How does Extraverted Intuition (polr) manifest in an LSI/ISTj?

[mr_maguoo]

How does (polr) manifest in an LSI? The description in wikisocion states that the LSI is over skeptical or over estimates his/her ability when attempting new things. Is it this what makes LSIs putatively more "conservative" than other types? - As they can seem unconfident when trying new things because as they understand it:- they cannot judge easily their ability to the task because it requires something they don't have?

[Gilly]

Well, does it make sense to you?

[FDG]

I will give you a practical example. I have an LSI classmate which is on top of the class, perfect scores in all subjects. Yet, when in an exam comes up something that hasn't been treated extensively either during the lectures, or by the book, he is skeptical of his ability to deal with the situation. Skeptical is a key word because when he tries, he's correct more often than not.

[machintruc]

polr means LSI are reckless and unable to evaluate risks...

besides, polr make LSI unimaginative and narrow-minded...

[Rick]

How does (polr) manifest in an LSI? The description in wikisocion states that the LSI is over skeptical or over estimates his/her ability when attempting new things. Is it this what makes LSIs putatively more "conservative" than other types? - As they can seem unconfident when trying new things because as they understand it:- they cannot judge easily their ability to the task because it requires something they don't have?

I think LSIs' so-called "conservatism" exists only when looking at them through -dominant eyes. That label isn't very applicable in real life when you get outside of -valuing quadras, in my opinion. Look at IEE and SEEs' conservatism in matters, for instance. Same with any type and their 4th function.

The phrase you mention from Wikisocion doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I just clarified other parts of it and added some new things.

[PotatoSpirit]

LSIs do not tolerate ambiguity

I'm having problems defining my polr too, but I think this is very true.

[HollywoodWanderer]

It seems like they have trouble reacting to "the unexpected" and situations that change rapidly or involve complex interaction between a host of variables in one change. If you threw an istj into a chaotic environment for example, one in which people were constantly changing their minds or shifting the logic by which they were reasoning, then an istj would have trouble keeping up. It seems like istjs make very strong associations between two given things and it can be very difficult/stressful when those associations are shattered and they are forced to reconstitute them.

[Slacker]

Lack of flexibility.

"I know we usually do it this way, but let's do it this other way today and see how that goes." LSIs will not react well.

[Mediator Kam]

Lack of flexibility.

"I know we usually do it this way, but let's do it this other way today and see how that goes." LSIs will not react well.

True, they are more of the "There can only be one right way, the tested and tried way" persuasion.

[mr_maguoo]

Lack of flexibility.

"I know we usually do it this way, but let's do it this other way today and see how that goes." LSIs will not react well.

What most people don't appreciate is that we'll only react badly if the new way of doing something doesn't fit with . If we can appreciate the logic then we'll go along albeit cautiously.

And where it doesn't fit - It doesn't necessitate a fit of inspired anger and dramatism. We're more likely to cringe, if in a professional environment or we don't know the other people too well or if its over a minor detail. Remember LSIs can appreciate the big picture.

[Ezra]

polr means LSI are reckless and unable to evaluate risks...

besides, polr make LSI unimaginative and narrow-minded...

I hope you're joking. Shut the fuck up and go drive a rusty nail into your eye socket.

Actually, Herz, he's not far off. They are certainly single-minded when it comes to doing something. If Ne is about possibilities, what is devalue of and weakness in it about? Perhaps unimaginative is too harsh an adjective. Perhaps to an IEE they are.

As for recklessness, I see this as directly contradictive to their Ti. To what risk evaluation inability is related I don't know.

[ScarlettLux]

It seems like they have trouble reacting to "the unexpected" and situations that change rapidly or involve complex interaction between a host of variables in one change. If you threw an istj into a chaotic environment for example, one in which people were constantly changing their minds or shifting the logic by which they were reasoning, then an istj would have trouble keeping up. It seems like istjs make very strong associations between two given things and it can be very difficult/stressful when those associations are shattered and they are forced to reconstitute them.

Best description of the LSI PoLR I've read so far.

I have a lot of real life experience and interaction with a fair number of LSIs, and all of them very close & personal. I have never once thought they were "unimaginative" or "inflexible" - wtf? Why does everyone think has something to do with being an imaginative, flexible person (in other words, open-minded & fun) .. blegh! Doing projects together even, they always have great ideas and are open to my suggestions as well. We brainstorm a lot, there is nothing in there that would cause me to think - oh yikes, how come this LSI is not wanting to take a new route/direction? Actually, I think the truth is that since I get along with them in terms of Ni/Se, we sort of weed out through numerous possibilities to seriously consider just a couple. What I think dominants perceive as being "inflexible" would be maybe them not liking if too many ideas were thrown around with nothing getting done, nothing being chosen. It's not that they are averse to new ways of doing things, I think that they just want to settle with something that will most likely work.

Anyhow, this relates to what is said above by the other poster. They do react badly to unexpected situations, and I think this is because they just have no idea of where it might lead. They need someone to direct them onto the "best" road. If there is something out of the blue that happens to them, their minds most likely run in a million different directions, creating confusion.

I have seen my best LSI friends do this quite a bit. Especially in romantic situations - they can't handle it if you spring something on them out of the blue. It just seems too random, "wrong" in a sense. For example, my friend was just told by an old childhood friend that he likes her, etc. ... she has liked him quite a lot in the past but can't see him that way anymore for some reason, and she keeps mentioning the fact that it seems to sudden, too strange for him to say his feelings like that so directly. She basically doesn't know how to react and doesn't want to abruptly change the state of their relationship because that would cause too many random possibilities you know?

[machintruc]

polr means LSI are reckless and unable to evaluate risks...

besides, polr make LSI unimaginative and narrow-minded...

I hope you're joking. Shut the fuck up and go drive a rusty nail into your eye socket.

Actually, Herz, he's not far off. They are certainly single-minded when it comes to doing something. If Ne is about possibilities, what is devalue of and weakness in it about? Perhaps unimaginative is too harsh an adjective. Perhaps to an IEE they are.

As for recklessness, I see this as directly contradictive to their Ti. To what risk evaluation inability is related I don't know.

Risk evaluation is related to Intuition.

[mustachio]

PoLR makes LSI overly careful and somewhat distrustful of certain things. if something has been proven to be defective in some way in the past, then they will surely not attempt it again. LSI adapt to their PoLR by following very strict procedures. they might seem reckless at times but that's only in matters which they fully master (and therefore their recklessness might be perceived as such by someone who has no clue about ) and doesn't require the use of much . it is SLE who tend to be reckless because their role leads them to overestimate their capabilities. they sometimes view as irrelevant which might cause them to make mistakes.

[force my hand]

Two possible ISTjs I work with (one might be ISFj) have trouble letting events loosely unfold. They would argue its a function of their position in leadership, but to me it appears as a personality thing. They are very uncomfortable with the idea that A -> B is not a binary state, but might unfold as A -> whirl around D for a bit -> end up at C which is not B though the two are functionally the same and ~ objective accomplished. It is difficult to convince them that things which are not guarenteed are worth trying, especially when a longer, less efficient, but guarenteed process exists.

This has lead to some conflict as the one will tentatively agree to a plan of action, and then I fucking kid you not, will be arguing for the exact opposite two minutes later.

[Blaze]

i think Ne polr is a lack of opennes to new ideas which have not been proven or which have a limited amount of facts and data to back them up. LSI doesn't want to try new things because this would vibe the Fi role function. LSI likes to fit in with the relational mainstream and not stick out too much, so if the idea shakes up relationships in any major way, they are not going to support it. if the LSI perceives that there would be a problem with the new idea according to the power base that creative Se perceives, then they are also going to be resistent to it for this reason and will see the idea as being way too much trouble and effort to sell people on.

so essentially, i think it is the line-up of the other functions which drive the Ne polr of the LSI. and Ne messes with the rock solid stability of the other functions in a way which LSI might experience as a threat to what is known, safe, and secure.

FWIW.

[aestrivex]

He even will go so far as to bad mouth classical music because the music uses very simple chords that are not polythonic chords as used in modern music, go figure...I mean, we're talking Mozart, Schubert, and Beethoven here...I mean, just because the music from then uses triadic chords and relies on the timbre of different instruments and what have you to make the music interesting does not lessen the fact that such music is breath-taking for even today's standards when produced before a mass audience at a grand concert hall by a proficient symphony.

mozart sucks. this is coming from a hypocritical snob who listens to classical music and considers many forms of popular music to be just terrible, similarly to this guy. it's difficult for me to evaluate how my views on music might compare to this guy's, but in general i find most popular music absurdly unmusical and uninteresting. there are some exceptions, but not many.

[mikemex]

[semi-rant]My guitar teacher is an LSI... He thinks little of most guitar music that is not jazz or classical guitar. As far as he is concerned ANYthing that resembles rock, pop, or, God-forbid, country is Crap with a capital C. And I see his points when we go a bit in depth into the reasoning, but when he emphatically states the no one from any of those genres can play guitar, and I mean no one, I think that thinking stems more from an Ne polr and not simply age, because there are plenty of aged persons who are very open minded in those regards.

It is tough for me to describe it all in words, but to him, unless someone plays in 'this' or 'this' way, they cannot play the instrument at all. I have seen a great number of guitarists who do not fit his narrow definition of what it means to play guitar, who I am quite certain he would deem as crap based on that facet alone, despite the fact that they bring forth their own wonderful perspective on music and guitar playing in general.

He even will go so far as to bad mouth classical music because the music uses very simple chords that are not polythonic chords as used in modern music, go figure...I mean, we're talking Mozart, Schubert, and Beethoven here...I mean, just because the music from then uses triadic chords and relies on the timbre of different instruments and what have you to make the music interesting does not lessen the fact that such music is breath-taking for even today's standards when produced before a mass audience at a grand concert hall by a proficient symphony.

That's more a manifestation of aristocracy than anything else. Both betas and deltas suffer from it. When we pick up something we tend to believe that it is somehow better than any other option available. It takes a conscious effort to realize that personal preferences are neither worse nor better, just different.

[silke]

From the words of an SLI, this Ne PoLR manifests in that he cannot talk to LSIs about "what could be". He would try to inspire and encourage them by saying things like: "Let's try this, it could work out", "Don't worry, it could be that they'll reconsider", "May be we'll get lucky this time", etc. but by his account this made them uneasy because such comments created a kind of vague/uncertain picture of what's going on. They instead preferred concrete feedback.

Much of what has been brought up in the posts above (and this SLI guy's account) has to do with peculiarities of LSI's Casual-Determinist cog-style, which is one of the most precise and linear styles of thinking emphasizing pre-determination, rather than the Ne PoLR. It's hard to tell what role Ne PoLR plays in this process, but by my observations it could be manifesting in that LSIs deal with situations as they are, rather than seeing ways that they could re-shuffle and change some variables. Ne has a kind of premutative quality to it that allows Ne types to mix and match external statics of objects thereby re-designing the problem that they are dealing with. This is something that is completely absent from LSI (and ESI's) conceptualization - they instead deal with problems "head-on".

[Park]

From the words of an SLI, this Ne PoLR manifests in that he cannot talk to LSIs about "what could be". He would try to inspire and encourage them by saying things like: "Let's try this, it could work out", "Don't worry, it could be that they'll reconsider", "May be we'll get lucky this time", etc. but by his account this made them uneasy because such comments created a kind of vague/uncertain picture of what's going on. They instead preferred concrete feedback.

Much of what has been brought up in the posts above (and this SLI guy's account) has to do with peculiarities of LSI's Casual-Determinist cog-style, which is one of the most precise and linear styles of thinking emphasizing pre-determination, rather than the Ne PoLR. It's hard to tell what role Ne PoLR plays in this process, but by my observations it could be manifesting in that LSIs deal with situations as they are, rather than seeing ways that they could re-shuffle and change some variables. Ne has a kind of premutative quality to it that allows Ne types to mix and match external statics of objects thereby re-designing the problem that they are dealing with. This is something that is completely absent from LSI (and ESI's) conceptualization - they instead deal with problems "head-on".

Reminds me of the recent conflict I had with a Ti-LII, except I'm the one dealing with things head-on and making sure I have all the facts right before saying or doing anything. The LII misinterprets my ideas and suggestions for decisions or concrete plans of actions which "I don't keep/follow." The factual accuracy of the bullshit he's trying to use against me is of secondary importance and my corrections are seen as "irrelevant semantics". Maybe Ti-LSI would suit him better.

[gabrielle]

In my husband it can show up as not being able to have a long-range or far-reaching vision of what could happen. It's like the 'future' becomes dark (as in lights-out, metaphorically speaking) to him. It seems to be, in my estimation from watching this happen, that if he is feeling pressured or stressed, he will overdo his first two functions Ti-Se by focusing on evermore elaborate systems (ostensibly to be used in the future), but without realling looking toward the future and seeing Ne possibilities (?) He's in the moment. If it gets really bad, I'll be a good dual and remind him to look up and out. It sems like if left unchecked the PoLR might become rather OCDish and gloomy doomsdayish. But, it's never gotten to that point.

[Iris]

Reminds me of the recent conflict I had with a Ti-LII, except I'm the one dealing with things head-on and making sure I have all the facts right before saying or doing anything. The LII misinterprets my ideas and suggestions for decisions or concrete plans of actions which "I don't keep/follow." The factual accuracy of the bullshit he's trying to use against me is of secondary importance and my corrections are seen as "irrelevant semantics". Maybe Ti-LSI would suit him better.

What a pain.

[Iris]

I know an LSI who doesn't do well with unexpected changes to the plan, for example, once he got to the airport so early that his wife suggested they try to get on an earlier flight. He was reluctant to go ask about changing the flight, even though it would have given them more time at their destination. Part of it may be that he hasn't flown much, so airports and airlines are unknown territory. She thought part of it was just introversion. He is an emergency room doctor, so he is used to dealing with the unexpected, but in the ER there is a procedure for every chaotic situation.

[bolong]

One of the few times I have been seriously irritated by my LSI bf is when he wanted to reach the airport way too early.

[gabrielle]

Iris,

Your airport scenario is very interesting in that it's a good example of recurring situations I have had with LSI and been frustrated with him at his stubbornness to change plans mid-stream. To me it has always felt irrational and inefficient. The scenarios are like the one you describe above in which I think ahead and invariably envision saving useless down time or variations on that theme. But, now looking at this with a fresh view, I think the LSI might be wiser in a lot of these cases.

I haven't sorted out why, functionally yet. But to me it seems it might have something to do with having a concrete contingency with plan A. Switching to a random plan B brings in all kinds of possible ramifications that haven't been dealt with and accounted for. Whereas plan A, all of those have been thought out and dealt with. Switching gears throws a wrench in it and not always for the better. I see it as sometimes sticking to the schedule can save headaches down the road.

[Beautiful sky]

I think of it as thought before idea. What has been believed as to be the right way before any other possibility.

[Park]

I know an LSI who doesn't do well with unexpected changes to the plan, for example, once he got to the airport so early that his wife suggested they try to get on an earlier flight. He was reluctant to go ask about changing the flight, even though it would have given them more time at their destination. Part of it may be that he hasn't flown much, so airports and airlines are unknown territory. She thought part of it was just introversion. He is an emergency room doctor, so he is used to dealing with the unexpected, but in the ER there is a procedure for every chaotic situation.

I am generally open and flexible when it comes to changes and adjustments that go in favor of improving my situation. I may even look for them myself, or just keep an open eye for opportunities that may arise. The only time I won't change my plan is when the change requires more effort than what I feel I'm getting out of it. Like, if I get to arrive just half an hour earlier at my destination (and assuming I'm not in a rush to get there), I won't bother changing my flight. So it's like weighing trade-offs for me.

HOWEVER, when I've invested hours, or days, or weeks, planning or working toward a specific goal or outcome, unexpected changes are never received well. I don't want to throw away my efforts and hate to have to deal with unpredicted events that are either obstacles or redirects. I also refuse to settle for anything "less" or "different" than what my objective was.

Also, PEOPLE. I once caught a homeless person trying to steal my lunch box and had no idea how to react. Do I let him have it out of pity? Do I chase him away because he tried to steal instead of ask for food/money/whatever he needs? Do I give him some change and let him go? Does he "deserve" being given anything? How do I respond to his trying to get away by saying he was watching it for me and would never ever steal, which I know is not true? Do I lecture him on moral behavior?... People are always capable of confusing me and creating unexpected situations that I don't know what the right way to deal with is. And I sometimes feel unprepared to react appropriately because I haven't had the time to think.

[gabrielle]

HOWEVER, when I've invested hours, or days, or weeks, planning or working toward a specific goal or outcome, unexpected changes are never received well. I don't want to throw away my efforts and hate to have to deal with unpredicted events that are either obstacles or redirects. I also refuse to settle for anything "less" or "different" than what my objective was.

This is clearly put. You raise a point I could never put my finger on. The element about throwing away time and effort is important from what you've described and it's something that I and maybe others miss in this deal about changed plans. I rarely feel like I've thrown away or wasted my time if I change plans and that may be a bit of an oversight (possibly due to ignoring Fi) in my case. Also, refusing to settle for less than the objective is right on the mark concerning the LSI.

Park, would or could you explain those two things in a bit more detail. How does your inner rationale go? Does part of the objective include the whole mental contingency planning?

[Park]

Park, would or could you explain those two things in a bit more detail.

Most certainly.

Well, before I set out to do something, I first define my objectives and try to have as much clarity as possible about what it is that I want to do or accomplish. Even if it's a broad or vague idea, I need to know exactly what motivates me, what I want out of it, and how I feel about it. So when I begin working towards something, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to achieve and any potentially missing pieces I figure out and complete the puzzle as I go. I tend to spend lots of time sifting through options, carefully examining the differences and weighing tradeoffs before making any serious (or not so serious) decision, so when I make the decision, it's a well thought-out one. Then I plan thoroughly and with keen attention to detail. I don't mind spending time and effort on the smaller parts that constitute—and contribute to the quality and/or successful implementation of—the larger picture, and my natural mental approach is to build all things from the ground up. A problem arises when despite my painstaking efforts, clear objective, and honest intent in mind, things don't work out or start falling apart on me. At that point, someone might suggest a change of plan (usually including a change of objective), or giving up so as to spare myself the troubles. The former only makes sense and is acceptable as long as I can preserve the predefined objective and change my methods without (significantly) compromising the envisioned end result; the latter is defeating and unacceptable because I'm throwing away all the time and effort I have deliberately put into making something of meaning and substance come true.

So, having (1) a clearly defined goal and (2) an unreserved dedication of time and energy, makes (3) settling for any observably different or lesser end result pointless; as well as very painful to accept and deal with. As far as contingency planning is concerned, aside from crucial things I can identify which have the potential to pose more serious danger and are most relevant, I won't say I'm obsessed with eventualities (although someone less scrupulous might see me as such). I focus more on arranging my own performance and considering things that depend solely, or principally, on my own actions. The rest is left to be taken care of on the spot, by improvisation, brute force resistance, or whatever I find most appropriate and necessary.

I'm not particularity versed in lengthy verbal elaborations, but I hope that was comprehensible.

[ConcreteButterfly]

How does (polr) manifest in an LSI? The description in wikisocion states that the LSI is over skeptical or over estimates his/her ability when attempting new things. Is it this what makes LSIs putatively more "conservative" than other types? - As they can seem unconfident when trying new things because as they understand it:- they cannot judge easily their ability to the task because it requires something they don't have?

A dislike of uncertainty. Everything new has to be integrated into their existing system of logic which temporarily arrests their ability to take action . LSIs can therefore be paralyzed by constantly changing, ambiguous situations.

[gabrielle]

Park,

Awesome. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

[Park]

Park,

Awesome. That's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!

You're welcome.

[Park]

In my husband it can show up as not being able to have a long-range or far-reaching vision of what could happen. It's like the 'future' becomes dark (as in lights-out, metaphorically speaking) to him. It seems to be, in my estimation from watching this happen, that if he is feeling pressured or stressed, he will overdo his first two functions Ti-Se by focusing on evermore elaborate systems (ostensibly to be used in the future), but without really looking toward the future and seeing Ne possibilities (?) He's in the moment. If it gets really bad, I'll be a good dual and remind him to look up and out. It seems like if left unchecked the PoLR might become rather OCDish and gloomy doomsdayish. But, it's never gotten to that point.

I can relate to this. (Thinking about) the future and the passage of time are things that can scare the hell out of me like nothing else.

[Suz]

I know an LSI who doesn't do well with unexpected changes to the plan, for example, once he got to the airport so early that his wife suggested they try to get on an earlier flight. He was reluctant to go ask about changing the flight, even though it would have given them more time at their destination. Part of it may be that he hasn't flown much, so airports and airlines are unknown territory. She thought part of it was just introversion. He is an emergency room doctor, so he is used to dealing with the unexpected, but in the ER there is a procedure for every chaotic situation.

Interesting you should mention this. I have come across a bunch of LSIs (and SLEs for that matter) in emergency medicine. They do seem to gravitate to EM for some reason (obviously not a blanket statement, i've also come across a few delta STs (though one LSE now that I think about it, decided against!) and some other types -- not really delta NFs though!), perhaps for the reason you mentioned (there's an algorithm for everything). Also, in emergency medicine you only need to deal with the most urgent things (again, per algorithm), and once you decide how to triage the patient (admit to the ICU, admit to the general floor, discharge home), the admitting service (intensivists, internal medicine hospitalists, cardiologists, surgeons, etc depending on the problem) takes over to try to actually figure out what's going on. The nice thing about EM that attracts people into it is that once you are done with your shift, you are DONE. You rarely need to follow up on patients's results later because they're not really your patients. When i was deciding on specialties, however, the fact that you never really get to dig into what the diagnosis made this option kind of an unfulfilling one... And i didn't really like the chaos (too stressful for my already disorganized mind), and i hate the idea of being a robot and medical care just being reduced to algorithms. I am however, forever a slave to my pager.

[gabrielle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4LPkmGO5Cc

[Amber]

Ne polr >
- very difficult to see a situation from another person's perspective and to understand "hidden content" (influences from someone's background, psychological factors, even cultural ones), inability to grasp the context surrounding a current situation (either as distinct stages in a development or exactly as one event led to another, cause and effect chain in its very process, which is closer to Ni); hard to read a person in all their essence and potential (which Delta NFs are quite good at), judges people mainly by what's very explicit or by body language and confidence levels

- the future is something they sense they don't have control over - it will just unfold; they master the present, but they cannot easily tell where stuff is coming from and where it's gonna go and what should be done in order to make sure stuff goes the right way; bad at estimating "long-term potential" in relationships or other endeavors, more tactical than strategic, they're masters at pushing for fast success, not so much maneuvering for some potential progress you see over one year ahead. They may not understand why you're taking on a new kind of work when apparently you haven't been making a shitload of money in your first 2 months, cannot realize how a resource can be exploited gradually, juts cause you found a good niche and you see how you're gonna build your skills and your client base slowly, but surely.

- can seem selfish in following their interests , since Ne polr means waiting patiently and when you have the opportunity pushing for your own causes, not understanding another's point of view and stuff.

- don't like changes, have their own routines, which is super-fine if it works for them and they don't get bored; however, need external help to change a less-than-ideal state they're in, because they're bad at perceiving latent potential

- hate randomness, expect predictability, are confused by sudden changes and turns of decisions, will strive to stabilize things in a state they can control; if they can't , they'd rather be out of it

[Erk]

The way I see weak Ne is the way (at least I believe it to be weak Ne) manifests itself in me. I don't like when someone tells me something in advance that could finalize in to multiple results with no sure idea of which is more likely. So like for instance when my dad just told me that he was going to find out about a medicaid approval the day before he was suppose to find out. That shit pisses me off, don't fuckin tell me about that shit until you know the answer and then I can make a definite decision on what to do about it. I would much rather you come to me and say "I didn't get approved for medicaid." than constantly update me about the process. Tell me what happened and I can tell you what to do, but save the fuckin details. Basically don't tell me about a surprise before you do it, just fuckin do it.

[suedehead]

Not sure if any of these are relevant, but some people have suggested that I'm a Ne-PoLR type. A lot of this makes me sound pretty stubborn/unpleasant.

-My mom suggested out of nowhere that we update our cable/internet service to a service that's supposed to be a major improvement. I remember feeling frustrated about it since I was already accustomed to what I had, and didn't want to go through the trouble of having to move all the furniture around, remove the wires, set up a new router, having strangers in my room, etc.

-'New things' leave me indifferent, although I've seen a similar phenomenon described under Si-DS. My mom got pretty excited about spending a month in the Dominican Republic over the summer, and said we'd go to all these resorts that I've never been to. None of it interested me though, and I felt like I'd much rather just stay at my grandmother's house for no more than a week, like I'd always done. I was hoping to be employed by then too, so the idea of spending a month vacationing seemed embarrassing/depressing/pointless to me, although I feel sh-tty about potentially holding her back like that. It's still up in the air.

-I find it frustrating when people suggest that I deviate from a routine or route that I've grown accustomed to. Even something as simple as saying 'take this train instead of that one', 'you don't really have to show up that early', or 'go to this other store, you'll get a better deal' when I previously had no problem with my usual way of doing things makes me feel stifled. In my eyes, the plan of action was clear, and now I have all these other unnecessary variables thrown into the mix.

-A neighbor approached my mom telling her that I shouldn't be carrying my camera out in the open since it might get stolen. She took it to heart and I just wasn't having it. The way I see it is, noone's tried to take it, and they have no business trying to take anything from me, so why should I inconvenience myself over something that could happen, but hasn't? Granted, there are some areas that I already know to avoid, but I refuse to believe that I should start viewing the areas that I've already tested out time and time again for myself as unsafe. I can see how this could be obstinate though, and not Ne-PoLR necessarily.

-When I planned on doing a 4-week Film workshop in LA, I needed every single minute detail of how it would spelled out sorted out for me. The idea of leaving anything on that trip up to chance, or 'seeing how things play out' scared the shit out of me.

[blackburry]

...I like randomness.

These Ne PoLr descriptions, man.

[Radio]

random thoughts on Ne polr:

1. i think both Ne and Se are "stereotype" functions. they take a snapshot of something and identify its properties as quickly as possible. both Ne and Se egos do this extensively but in very different ways, i think. although, i think the conventional definition of stereotyping fits Ne far more than Se. Ne-egos have a tendency to draw quick conclusions about people based on their appearance, clothing, social status, etc. i think Se-egos do something similar, but possibly with respect to people's beliefs and ideological positions, so forth?

2. LSI E6 friend is more tolerant, unprejudiced and open-minded than i can (probably) ever be. he's flexible, unpredictable and doesn't mind novelty (although not when it's contrived). tends not to plan when having fun, but tends to plan obsessively when anxiety hits, down to plan Bs and Cs and Ds. he formerly had a habit of generalizing very large groups of people (e.g. "black people need to stop wasting time being thugs and educate themselves" or similar) but i think that was residual racism from his family's side, rather than his own opinions, which probably says something about his polr i.e. not comfortable coming up with his own stereotypes, so he took the ones most convenient to him. i think, Se types often don't generalize as much as Ne types because when pushed to generalize, they do it really badly. it's kind of like looking at a block and having only a certain side of the block being visible to you and describing the side you see, while disregarding the other side that isn't visible to you completely.

3. Ne types on the other hand, i think, have a habit of assuming they can see the whole block even when they haven't seen all the sides. they will generalize often by assuming things like symmetry and fairness and follow thematic principles, like if X exists Y must also exist, "if a person is rich they must be unhappy because life doesn't make sense otherwise" or similar bullshit. but when they aren't falling prey to bad habits, they can generalize and extract the core "theme" of something far more easily and confidently than XSIs can.

4. squark

5. EIIs seem open-minded on the surface, but are internally judgmental assholes. with LSIs, the reverse is true IME.

6. perhaps all this is bullshit because i can also much more easily describe differences b/w LSI friend and myself using enneagram, so maybe i am completely wrong, but i'm probably not, anyway and why i am still typing things i don't know okay i will stop