How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[ambivalent existence]

Sounds like something I would do.

the IEE guy I know, he keeps saying things that shows he's very proud of Te use (I personally think it's somewhat inefficient Te, but it's usable), but when he's trying to understand a theory, he keeps mixing up definitions, and gets to rather weird conclusions this way. also I irritate him with Ti behaviour.

added: and yeah, his behaviour is illogical, but I don't mind, I'm ok with him

ps: he's ENFP in MBTI too

[golden]

Thinking of someone I know whom I type ENFp ... when I've spoken with her, she has gotten frustrated if I speak of any kind of analytical categorization, when I have criticized a book she recommended bc it was not professionally done and there was no proof of its claims (her argument was that it accorded with her experience), and when I used words she was not fully familiar with. Not sure if those are Ti polr things, but I thought they might be.

[anndelise]

Ti polr = Fi creative = Te hidden agenda = Fe demonstrative
A good description, imo, would include how all these work together. (i'm not saying the following is good, though)

Draws connections between things, people, events, and ideas based on the emotional/cognitive impact they carry; rather than how they might be abstractly or explicitely connected. For example, venn diagram type categorizations would likely be created based on how the items impact a person/being...such as attraction/repulsion, or intensity of reaction, rather than being based on explicit properties that the items might share/differ on. Would also likely have difficulty creating hierarchical categories, finding ones that deal with intensity or personal importance easier to handle.

Would likely interpret most categorizations which exclude emotional/cognitive impacts as being flawed or untrustworthy. But, may accept some theoretical e/c categories IF they reflect personal experiences (or personal stories of such shared by others). However, if experiences do not match the theory, or the theory overlooks experiences in its attempts to simplify itself, then the theoretical categorizations are dismissed as being unreflective of 'reality' (or unlikely to accurately reflect reality).

Would prefer to perceive what's going on and draw their own conclusions rather than be told to accept someone else's judgment/conclusion. If given nothing but the conclusion, will likely ask a variety of questions to aid themselves in grasping the incident...and enough to draw ther own conclusion.

Seeks to gain a variety of experiences, often jumping amongst some favored interests depending on mood of the moment. *If cannot gain personal experience, then will seek the stories of others' experiences as a way of adding data from which to draw from. Would also be willing to tell of personal experiences or discuss them with others... Both as a way of discovering more variety of things, but also to help add to the data from which others can draw from. More details included in these stories might add more data, as long as the details are related to emotional/cognitive impact of some kind, and/or relate to the listener's interests.

Would likely get bored or agitated if around too much 'ungrounded' theory. May need to ask others if they've interpreted something the same way, or if their own interpretation of it is accurate. Or may just flat out throw their hands in the air and say "Fuck It!", depending on how important they feel it is for themselves to understand it or not.

Are fairly likely to make 'logical' errors due to not following explicit rules of 'logic' or difficulty grasping how/why something might be logically erred. For example, may consider the history/relationships of the speaker as relevant, rather than limiting focus to what the speaker is saying. May do 'logical' errors such as poisoning the well, or red herrings.

This does not mean that they cannot learn about these, nor find ways to avoid doing these themselves. But are probably more likely than other types to fall for these kinds of tricks. This might lead them to presenting rather flawed arguments, and/or feeling frustrated at knowing the other person is playing some kind of game, but not sure what game, nor how to resolve/bypass it.

This weakness might also lead them to believing 'weird' ideas/assertions presented to them. Particularly if they trust the person, or if it references experiences they've had. They may not catch many of the 'logical' errors contained in the presentation, and thus accept its conclusions and/or categorizations. (Think of many of the New Age ideas.)

[HandiAce]

Thinking of someone I know whom I type ENFp ... when I've spoken with her, she has gotten frustrated if I speak of any kind of analytical categorization, when I have criticized a book she recommended bc it was not professionally done and there was no proof of its claims (her argument was that it accorded with her experience), and when I used words she was not fully familiar with. Not sure if those are Ti polr things, but I thought they might be.

Interesting. I tend to trust people's reasoning so when people take cracks at other's reasoning even when the reasoning is sound from my perspective, it annoys me. Especially when there is no agreement.

[Beautiful sky]

Interesting. I tend to trust people's reasoning so when people take cracks at other's reasoning even when the reasoning is sound from my perspective, it annoys me. Especially when there is no agreement.

@Eliza Thomason what do you think of the above?