Type subtypes and PoLR

[Steve]

This sounds like aboslute bullshit.

Why?

[confused84]

I have a friend also INTJ he is not afraid of confrontation in fact a lot of people do like him.

Me on the other hand I would rather avoid confrontation it's not worth it for me.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Why?

Fair enough as reasonable question. It looks suspiciously like model socioniX which got posted here before with an ensueing stromash. Anyway I remember reading through it and thinking it was flawed or had opportunities to be flawed, although I would need to read it again to see why as it is now a while since I read it and I haven't thought about it too much since :-)

Perhaps you could explain why J sub irrationals and P sub rationals would act counterphobically and vica versa otherwise? Actually..in this context what is meant by counterphobically and phobically?

[Gilly]

Yeah, it's bullshit.

There is nothing Socionics-relevant to be had here.

HEIL ASHTON!

[strrrng]

Yeah, it's bullshit.

There is nothing Socionics-relevant to be had here.

HEIL ASHTON!

Merry Christmas, ******.

[1981slater]

In other words, from my point of view, producing subtypes get angry when forced to use their polr, while trying to show off their role function. Accepting subtypes neglect both and don't give a damn about them.

[RSV3]

A leading subtype will increase the PoLR function's strength and expression where as a creative subtype will suppress PoLR expression.

[1981slater]

A leading subtype will increase the PoLR function's strength and expression where as a creative subtype will suppress PoLR expression.

That's it! Take INTjs as an example: : subtypes usually go the gym and become athletes whereas are mild, lazy , social people

[Steve]

Fair enough as reasonable question. It looks suspiciously like model socioniX which got posted here before with an ensueing stromash. Anyway I remember reading through it and thinking it was flawed or had opportunities to be flawed, although I would need to read it again to see why as it is now a while since I read it and I haven't thought about it too much since :-)

Perhaps you could explain why J sub irrationals and P sub rationals would act counterphobically and vica versa otherwise? Actually..in this context what is meant by counterphobically and phobically?

Besides being observable in the types, it makes sense from a theoretical perspective. The judging subtypes are focused on the judging axis of information, while the perceiving subtypes the perceiving axis. What happens is that information that directly interferes with one's primary mode or orientation is directly fended off and repelled. In J sub rations, the PoLR function is a perceiving function. Since the J-sub rationals are tuned to the judging axis, the PoLR does not directly interfere wit their mode of orientation but is instead just something that unsettles them that they wish would go away. However with Judging subtype irrationals, their PoLR is a judging function, and this PoLR directly interferes with their primary mode of orientation - it is a direct threat. Therefore it is dealt with by direct opposition.

You can apply the same logic to the Perceiving subtype irrationals whose PoLR does not directly interfere with the primary mode of orientation and the Perceiving subtype rations whose PoLR does.

I can explain more later.

[ArchonAlarion]

I believe I just avoid Fe.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It's far better to explain it with model A which is what I have done previously. The above two posts is too confusing and with vague terminology imo which can also lead to misleading. I think I see what Ashton is trying to do though, just in a different way than me. What is interesting imo is that the way it is written is to me similar style of explaining and talking that yourself, strrrng and possibly jriddy uses, even dolphin sometimes. Thank you for posting though (seriously-no sarcasm.)