When someone says that he hits to nails by the hammer while you hit to fingers only it's just because of his imagination and rationalizing. The same is with Socionics.
This applies to all fields of verbal communication.
The ones in opposite quadra may to be people too.
Duality does not actually make you "grow" in terms of changing/"improving" your personality.
But rather you come back to your true self and that is how you might end up becoming more successful or happier in your personal life.
If you want to "grow" in terms of strengthening weak functions, it is best to be with a type that is NOT your dual / not close to it..
Someone like an identical, mirror, ...
It is a misconception that duality/similar ITRs will strengthen your weak functions...
It is rather, that they will take over those areas, so you will spend less time focusing on them, which in turn gives you the freedom to primarily focus on the areas that you are actually good at.
Yeah. If you want to learn something it is better to be closer not to expertes in that region but to similar dumbs. Such your selfesteem in comparision with them will become higher enough to understand you have nothing to study and the life will be easier.
It's common misconception that experts are useful to improve your skills. The wiser approach is the opposite.
I very much disagree (particularly in that you use identical as the alternative). Suppose a Ti-leading type is somewhat antisocial and doesn't interact with people a whole lot. Should he be with another Ti leading type? Do you think the outcome will be to "force himself" to focus on this weak area and bring it into balance? On the contrary, if they're with an Fe leading type then they'll be forced to interact with people more and thus deal with their weak area more - and probably also face criticism from their dual as well. When people are left to their own devices the easiest choice is to avoid self-improvement whenever possible, and this is what most people do. Other people can only "do things for you" to some extent, they can also be helpful for recognizing your shortcomings and helping you find strategies/habits to deal with them on your own.
Most people actually work on their Mobilizing or Role functions when they are left to their own devices and are faced with having to deal with tasks that are not within their strong functions.
Being in an identity or Mirror relationship increases the person's need for improving in weak areas, in order to balance out the relationship. For example, with two Ethicals, one of the individuals will try harder to become "more Logical". (If I remember correctly, this is also mentioned in several Identity descriptions.)
Surely, most people do not work on their 1D functions, they are simply too weak and... one-dimensional
It can be like a blind person trying to see...
It is erroneous to believe that the 1D functions are actually being improved within the person's psyche in Duality. It is true that the Dual (or similar) will expose them to situations and things that are outside their expertise, comfort zone, and so forth. There might be a few insights to be gained from such. But overall, the Suggestive is passively receiving. It is rarely pro-active.
Gulenko himself said that Duality can lead to a certain co-dependency in a relationship, because both people will entirely rely on the other taking care of their weak areas. So then, if they break up or one of them dies, the other person will often feel quite helpless for a while, having forgot how to "shield" or employ their weaker functions. That reinforces my argument that Duality does not really strengthen your weak areas, rather, it protects them, so you are able to fully employ your strengths. But then, when you are without your Dual, it can leave you more vulnerable in situations outside your expertise.
To come back to my previous point: ironically, a relation that is less complementary will force you to create a superficial complementarity, because otherwise, the weak areas will be sorely neglected, which can be problematic if you want to navigate a relationship, a family life, work relations, and so forth. People typically will either try to achieve "duality" within themselves (to which there are a lot of limitations obviously; most times, it results in the person becoming more closer to their Activity partner at best, but more often than not "just" like their Beneficiary), or they will look for/find someone who is the complement to their own psyche, so the Yin/Yang circle can be completed.
If you wanna grow your weak points date your conflictor
How to improve the PoLR:
The PoLR often reacts too early and too strongly and doesnt meet the needs of the situation. The other alternative is total neglect. Try to take a deep breath and let the stimulus from the environment sink in. Resist the temptation of reacting automatically.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
It's probably more true that each type represents a philosophy, but becoming more well-rounded at other philosophies does not change your type.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Many people will use "PoLR hit" as an excuse as to why they got offended or felt offended by someone.
Thing is, there are people who get offended by almost anything and anyone.
So if it was actually PoLR related, their PoLR would have to include all the IEs in the Socion.
LOL. PoLR hit. Not gonna happen easily as the only effin way to get it across is to bulldoze the person with their refusal to do it [hence let's call to the supervisor]. Anyways, role is the easier one at some point in time the fragile back bone breaks out of frustration and shame. There is usually no shame in PoLR.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
It's possible to use the polr as long as you are with close friends who dont judge you, (then it acts kindof like a second creative function) but in a work setting it becomes obvious that you are too weak in this area, so it may embarrass you.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
well I disagree with that. It's functioning resembles the creative. It is weak, but it is not as nonexistent as some people want to believe. It can actually be spontaneous and "creative" and that is a problem because in a social setting everybody can see that you are not so good at it.
I have observed this alot in myself, but also in ESIs when using Ne, or in LIEs when using Si etc. It's too unreflected, unadapted and weak.
But the labelling "second creative" I actually got from some Russian site. It's some kind of socionics saying.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Limiting your ability due to your "PoLR" is not good. It'll just become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think that you lack in ability, then you won't even try to use that ability. If you think that you do have the ability, then you're going to use it.
I'd say there's no such thing as "PoLR". Everyone more or less has the same rational capabilities. It's not to do with "hardware", but more to do with "software".
It makes sense if you think about how the PoLR is supposed to be repressed due to the activity of the creative. According to Jung, the absence of usage of creative means there is room for PoLR to be used.
I would agree with Tallmo since people can easily be mistaken for their Kindred type, and many times people don’t notice people’s everyday mistakes with PoLR if they aren’t been looked for, due to the ability to cover it up with HA usage.
Each ability can be improved upon with hard work, but is it really worth it? Especially if the amount of strength you can gain in that area is limited? It is much better to focus on your strengths. You can call it PoLR, you can also call it weakness. My SEE-Fi sister sucks at mathematics, and I will never try to make her improve her Logical intelligence outside of school, because what is the point? You could argue that mathematics is not even relevant outside of school haha, but that is plain wrong when it comes to certain occupations and careers.
Basically, it is a matter of, don't try to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Sure, you can improve your weak areas a bit, at least to the extent you are not helplessly stupid at it. But obsessing over them won't help you either. Most people waste their time on trying to improve their "weakness" and forget to actually employ their strengths. Other people are using their strengths and rising and doing great in their areas of expertise, whereas you are at some standard basic level if you focused on your weaknesses.
There is this false belief that you can make your personality "whole", as in, equally good at everything. It is impossible. What you focus on, grows. I suppose it is kind of like muscle training. If you keep training one muscle, it will grow (to its genetic potential, which is limited), and the other ones will atrophy if you don't train them. (I guess you can argue you can work on several muscles at the same time, that is where the analogy breaks.) Your brain works the same (mostly). For many guys, they hate "leg day" and their calves are "too small" and genetically predisposed to never grow big, even if they keep training them hard. The same applies to the PoLR. You can keep training it, but there is a limit, and it will probably hurt.
Assuming that "everyone has the same rational capabilities" is quite ignorant. Not everyone has the same amount of intelligence, even. Not everyone has the same capacities in terms of talents. I bet with you, you'll never be able to compete with top-class athletes. In the same way, people like my sister will never be mathematical geniuses. Imagine an INTx with a high logical intelligence tried really hard to become a top class athlete and improve their kinesthetic intelligence. It would be a waste of talent/ability.
PoLR as creative in sense of not manipulating that kind of information in its actual sphere? Like ethics around people and in solitude.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
If you lack good arguments for your opinion on a forum, just ask the moderators to ban that bastard for the harassment by the reasonbly pointing on the reality. Some of them mb annoyed by the reality too to show a compassion to your demands.
I really doubt that people have "different levels" of logic or "different levels" of facts (whatever that's supposed to mean), that some people can't ever even conceive of, even in principle. I just see no fundamental difference in how "Thinker" types and "Feeler" types think, in general (again, if they do then it's a matter of "software" rather than "hardware"). What they differ, especially on this forum, is how they socially view the world, themselves and the people. For example, some people think that they're automatically logical and objective, for no other reason than identifying themselves as a "Thinker" type. But the irony is that that kind of thinking is incredibly illogical and subjective.
So how do you explain the vast differences in mathematical ability, if not as different levels of logic?
At this point I am not even referring to Socionics; there are actually "Feelers" who can be fairly good at mathematics, in my experience, mostly Fi leads (often times Ne or Se subtype; it overlaps with "boosted" Logic). I see it as an unusual combination of Feeler + good logical intelligence. On the same token, I have known Logical types who were worse at mathematics, due to lower logical intelligence. Those Thinkers were often Perceiving subtype (Se/Si or Ne/Ni subtype; it overlaps with "boosted" Ethics/weakened Logic). And this is me referring to the theory of multiple intelligences. I associate those intelligences with "talents", which are correlated with IEs, but not strictly so.
What I am talking about above is not "the norm", it is exceptions, and they apply to unusually talented people mostly. Even so, there are apparent differences in logic. Not everyone has the same capacity of understanding things logically, assuming so comes across as very subjective to me. Just looking around you and meeting people should show you that that is not true...
At best, people have different processing speed and memory, which barring some serious learning disabilities, can be augmented by computers or pen and paper. That's why IQ tests are timed. An IQ basically says that some people can do things faster than other people, and that's why people with higher IQ progress faster than peers with lower IQ.
Both the computer and the human brain are essentially two physical objects that are being manipulated in certain ways to create a certain result. Namely, the transistors for computers, and neurons for human brains. And we can virtually program anything into a computer, even anything that a human is capable of doing, such as doing mathematics, composing music, creating images, play chess, proofreading documents using OCR, and so on, if we had the ability to do so. The reason why computers still can't do what humans can do with ease, is because we still don't know how the human brain works exactly, and hence we have no idea how to program them yet. But once we do understand it, then computers and humans would become indistinguishable from another, except that computers would have a lot faster processors and bigger memory than any human being.
So even if there were a "different level of logic" that is still not yet understood or only capable of being understood by some people, it is possible to be "programmed" into a human being by learning it, or just by directly programming it into the computer.
So it has always been about "software" and not "hardware".
Pretty good post, except that hardware is still relevant and people don’t have the same hardware as computers do yet obviously. We can’t just be programmed, and we aren’t just completely open, free neurons in spite of the generation of this being quite flexible. Individuals do have natural strengths and weaknesses and limitations particular to them. This is like a basic life knowledge thing. You can’t just augment these things with technology sometimes. That’s not to say people can’t push their limitations and surpass them though, but it is not easy like how you are describing it here.
The point is that fundamentally, there's no difference in how people "reason", whether they're "Feelers" or "Thinkers". If they do, then it's because they have different ideas or philosophies, which can be easily transfered to others, if they're receptive to such new ideas or new ways of looking at things.
The very few of you so-called "Thinkers" are supposedly "more logical" or "more objective" than the others, especially the "Feelers", so stop pretending. This is the exact kind of idiocy that creates problems with people like Sol, where he feels that he is automatically right for no other reason than being a "Thinker", and not because he has any good arguments. Which the very thing is created by the wrong premise made by Socionics, which is to say that differences in reasoning abilities have to do with fundamental differences in "hardware", which has created all sorts of mysticism and unclear and vague BS, as well as authoritarianism, such as "I am right because I'm a T type, and you're wrong because of your T PoLR".
Not each computer is the same. There are different models of computers, which will operate and look differently from each other, just like there are different personality types that operate and look differently from one another.
The biggest difference between computers and personality types: there will always be newer and "updated" computers (compare a modern MacBook to the first Apple computer), whereas the human personality types stay the same (so far).
Any person can be "wrong" or "right" (depending on circumstance; a lot of this is relative anyhow).
Especially the introverted IEs are subject to interpretation and relativism often times. (When we are arguing about Socionics theory, it is basically Ti problems.)
The extroverted IEs are "more objective" (the scientific method is rather Te, for example), but even they have their limitations.
There used to be really good information on the PoLR at en.socionics.ru but I think the site has disappeared. I read it several years ago.
I remember they said something like the PoLR is the tipping point between action and in-action, and that there is this conflict between on one hand producing information and on the other hand being too weak.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)