoid them.

[Myst]

does this sound right to you guys:
the demonstrative function isn't a choice, you can't produce it "on demand" when subconsciously you don't sense a need for it. it's purely a reference for your creative function. when the creative function is doing OK, connecting the individual to the world, the demonstrative becomes relatively inert. however when there is a problem connecting with others via your creative function, the demonstrative involuntarily "leaks" information to the surrounding, and collects feedback of the same kind from others. and that gives the creative function more to go on.
in conjunction with this involuntary expression, the demonstrative is also largely non verbal. the only times it becomes verbal is when the POLR function is threatened. verbalization of the demonstrative is a response to psychic stress, it relieves pressure on the vulnerable POLR function. the more pressure there is on the POLR, the more exhibitionist becomes the demonstrative. on the contrary, a lack of expression of one's demonstrative is a good sign of psychic security. even more secure is when a person takes others' lead in their demonstrative, subordinating themselves.

I don't really think all this is right per se about creative vs demonstrative. I just don't see that playing out concretely, sounds like too much biased speculation to me, going beyond the limits within which the framework is any good at all. The part on demonstrative/PoLR dynamics does make sense in terms of how they are complementers of each other but not connecting in the same way the base and suggestive functions would. What absolutely does not make sense is why would you need to follow others in terms of your demonstrative, however?!

I think it's just another side of the same coin - the creative. It can be good or bad or psychically beneficial or stressful.

Main problem with the demonstrative is that it's philosophically related to the PoLR function, since they are a dualism of each other. It can be be a way of encountering PoLR problems, but also a way to guard and alleviate the PoLR by learning from the problems you encounter and then reworking your subconscious to avoid them.

My problem with that is I don't see how that works in practice, so say, how does Fi demonstrative guard/alleviate Te PoLR?

[Beautiful sky]

Yeah. When I first met my bf I could picture our lives together two years down the road, married, and living in a house. He can't picture anything except what he needs to get done now. IDK it's not my Ne that is looking in the future, it's my Ni that's picturing us after having lived in a house for a while. Maybe it's my Fi because I'm so relationship relationshipppy person. Maybe I'm building a sense of security. IDK it makes me feel good. I think I live in the past and future too much, he helps me live in the present. Isn't that classic N/S situation anyway. Good balance.

[strangeling]

My problem with that is I don't see how that works in practice, so say, how does Fi demonstrative guard/alleviate Te PoLR?

Because it involves the PoLR; if you put work into building a functional demonstrative, it implies working on PoLR problems as well. It just does. The functions are philosophical duals. It's like knowing good because you know what's bad. Knowing good without knowing bad doesn't make any epistemological sense. It's the same way with Fi and Te and all the function pairs; to know one implies other.

I mean you want an example, okay, but there's going to be many ways it manifests. Poorly developed functions are more reactive, while developed act more than react. Reactive creates PoLR problems, but it also creates suggestive problems. They are pretty similar in a way, I guess. I mean Fi demonstrative can range from outbursts of what a person thinks is right or wrong or metaphorically telling someone to back off (making things worse or not) to knowing how to set boundaries successfully, while also thinking about other people and how things can get done to help those people as well. Fi is kind of useless if there's no way to do anything about it.

I don't know, I'm sure that's not what you want to hear, but I don't like coming up with basic descriptions for things. I see the functions, the types, etc. as an architecture for seeing how a person is developing.

[Myst]

Because it involves the PoLR; if you put work into building a functional demonstrative, it implies working on PoLR problems as well. It just does. The functions are philosophical duals. It's like knowing good because you know what's bad. Knowing good without knowing bad doesn't make any epistemological sense. It's the same way with Fi and Te and all the function pairs; to know one implies other.

I mean you want an example, okay, but there's going to be many ways it manifests. Poorly developed functions are more reactive, while developed act more than react. Reactive creates PoLR problems, but it also creates suggestive problems. They are pretty similar in a way, I guess. I mean Fi demonstrative can range from outbursts of what a person thinks is right or wrong or metaphorically telling someone to back off (making things worse or not) to knowing how to set boundaries successfully, while also thinking about other people and how things can get done to help those people as well. Fi is kind of useless if there's no way to do anything about it.

I don't know, I'm sure that's not what you want to hear, but I don't like coming up with basic descriptions for things. I see the functions, the types, etc. as an architecture for seeing how a person is developing.

That's perfectly fine, about seeing IEs as an architecture of sorts and not as concrete behavioural stuff/traits. Thanks for the examples. I'm still pretty skeptical about this demonstrative/PoLR interaction stuff tbh, beyond some really basic outline of the function dynamics. So, sure, the demonstrative taking up psychological space instead of the PoLR makes sense but all these refined speculations about reworking the subconscious via demonstrative on the PoLR issues or amount of verbalizing and whatnot (see first post) seem really unfounded to me, the basic principles don't warrant any such assumptions without solid observations to avoid biased speculating heavily involving really bad logical jumps.