Fe PoLR: how does it show in ISTps and INTps?

[krieger]

There is nothing positive about one's PoLR. If you have something positive to say about someone's PoLR, just attribute it to their creative function instead.

it's more like... you can't obsessively focus on Ne without disregarding Se entirely, etc.

this reflects something about Creating functions and challenges the commonly held belief that the Base function is the obsessive one. Base still relatively easily "reconciles" with the Role function. Creating is completely antagonistic to PoLR.

but Base is also something offensive and/or invulnerable, because it can supervise the opposite Creating function. Creating is something vulnerable, because it can get supervised. *

i like to associate...
Base = indiscriminate, pragmatic
Creating = discriminate, idealistic

but yeah, i think the most "enlightened" way to think about it is to see the two (Creating and PoLR) as indistinct and interchangeable.

edit:
* although there is an alternative interpretation that i like that says the Creating function might supervise the Base function of the supervisee. i.e. ESTps' Creating Ti supervises INTjs' Base Ti. this is "corrective supervision" as opposed to the regular "bull-in-a-china-store supervision". so the Creating Ti function can be said to reach a more refined answer capable of fixing errors in the indiscriminate result of the Base Ti function.

[07490]

I will give you 2 examples of Fe polr.

1)
A girl who I want to date, asks me: well first tell me how tall you are?
My reply: well I will answer that, if you first tell me how much you weigh!

I am going to learn from the best and bite off this line, you're the man Jarno.

[Crispy]

* although there is an alternative interpretation that i like that says the Creating function might supervise the Base function of the supervisee. i.e. ESTps' Creating Ti supervises INTjs' Base Ti. this is "corrective supervision" as opposed to the regular "bull-in-a-china-store supervision". so the Creating Ti function can be said to reach a more refined answer capable of fixing errors in the indiscriminate result of the Base Ti function.

This is the interpretation I've taken much interest in since you last mentioned it. I'm wondering how it relates to SLE/LII both using -Ti (and the nature of cognitive styles being part of supervisory rings).

I think looking at how the (+/-)functions manifest differently in accepting/producing positions might be helpful.

The analyst compares the options opposite, points to differences and inconsistencies (-L).
Marshall thinks alternative (either-or), its logic compares the opposite decision, rejecting the worst (-L).

[jughead]

They lack the ability to contribute. Everything they do is for themselves. They also ignore proper responses. They wait for others to make a move then criticize them.

DING DING DING.
Poker faces, don't do shit, so you get riled up to get things done and then they criticize you for small mistakes, any mistake really.

[Beautiful sky]

could not focusing on the relevant content of what is being said, but choosing to nit-pick in stead, be attributed to Ne creative? hi hi just joking using my feeble Ti cuz you hit my polr

Jarno, your response I felt totally protected my polr

Don't you wonder why? *Food for thought*

[FDG]

edit:
* although there is an alternative interpretation that i like that says the Creating function might supervise the Base function of the supervisee. i.e. ESTps' Creating Ti supervises INTjs' Base Ti. this is "corrective supervision" as opposed to the regular "bull-in-a-china-store supervision". so the Creating Ti function can be said to reach a more refined answer capable of fixing errors in the indiscriminate result of the Base Ti function.

I thought this was the standard interpretation??

[Skeptic]

They lack the ability to contribute. Everything they do is for themselves. They also ignore proper responses. They wait for others to make a move then criticize them.

DING DING DING.
Poker faces, don't do shit, so you get riled up to get things done and then they criticize you for small mistakes, any mistake really.

Lol, only with Fe egos cus there is no T. Although sometimes we take pity and try to rectify your.. attempts at success... but alas, we are met with stubborn opposition...

[Suz]

That's funny, I've only seen SLIs being exceptionally diligent workers. They must be pretty scared of me.

[Jarno]

It doesn't look like anything! It doesn't fucking exist! You're either Fe or you're not, and if you're not, then fuck Fe cause it's got nothing to do with you!

you are funny and you make a lot of sense.

which former member are you. you can pm me if you don't like to reveal yourself in public

[mikemex]

feelings are internal negations of thought

I really wonder how did you come up with that. Emotions are a form of logic, they make up diffuse thinking.

[silke]

Fe-PoLRs re-define ethical valuations to whatever they want them to be. Whatever is good according to them also becomes just.

[Creepy-ssss]

Fe-PoLRs re-define ethical valuations to whatever they want them to be. Whatever is good according to them also becomes just.

LOL what a nonsense, probably based in a subjective bad opinion about these types (or it pretends to be a joke).

I'll do a similar reasoning. Te-PoLRs lacks the ability for properly using Te. They will then ignore facts, ergo they aren't able to adjust their opinions to reality. Consequently, their ideas and reasonings are all flawed (not worthy of consideration), included those which affirm things about Fe-PoLRs.

Add to this that your interpretation of Fe sounds too much like in MBTI, where Fe is considered "collective" ethics and Fi "inidividual" ethics. Even in this case, you cannot affirm that. "Individual" ethics does not mean adjustable-at-will, but a kind of ethics which is based in personal axioms, interpretations, and not in social ethics. This does not imply you can change your particular ethical axioms at will, the same way a Ti user cannot change their logic axioms at will.

Considering the mainstream socionic interpretation of Fi, xLIs as Fi valuers, put high consideration in personal bonds, which includes principles like reciprocity that non Fi valuers could more easily ignore.

[Cat King Cole]

I'll do a similar reasoning. Te-PoLRs lacks the ability for properly using Te. They will then ignore facts, ergo they aren't able to adjust their opinions to reality. Consequently, their ideas and reasonings are all flawed (not worthy of consideration), included those which affirm things about Fe-PoLRs.

Wait. This is the case in reality anyway

[Creepy-ssss]

I'll do a similar reasoning. Te-PoLRs lacks the ability for properly using Te. They will then ignore facts, ergo they aren't able to adjust their opinions to reality. Consequently, their ideas and reasonings are all flawed (not worthy of consideration), included those which affirm things about Fe-PoLRs.

Wait. This is the case in reality anyway

Technically yes if you look at these things as black/white or absolute "calculations". I do see it in that way.

I only tried to show how simplistic and self-contradictory that statement was.

[InvisibleJim]

Wait. This is the case in reality anyway

Technically yes if you look at these things as black/white or absolute "calculations". I do see it in that way.

I only tried to show how simplistic and self-contradictory that statement was.

Well spotted because it is not always the case that its wrong, but it is often 'overlooked' or 'assumed' instead of worked through in the list of cognitive 'things to do'.

Similarly someone with a Ti PoLR has a 'weakened' ability to think through the elements of a system and will assume everything they see at 'face value' is perfect or horrible as long as it is presented well or poorly. See ExFp.

Similarly someone with a Fe PoLR will ignore the group dynamics regardless of the impact of actions upon it. Similarly someone with a Fi PoLR won't think through the finer details of ethical choice.

But as ever... this is not always the case.

[silke]

LOL what a nonsense, probably based in a subjective bad opinion about these types (or it pretends to be a joke).

or may be checking how many Fe-PoLRs would reply - this description by the way was given to me by an ENFp

Te-PoLRs lacks the ability for properly using Te.

yes, that's what PoLR is

They will then ignore facts, ergo they aren't able to adjust their opinions to reality

Only that Te is not ability to perceive facts. A fact is defined as "something that actually exists; reality". People who are unable to perceive reality would simply die or end up in a psychiatric ward. I know you're trying to create some reductio ad absurdum humor here but at least use definitions that make some sense.

Add to this that your interpretation of Fe sounds too much like in MBTI, where Fe is considered "collective" ethics and Fi "inidividual" ethics.

It's not my own interpretation. This is covered in Wikisocion:

Also, [introverted ethics] types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people.)

So the introverted ethics focuses on what the individual feels and how the individual himself or herself has been affected ("individual" ethics), while extraverted ethics focuses on how the group is affected ("collective" ethics).

This does not imply you can change your particular ethical axioms at will, the same way a Ti user cannot change their logic axioms at will.

You can assume something is true and then proceed to reason it out. Then at will you can assume another thing is true and see where this line of reasoning leads you. The fact that your perception of this is so rigid actually points towards you being of IJ temperament.

Considering the mainstream socionic interpretation of Fi, xLIs as Fi valuers, put high consideration in personal bonds, which includes principles like reciprocity that non Fi valuers could more easily ignore.

Well if you go outside and start asking random people on the street whether they value reciprocity practically everybody will tell you that they do. It is a feature shared by all humans. But if you want to hypothesize about this from point of view of the theory then Fe would place value on acts of reciprocity between other people irrespective of individual's relationship to them (objective ethics) while Fi would place value on acts of reciprocity between self and others (subjective ethics).

[InvisibleJim]

Add to this that your interpretation of Fe sounds too much like in MBTI, where Fe is considered "collective" ethics and Fi "inidividual" ethics.

I should point out that no-one has yet to provide me for any justification why they 'think' Socionics and Jungian functions differ other than going 'they just are'.

I'm quite happy to consider that the introverted/attitude of the function is of, well the same function, like either the heads or tails of a coin. It's an artefact of poor typology and social convenience that this, frankly, recent 'divergence' between systems is being proposed.

[Creepy-ssss]

Only that Te is not ability to perceive facts. A fact is defined as "something that actually exists; reality". People who are unable to perceive reality would simply die or end up in a psychiatric ward. I know you're trying to create some reductio ad absurdum humor here but at least use definitions that make some sense.

You can assume something is true and then proceed to reason it out. Then at will you can assume another thing is true and see where this line of reasoning leads you. The fact that your perception of this is so rigid actually points towards you being of IJ temperament.

More inconsistencies from you, more fun for me.

Or you didn't understand a shit about what I was saying to you, or you really understood it and had evaluated it with a logic which is... HA logic, I mean, valued but WEAK. Yeah an IEI, after all

First to all, the fact definition. I'll assume you can read. I said fact=reality. It's the correct definition, exacly the same you pointed. So, "use some definition which makes sense" is a just a nonsense (!).

Now I'll point to you why your reasoning is absurd from multiple points of views:

That "reductio ad absurdum" would be a consequence of evaluating the issue with "pure Ti". As it was obvious I was being sarcastic, I don't believe things really work in that way. Apparently you noticed that sarcasm. If it's not what I really think, affirming I was being "rigid like an ij" is again absurd.

And the big one. You take a Wikisocion definition as valid for suggesting more o less that Fe-PoLRs lack ethics (and in a categorical way, very Ti-ish, without "shades of grey"). By the same way, you reject another wikisocion definition, about Te-PoLR:

That is manifested as a skepticism and dislike for basing your beliefs, arguments, and actions on external sources of information. For instance, a SEI will rather trust the expertise of someone who seems to have hands-on experience, even if limited, than of someone who demonstrates to have read many books on the same subject. IEIs will base their opinions and views on their own personal insights and be, again, skeptical of "second-hand" factual information that contradicts it. "Don't trust everything you read" is a typical sneer of this function, especially when applied to sources of information otherwise seen as neutral and reliable, such as encyclopedias and handbooks. Another manifestation is a dislike for dealing with issues involving efficiency, productivity, and factual accuracy of statements made; statements are made according to input from other functions, not from double-checks against external facts which are seen as of lesser relevance to the issue at hand. Types with this function lack confidence in their ability to find relevant information in outside sources.

So, you categorically accept some definition you've arbitrarily chosen (Fe-PoLR), and by the same way you categorically reject another definition also arbitrarily (Te-PoLR). Yeah, you made your reasonings very "categorically" without considering the shares of grey and multiple situations that could soften these ideas meanings and results. All or nothing, very Ti-ish, right? The most funny about this is that picking one axiom and rejecting another is being bad with the Ti. A strong user in this function, if something doesn't fit (the example of adaptability you've providen) would think he's is misunderstanding the axiom and rethink about the concepts in an attempt of not being arbitrary and making logical inconsistencies as you've done.

"Look, I'm more flexible, real examples say Te-PoLR can't work in this way". Flawed again. You cannot prove things in reality using general categories, because in reality all depends on particular conditions (an absolute proof would require covering all possible situations, which is inherently impossible). It depends, it depends, it depends. Are Te-PoLR absolutely blind? If you take literally the socionics axioms yes. I do not do this, the same way Fe-PoLR would not mean for me "anti-ethical". It's not "all or nothing" but "more/less compared with". Without being "completely blind", a user who is bad adapting himself to reality could still survive in it. It depends on conditions. The only conclusion it could be made is that the user is "less adapted" so to speak, compared with other who is "better adapted". If Nature is benevolent and do not force things too much, both of them could survive. If Nature impose conditions which are severe, only the most adapted will survive... and as many particular cases as you want. It's not "you know all or you'r mad" but "you're closer to reality" or "you live more in lala-land".

You failed with both T's. Better luck next time.

[Well if you go outside and start asking random people on the street whether they value reciprocity practically everybody will tell you that they do. It is a feature shared by all humans

We more or less agree in this.

It's not my own interpretation. This is covered in Wikisocion:

Also, [introverted ethics] types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people.)

So the introverted ethics focuses on what the individual feels and how the individual himself or herself has been affected ("individual" ethics), while extraverted ethics focuses on how the group is affected ("collective" ethics).

I could agree with that but:

If you want to hypothesize about this from point of view of the theory then Fe would place value on acts of reciprocity between other people irrespective of individual's relationship to them (objective ethics) while Fi would place value on acts of reciprocity between self and others (subjective ethics).

This is where I do not agree. In my opinion, you cannot truly manifest reciprocity if you aren't aware of the existence of a bond where it flows (Fi).

I think you're misunderstanding being good person, like for example generous, nice, etc with such concept (ethical reciprocity). For example, take in consideration Fi-PoLR behavior. It's not being affirmed that ILEs are consciously bad but unconscioulsy dangerous, so to speak. If you have a bond with a person, you feel more or less in duty for responding accordingly. The stronger it is, the more you will respond. If there's no such bond, you do not feel (or perceive, better) such obligation. As the mere existence of this bond is inherently subjective, this is much more the land of Fi than Fe. And this is why Fe users focus more on "observable interactions" (groupal mood, emotions...) than in non observable interactions like that.

It does not makes sense for me speaking about "groupal reciprocity". Obviously "groupal benefit, mutual interest, etc" will hapen but I wouldn't call it reciprocity.

Again, I'm speaking in relative terms, not all or nothing.

[Creepy-ssss]

I should point out that no-one has yet to provide me for any justification why they 'think' Socionics and Jungian functions differ other than going 'they just are'.

I'm quite happy to consider that the introverted/attitude of the function is of, well the same function, like either the heads or tails of a coin. It's an artefact of poor typology and social convenience that this, frankly, recent 'divergence' between systems is being proposed.

Well all I can say Jim is Socionics is not based only in Jung. It takes in consideration two main sources, his work and Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism. This latter seems to be the source of the core aspects of function definitions, such as "Te=external dynamics of objects" (any older member correct me if I'm wrong). Their properties are deduced accordingly to such core definitions, which not always would fit with Jung.

For example, Se and Si are quite different from our classic JCF, and whereas properties like algorithmic thinking were associated to Ti they're now associated with Te...

I'm by no way saying than Socionics definitions are correct over Jung, neither the opposite. In fact as all of this shit is no more than conventions, particular interpretations for observed phenomenons, unless all of they where observing exactly the same portion of reality (assuming something that resembles functions really exists) their validity are not linked. One cold be more correct, or the alternative, or both of them simultaneously... or none of them. Nothing of this is scientifically proven so we're only wasting our time. At least it's a mental entertaintment .

[InvisibleJim]

For example, Se and Si are quite different from our classic JCF, and whereas properties like algorithmic thinking were associated to Ti they're now associated with Te...

My problem is that reading back to Jung his descriptions marry reasonably well with the Socionics descriptions and it was infact how I was viewing the functions because I view them as what they do.

People are prone to over-categorisation of a fuzzy, archetype esque, definition.

[Creepy-ssss]

My problem is that reading back to Jung his descriptions marry reasonably well with the Socionics descriptions and it was infact how I was viewing the functions because I view them as what they do.

People are prone to over-categorisation of a fuzzy, archetype esque, definition.

You're missing my point.

If for "people" you say forum users, well some will over-categorize and some don't. If for "people" you say Socionics creators yes, they have inherently over-categorized functions. Obviously, most of them were alpha NTs, strong Ti valuers.

You don't have to see functions as Augusta and company (neither I do), but this is not anyway the quid. If you ask if these functions are "the same", you need to refer to the point of view of the creators of the models and their theories, the same way you refer to Jung for describing his interpretation of this issue.

And these points of views are not the same. Their conclusions usually agree, but not always. They can't be "the same" in both models because they're not exactly speaking about the same phenomenon, so to speak, or the same model of reality.

Just for the record, I insist I also do not agree in the way functions are seen in mainstream Socionics. I see them far from the reality, from what human brain works according to our knowledge about it (or the portion of that knowledge I know, at least).

It's an organized but dynamic "organic machine", not a set of static boxes where any of them will only see a perfecly delimited portion of reality. By the same, I do not agree with your interpretation as what they do because this assumes a perfect, or at least hard, correlation between concrete functions and concrete results. I see them as how they work, processes, algorithms. Every function will have a trend for producing a result more easily, but this result will depend on the concrete inital data, input, which is passed to the process.

I do not want to extend myself too much here. If you're interested, here you have a former conversation. It seems it was continued a bit since too much work made me abandoning it.

P.S. Your focus in result is interesting because it would fit more in a result type than the process type ILI is supposed to be. I still see you as a J temperament so more likely LIE than ILI. Anyway if you're an ILI you should be Te subtype. This is only a subjective remark, not a attempt of creating a discussion about your type.

[Creepy-ssss]

Nah. Regardless of whatever one's personal exegesis of the theory says, Jungian functions ≈ Socionics IEs.

Personal exegesis? I think you're personalizing it, if you ignore available data about how it's made.

No, they are the same.

No they aren't. The properties and behavior associated to these functions are not completely the same in these two different models.

No it wasn't.

Yes it was.

Sure, but if you pay attention and observe enough people, it's readily obvious that these supposed distinctions are superfluous. It's all the same shit.

One thing is not taking a single point of view (whichever model you profer) as "the valid one", something both of us do, and another thing is affirming "the models are the same" (observe: I said models, not reality).

You cannot impose your interpretation of a phenomenon to a model of the same phenomenon not made by you, as if it says what you think about it, even if the model is a complete bullshit. I think this is obvious.

[Creepy-ssss]

It's OK, Asthon. I can agree with your last post.

You're sometimes a bit too categorical in your affirmations. Once you develop a bit more, the aspect is quite different.

About Ti I've read somewhere about it as algorithmic in jungian typology, but nevermind. I do not want to seek all old sources and it would be only a particular case in the discussion, not determinant anyway.

[silke]

More inconsistencies from you, more fun for me.

yes, Ti loves finding inconsistencies, doesn't it?

Or you didn't understand a shit about what I was saying to you, or you really understood it and had evaluated it with a logic which is... HA logic, I mean, valued but WEAK. Yeah an IEI, after all

If you want people to understanding you, then express yourself more clearly.
As for Ti who cares for it? Ni is where it's all at

... I don't believe things really work in that way.

same, however, I see you keep insisting that Ti=logic?

Apparently you noticed that sarcasm. If it's not what I really think, affirming I was being "rigid like an ij" is again absurd.

This wasn't said in reference to your joke, but to your claim that one cannot just pick axioms at will, to which I replied that one can depending on the situation such that you can follow through multiple lines of reasoning. This should be obvious to someone who has Ni as base function, thus your claim sounded rather restrictive alike that of Ti-base type.

... you reject another wikisocion definition, about Te-PoLR

Well it makes little sense if you think about it: T-F are opposing ends of same dichotomy, but the opposite of "ethics" is not "facts".

you made your reasonings very "categorically" without considering the shares of grey and multiple situations that could soften these ideas meanings and results. All or nothing, very Ti-ish, right?

All-or-nothing thinking is not property of socionics Ti. People who engage in this kind of thinking get diagnosed with BPD and afaik it affects many types, not just Ti users.

The most funny about this is that picking one axiom and rejecting another is being bad with the Ti.

but good with Ni

... a user who is bad adapting himself to reality could still survive in it. It depends on conditions. The only conclusion it could be made is that the user is "less adapted" so to speak, compared with other who is "better adapted". If Nature is benevolent and do not force things too much, both of them could survive. If Nature impose conditions which are severe, only the most adapted will survive... and as many particular cases as you want. It's not "you know all or you'r mad" but "you're closer to reality" or "you live more in lala-land".

This is a highly improbable possibility (and that you're considering it and willing to use it for the sake of your argument points towards Ne). Roughly half the population, Alpha and Beta quadra, does not value Te. Using definition that Te is being perceptive of facts, and that facts=reality, it follows that half the human population sucks at perceiving reality. From what is already known of human evolution nature did not impose "easy conditions" by any means, but the genes that enabled this highly disadvantageous type of blindness somehow managed to be passed on for millions of years to a large pool of individuals. This claim sounds like nonsense.

This is where I do not agree. In my opinion, you cannot truly manifest reciprocity if you aren't aware of the existence of a bond where it flows (Fi).

I think you're misunderstanding being good person, like for example generous, nice, etc with such concept (ethical reciprocity). For example, take in consideration Fi-PoLR behavior. It's not being affirmed that ILEs are consciously bad but unconscioulsy dangerous, so to speak. If you have a bond with a person, you feel more or less in duty for responding accordingly. The stronger it is, the more you will respond. If there's no such bond, you do not feel (or perceive, better) such obligation. As the mere existence of this bond is inherently subjective, this is much more the land of Fi than Fe. And this is why Fe users focus more on "observable interactions" (groupal mood, emotions...) than in non observable interactions like that.

Well I can construct a hypothetical argument for you as well to show how Fe is more ethical than Fi, but it would be a pointless exercise and neither would it correspond to what I truly believe so I am not going to bother with it.

[InvisibleJim]

P.S. Your focus in result is interesting because it would fit more in a result type than the process type ILI is supposed to be. I still see you as a J temperament so more likely LIE than ILI. Anyway if you're an ILI you should be Te subtype. This is only a subjective remark, not a attempt of creating a discussion about your type.

I should clarify.

By what they do I intended to allude to how they move/direction of action.

It isn't really important to me that Subject A has invented System A and Subject B has invented System B and they declare they are different when infact both systems describe in detail how a spade lifts earth. The action is the same whether we call it a earth-lever or a ground-mover. Basically a spade is a spade because of its function, not because of its label. It can also be a table leg if you nail it to a broken table and use it as a crux and thus it is no longer doing spade. I hope people reading can understand the distinction I'm trying to make because I'm generally not good with these types of examples unless I can show someone physically what I'm thinking.

In this respect the undertone beneath all cognitive style models and their elements are pretty much identical even if different categories and phraseology is used (basically a sneaky use of barriers to entry). You say red, I say scarlet is scant difference when the object we are describing is the same colour of lipstick.

Note: Hey it's difficult trying to use a medium such as written language - a Si/Ne categorisation based method of laying out thought to describe something so organic and inter-categorical. You always end up with something that in effect describes a fixed rather than fluid state.

[Creepy-ssss]

yes, Ti loves finding inconsistencies, doesn't it?

Right, but you forget that Ti is the demonstrative function of ILIs. Demonstrative is, despite of not being valued, strong, and the easiest function for being used after leading.

I should add that regardless any person is a Ti valuer of not, the job of "depuring reasonings" is mainly its work, and any person who works in the land of Science as me has been trained for depuring reasonings against logical inconsistencies. I'm sure you won't to augue that all scientists are alphas, neither all "purists" in reasonings should be Ti valuers. It's a useful tool and in that way I recognize it.

If you want people to understanding you, then express yourself more clearly.
As for Ti who cares for it? Ni is where it's all at

Speak for yourself. Maybe other people have understood me perfectly and you are who can't follow my reasoning. Did you ask them, maybe?

LOOL. Now the behavior I suspected start manifesting. You have some kind of "personal problem" with the idea that I could be a Ni type. I'll speculate that maybe as you don't recognize me as a "similar type" you subconsciously need to reject the idea that I could be a Ni user. The opposite would be that or you're not a Ni type (what I'm not affirming) something that your weak and sensistive ego can't deal with, or maybe you don't understand properly Ni function.

Bolded part is like a poem of your "emotional attachment" to what you "feel" about Ni. It's an observable phenomenon in all typology forums that there's a bigger trend for Ni users to think about this function as inherently superior. Grew up, Ni does not equal to "mental superpowers" or similar.

If you hope to obtain something that resembles real knowledge only with a P function, you're deluded. Without the proper functioning of J functions this will be your future:

same, however, I see you keep insisting that Ti=logic?

Mon dieu! (woops, have I said this?).

The mental process labeled as Ti generates products which resembles what is usually described as "logic"... did you prefer this?

Please don't be so fussy (you are worse than a LII! ). Focus in the global idea. What I think about functions is written in the link I posted to Jim. I do not need to use that exact description for being coherent.

This wasn't said in reference to your joke...

Read twice and properly this time. The words facts and reality are mentioned in the same paragraph, thanks.

but to your claim that one cannot just pick axioms at will, to which I replied that one can depending on the situation such that you can follow through multiple lines of reasoning. This should be obvious to someone who has Ni as base function, thus your claim sounded rather restrictive alike that of Ti-base type.

This should be obvious to someone as Ni base... blah blah blah. I don't care a shit whichever your function base is.

Listen to me. You have no fucking idea about how to make a coherent reasoning. If you hope that simply making a hodgepodge of ideas you will be right because "you are Ni user..." then you're closer to the picture than I was thinking.

Well it makes little sense if you think about it: T-F are opposing ends of same dichotomy, but the opposite of "ethics" is not "facts".

"Facts" understood as a complete understanding of reality (or even a portion) are impossible. Only approximations we can have. But "ethics" are inherently subjective, at least the common form of ethics based in empathy and morality. The degree of subjectivity of land of ethics if much higher than the degree of subjectivity of the land of "T functions".

You can always make a "Ti calculus", so to speak, in Maths and observe if it is correct or not, and an experiment in the real work and observe the results (Te). T concepts are falsifiable, ethics concepts are not. And I'm sure you will agree that you can't describe a physical law with Fe or Fi...

All-or-nothing thinking is not property of socionics Ti. People who engage in this kind of thinking get diagnosed with BPD and afaik it affects many types, not just Ti users.

"Not just Ti users" does not invalidate that they're, fixed as invariant any other factor, more prone to this way of thinking. Don't negate evidences please, statistically this is true, and this is what I was saying.

The same way enneagram 1 users are more prone to this "all-or-nothing" moral judgements, Ti users are more prone to "all-or-nothing" logical judgements, both phenomenons being observable. This is a side effect of the way Ti function works, probably related to its static nature.

but good with Ni

And?

This is a highly improbable possibility (and that you're considering it and willing to use it for the sake of your argument points towards Ne). Roughly half the population, Alpha and Beta quadra, does not value Te. Using definition that Te is being perceptive of facts, and that facts=reality, it follows that half the human population sucks at perceiving reality. From what is already known of human evolution nature did not impose "easy conditions" by any means, but the genes that enabled this highly disadvantageous type of blindness somehow managed to be passed on for millions of years to a large pool of individuals. This claim sounds like nonsense.

You really looks pathetic with your obsession of proving my non-ILI nature, as if even true it would be a sort of argument against the validity of my assertions. The fact that I could be right or not is not related with my hypothetical LIIness.

Do you really think I'm afraid of being a non-ILI? I feel as equally confortable with the idea of being an ILI as I feel with the idea or being a LII. And before you could suggest I could be lying, the proof is my "type me" tread, which anyone could check. There is no signal in it of "I want to be ILI" because in fact I was convinced, that was not my starting point.

If you really want to question my type, there is a thread for it. Stop pathetically trying to use it here as a "proof". There are arguments in it about my ILIness a thousand of times better than yours against it.

You are a nonsense, siuntal, you are a nonsense. I was speaking in shares of grey terms, relative terms, and you insist in the "all-or-nothing" idea. I have not affirmed "Te=facts" exept in the "joke".

With the RELATIVIZATION (are you capable of such concept? It seems not...) I made, well explained in the example of evolution (which you haven't understood/agreed, so better go back to the school because it's correct), it's clear that the question is not "you understand versus you don't understand facts" but "you understand better versus you understand worse". Adaptation is not 0 or 100% question, there are are a complete set of intermediate points (as many as different individuals, in fact).

And not forget (or conveniently elude) the ID question. Alphas and betas do not value Te, but they will have it in the ID (being STRONG, as happens in LIIs or ILEs, for example) or in the superego (being weak).

Well I can construct a hypothetical argument for you as well to show how Fe is more ethical than Fi, but it would be a pointless exercise and neither would it correspond to what I truly believe so I am not going to bother with it.

I should add to the list of your faults hypocresy then.

You initiated this discussion with your erroneous affirmation that Fe-PoLRs are more or less anti-ethical. It was probably based in your previous prejudices or overestimation of yourself (as Fe ego), something well seen also with your "magic" Ni.

Now I have simply explained my particular vision of Fe and Fi, attributing a PARTICULAR aspect (reciprocity, not the whole ethical issue) to Fi function, and expliciting I was speaking in relative terms, not absolute as you started.

Now you simply refuse my point of view as pointless, and the basic argumentation for such is that you "don't believe it". Very well!

So finally we can see your true face, you have revealed yourself. You should consider yourself as a "super-ethical being" and the reason for it is simply "beliefs". You don't care argumentations, you don't care facts, you only care your particular beliefs about whatever, which you will never question. You don't bother knowing truth, reality (or its best approximation), but only being right. I have seen this behavior before so many times...

I agree with you in not bothering more in this conversation, because it's really a waste of time speaking with you. Why bothering discussing with someone who simply won't listen?

Answer this post or not, I do not care neither I will continue. Anyone can make its own conclusions at this point.

[Creepy-ssss]

I should clarify.

By what they do I intended to allude to how they move/direction of action.

It isn't really important to me that Subject A has invented System A and Subject B has invented System B and they declare they are different when infact both systems describe in detail how a spade lifts earth. The action is the same whether we call it a earth-lever or a ground-mover. Basically a spade is a spade because of its function, not because of its label. It can also be a table leg if you nail it to a broken table and use it as a crux and thus it is no longer doing spade. I hope people reading can understand the distinction I'm trying to make because I'm generally not good with these types of examples unless I can show someone physically what I'm thinking.

In this respect the undertone beneath all cognitive style models and their elements are pretty much identical even if different categories and phraseology is used (basically a sneaky use of barriers to entry). You say red, I say scarlet is scant difference when the object we are describing is the same colour of lipstick.

I understand very well what you're trying to say and also agree with the core idea.

As usually happens with negativists (which includes both ILI and LII) I tend to focus in differences, or "the whole minus X" (what I lack for Z instead what I have for Z, where I don't want to go instead where I want...).

Your point of view is based in observing similarities. At the very inside, both are equivalents. Typical of positivists, reinforcing my idea that maybe you are not an ILI (buy again, still a NiTe ego is possible).

Note: Hey it's difficult trying to use a medium such as written language - a Si/Ne categorisation based method of laying out thought to describe something so organic and inter-categorical. You always end up with something that in effect describes a fixed rather than fluid state.

I do not see this particular case as fitting in "static". Anyway I recommend to you looking that thread about how I understand functions and you will have a better reference as I understand this socioshit stuff from a static or dynamic point of view. Alternatively, you have my "type me" thread where any contribution from yourself would be welcomed. I suspect that as it's very long you will feel it as a unproductive usage of your time but you can focus in the end where the conclusion was emerging, specially after Labcoat's comment about Ti Vs Te.

No obligation, of course, only if you feel curiosity.

[Eye of the Potato]

I know this is an old post but could Huitzilopochtli be an ENFj?

Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
you are more ESTj than INFp; why don't you just stop accepting my thinking and trying to create reasoning? I don't believe that anyone but an PoLR would have something so mediocre of an intuition as to have 'hunches', no one but an ST EJ would follow me around a forum sensing and reasoning what I write and then providing their thoughts, and FTR you act like every ESTj I have ever supervised and not at all like an INFp...to question my knowledge of duality is not to create an independent understanding of itself...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanprollyright
This is complete and utter bullshit.

__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkster
As well as his intention to confuse and degrade thePirate.

Could this be a case of Te PolR in action?

And when he was that any type of Hamlet ( ENFj ) is so convincing that understand what is what is very difficult. The easiest way to calculate the Hamlet ( ENFj ) on the frequency with which he peretipiruetsya. If a person today Huxley ( ENFp ) tomorrow Dreiser ( ISFj ), and the day after Zhukov ( ESTp ) , and if every time there are people who honestly believe in it, and almost no foaming at the mouth, prove the correctness of ordinary typing - with 99% confidence we can say - before you Hamlet ( ENFj) . However, sometimes Hamlets ( ENFj's ) choose their favorite type, and a hold on him all the legs. Of Hamlet ( ENFj ) can be calculated only over time, with more intimate contact.


Hamlet, otherwise known as "The Actor" or the ENFj.

I had a similar experience of this today. lol.

[Korpsy Knievel]

[Anna1921]

Some Fe PoLR descriptions sound like they are about emotionless droids.

I don't get that. I know SLIs and ILIs are not emotionless droids (at least, not more than other types, and not because of their socionics type), so what gives?

Also, I have seen it here that Fe = emotion, which lends itself to the Fe PoLR = emotionless droid theme.

What do you think about this? What does Fe PoLR really mean??

[Gravolez]

Vulnerable Fe does not mean you don't have emotions. It means that you are not consciously fully aware of your emotions, you don't care much about them, you cannot always express them in a way that would fit the situation and you cannot handle the subtleties related to emotions and emotional states. Often when those people express feelings they do so in a childish manner either overdoing it or showing too little, cause they are not really sure what is the right amount of display that would correspond to their inner state.
Although with experience people with vulnerable Fe become better at expressing their emotions and handling emotional situations, though they would probably rather not do it if they have other options.

[aixelsyd]

I don't see Fe PoLR as indicating being emotionless at all. Some are very emotional but I notice a seeming lack of awareness of the surrounding emotional atmosphere or slowness in grasping emotional cues from people's body language, voice, and facial expression. They seem to struggle in manipulating their own body language and expression to convey emotions more than others. Some seem consciously aware of this ineptitude, though, and try to cover it up, even going so far as beaming out of nowhere with their smiles and it sort of takes me by surprise but it's really cute, nonetheless.

I wish I had more practical examples, but my fav vlogger, Zinnia Jones, is most often criticzed for lack of inflection in delivery. Granted ZJ does get accusations of coming off as robotic, but it's not necessarily like that all the time. I can also see it in a group when the group feels unfavorably towards the ILI (not as much experience with SLIs) and I wonder if the ILI knows it as they go on to speak nonchalantly in spite of the atmosphere. I find myself, then, getting antsy and trying to insert subtle comments or steer the conversation so that emotions don't spill over onto the odd man out.

[Words]

We were having a chat on shoutbox about PoLRs and I mentioned this:

"I make jokes and try to make sure everyone in a group i am in is happy and in good spirits, i wonder if that's me trying to compensate for Fe PoLR I dunno"

I thought i'd put it out there on a thread for feedback on Fe PoLR and for suggestions on how to handle it, what if anything I should do different etc.

[Reficulris]

I dunno, i'd say that it's kinda making use of Fe, so not necessarily "compensating".

I don't notice your Fe polr so i'm useless here

BabyGiraffeOut

*swirls cape and disappears into the night*

[Words]

I dunno, i'd say that it's kinda making use of Fe, so not necessarily "compensating".

I don't notice your Fe polr so i'm useless here

BabyGiraffeOut

*swirls cape and disappears into the night*

A certain person who I won't name unless they want me to (didn't confirm with them) mentioned this is what SLIs do then I get hissy when people don't like my not so funny jokes or am I not very good at it. Lol the shame

Well if this is being the case I think to myself - hmm do I change doing this then become more SLI non emotional type (less easy to relate to for instance) or improve on it or something else.

I have some other ideas but I may expand on them at some other point if the thread keeps going.

Thanks Refi

[Contra]

I think insecurity about whether the group is in good spirits or not is just a weak Fe thing in general. However, I think it almost points to Fe role more than Fe polr. Not trying to contest your type or anything, but I usually feel very outside of the group spirit. Like if everyone is pissed at each other or everyone is uncomfortable I don't really feel it or care that much, but I don't know if thats the case with other Fe polrs or if it's just me.

[strangeling]

I consider my Fe PoLR to be a reluctance in desiring to change the emotional atmosphere. I'm greatly aware of how people are feeling and really don't see the point in trying to mess around with people's emotions. I'd rather make note of what's going on with people so that we can deal with any issues they may have and create a dynamic where we help each other. Fe types want me to drop all that and seem to think they can create a substitute for interpersonal chemistry by having an emotional impact on people; they essentially want me to do like they do, but they don't realize that it means I'll have to act it, that's it's not something I could ever enjoy, even if good at. So reluctance and frustration when it's criticized as important...

[InvisibleJim]

I think the sentiment that point expressed was bad socionics driven by his Fi polr.

[Words]

I think the sentiment that point expressed was bad socionics driven by his Fi polr.

I had thought about this but in my eternal naivety I find myself giving others the benefit of the doubt.

Can't win cause if I don't then I don't listen is the feedback lol.

[InvisibleJim]

I had thought about this but in my eternal naivety I find myself giving others the benefit of the doubt.

Can't win cause if I don't then I don't listen is the feedback lol.

Cats go meow
Cows go moo
Immature ILEs and SLEs go 'you aren't listening to feedback' when attempting to game an outcome.