Fe polr compared to Fi polr

[Iwantpeace]

How do you view Fe polr compared to Fi polr?

[Desert Financial]

The PoLR directly opposes the creative function.

So for XLI, Fe obstructs Te. It downplays facts, efficiency, and functionality for the sake of the emotional atmosphere. Consequently, the XLIs agenda gets bogged down.

For XLE, Fi obstructs Ti. It downplays theoretical understanding for the sake of personal likes and dislikes. Therefore, the XLE runs into hangups.

I think there's probably a relationship between the PoLR and the mobilizing function as well. For example, there's a theme with XLI that certain emotional expressions come off as "fake." In this case, it's like indirectly obstructs 's inclination to develop close, authentic bonds.

And for XLE, the individual likes and dislikes of spoil the overall emotional atmosphere. So they may see valuers as "selfish."

[Shytan]

The PoLR directly opposes the creative function.

So for XLI, Fe obstructs Te. It downplays facts, efficiency, and functionality for the sake of the emotional atmosphere. Consequently, the XLIs agenda gets bogged down.

For XLE, Fi obstructs Ti. It downplays theoretical understanding for the sake of personal likes and dislikes. Therefore, the XLE runs into hangups.

I think there's probably a relationship between the PoLR and the mobilizing function as well. For example, there's a theme with XLI that certain emotional expressions come off as "fake." In this case, it's like indirectly obstructs 's inclination to develop close, authentic bonds.

And for XLE, the individual likes and dislikes of spoil the overall emotional atmosphere. So they may see valuers as "selfish."

Damn, your descriptions of PolR and what functions they affect is spot on. Could you do Se polr?

[PrettySavage]

The PoLR directly opposes the creative function.

So for XLI, Fe obstructs Te. It downplays facts, efficiency, and functionality for the sake of the emotional atmosphere. Consequently, the XLIs agenda gets bogged down.

For XLE, Fi obstructs Ti. It downplays theoretical understanding for the sake of personal likes and dislikes. Therefore, the XLE runs into hangups.

I think there's probably a relationship between the PoLR and the mobilizing function as well. For example, there's a theme with XLI that certain emotional expressions come off as "fake." In this case, it's like indirectly obstructs 's inclination to develop close, authentic bonds.

And for XLE, the individual likes and dislikes of spoil the overall emotional atmosphere. So they may see valuers as "selfish."

Hmm, really interesting

Can you do and PoLR?

[Sol]

weak unvalued function

[Desert Financial]

Damn, your descriptions of PolR and what functions they affect is spot on. Could you do Se polr?

For XII, opposes . It downplays the exploration of possibilities for the sake of face-value information and immediate impact. So, the XII's creative process gets hamstrung by concrete approaches. cuts short the laid-back imaginative process XII enjoys.

Hmm, really interesting

Can you do and PoLR?

For XSE, opposes . Therefore, homeostasis and stability are downplayed for the sake of intuitive vision and intuitive synthesis. subverts the stability XSE enjoys because it undermines conventional assumptions, creating cognitive dissonance. Demonstrating a lot of to an XSE sends the message that the security the XSE works for is meaningless in light of future considerations and intuitive examination.

For XEE, opposes . Consequently, personal tastes and personal bonds are downplayed for the sake of theoretical understanding. To XEE, suffocates the process of subjective evaluation by reducing the development of personal feelings to sterile, stone-cold explanation. The type closes off avenues the type would take to create organic connections.

[wacey]

For XII, opposes . It downplays the exploration of possibilities for the sake of face-value information and immediate impact. So, the XII's creative process gets hamstrung by concrete approaches. cuts short the laid-back imaginative process XII enjoys.



For XSE, opposes . Therefore, homeostasis and stability are downplayed for the sake of intuitive vision and intuitive synthesis. subverts the stability XSE enjoys because it undermines conventional assumptions, creating cognitive dissonance. Demonstrating a lot of to an XSE sends the message that the security the XSE works for is meaningless in light of future considerations and intuitive examination.

For XEE, opposes . Consequently, personal tastes and personal bonds are downplayed for the sake of theoretical understanding. To XEE, suffocates the process of subjective evaluation by reducing the development of personal feelings to sterile, stone-cold explanation. The type closes off avenues the type would take to create organic connections.

Bravo :thumbs:

The XEE one doesn't sound quite right though.

[Desert Financial]

Bravo :thumbs:

The XEE one doesn't sound quite right though.

I think I started to stray from the heart of the matter towards the end of it. Sidetracked by anecdotes. I can think of a few times creatives went off on me for (clumsily) stepping on their toes.

[PrettySavage]

For XII, opposes . It downplays the exploration of possibilities for the sake of face-value information and immediate impact. So, the XII's creative process gets hamstrung by concrete approaches. cuts short the laid-back imaginative process XII enjoys.



For XSE, opposes . Therefore, homeostasis and stability are downplayed for the sake of intuitive vision and intuitive synthesis. subverts the stability XSE enjoys because it undermines conventional assumptions, creating cognitive dissonance. Demonstrating a lot of to an XSE sends the message that the security the XSE works for is meaningless in light of future considerations and intuitive examination.

For XEE, opposes . Consequently, personal tastes and personal bonds are downplayed for the sake of theoretical understanding. To XEE, suffocates the process of subjective evaluation by reducing the development of personal feelings to sterile, stone-cold explanation. The type closes off avenues the type would take to create organic connections.

Thanks a bunch

[Desert Financial]

This is my experience with LIEs and LSEs as well. When they express Fi it comes out strong, takes me by surprise and seems to not be in "harmony with the moment".
Lately I have been spending time with an ILE and while she is Fi polr her expressions seem "right" for the moment and flow with the conversation.

Then it's probably not related to the mobilizing function so much as it's related to valued (and unvalued) functions in general.

[The Reality Denialist]

Hearing things like "I like it because it means something to me therefore it is the choice I'm going to make (for everyone)" sounds incredibly stupid to me.

Without the last part (for everyone) it is passable since it is their choice even though it is incredibly stupid but when not and consequences are real...

[at sirac son of sirac]

I had an example of this yesterday, with an ILE I know.

He's not frightened (or not aware) to discuss potentially controversial topics around mixed company, oblivious to it's impact, or whether people around him might want silence.

My focus is on, wow how he's being inconsiderate, that topic could be offensive, his behavior is wrong.

So with me there is a focus on 'Fi morality' - more so relying on my Fi HA than my Fe PoLR. With him it is more so relying on Fe HA, trying in his way to create fun, oblivious to the offences he could cause.

There's always going to be some overlap, what with people being people, but, it's something I noticed yesterday when in the group I was with.

To 'use' my Fe, I worry about being unaware of saying something to kill the fun, as external atmosphere is a bit of a blind area for me, so I try not to think about it too much, but I speak of my feelings and explain myself calmly, as per Gulenko recommendations, that way people know I'm not an alien by remaining closed mouth.

[The Reality Denialist]

Someone has said that I have no feelings when I make decisions.

I said: Currently, no. I'm not even going to consider having relations with someone until something has been cleared. Variables in life should be clear and somewhat controllable around this. You just end up restricting yourself and generating problems in the future. Anyone who does it in this situation is a fool. Price will be too high to pay for it.

[powerrainbowcrystal]

Fe polr: Homosexuality trolls you
Fi polr: Heterosexuality trolls you

[Muddy]

Fe polr: Not paying attention to the general moods of those around, usually manifesting as coming off as standoffish or boring.

Fi polr: Not paying attention towards the inner feelings of individuals, usually manifesting as coming off as weird or inconsiderate to others.

Fe/Fi ignoring can also come off like this on a slightly less significant level.

[strangeling]

Oh, I think Fi PoLR is like saying you don't like having to think about or consider how people feel about stuff. But they want people to like them regardless.

I think Fe PoLR is like saying you'd rather not have to try to make people feel good about you. But you'd like to be close to them or have some kind of harmony anyway.

I guess they both sound kind of hopelessly pathetic when I put it that way.

[Aramas]

Oh, I think Fi PoLR is like saying you don't like having to think about or consider how people feel about stuff. But they want people to like them regardless.

I think Fe PoLR is like saying you'd rather not have to try to make people feel good about you. But you'd like to be close to them or have some kind of harmony anyway.

I guess they both sound kind of hopelessly pathetic when I put it that way.

In that case, I must have both.

[waddup]

Oh, I think Fi PoLR is like saying you don't like having to think about or consider how people feel about stuff. But they want people to like them regardless.

I think Fe PoLR is like saying you'd rather not have to try to make people feel good about you. But you'd like to be close to them or have some kind of harmony anyway.

I guess they both sound kind of hopelessly pathetic when I put it that way.

Excellent stuff!

[The Reality Denialist]

Fi PolR from Ne perspective: there is something much more important than just your feelings
Fi PoLR from Se perspective: this what I have to do regardless of your feelings.

It is not that clear cut – obviously. Also agendas are not always that strong and you'll see it all types.

Personally I don't care about my feelings even if I show something. If I'm mad at myself then I'm mad at myself. There is a reason for that and I don't see the point to dodge that. No need for others to get upset over that either. I'm fine and I can easily pull myself together.

[Bertrand]

Fi PolR from Ne perspective: there is something much more important than just your feelings

considering the Fi type likely views degradation as worse than death, they would probably argue there is nothing more important than their feelings, not even self preservation. its hard for me to conceive of what could be more important than ethics without at the same time making such a thing the most important ethical consideration, in essence, just reverting to a personal statement of values. this is why Fi polr types often strike me as being the biggest "muh feels" types of all, they seem to me to project their own 1 dimensional understanding of ethics onto the world. they just put in zero work and claim victory, and hold everyone around them to their own shrunken and malformed ethical perspective. This seems like the sort of thing that absolutely cannot be confined to the unconscious for long without having serious negative effects in a society. it really is a sort of moral anarchy, where "rules" abound but constitute more a system of regulations than an actual culture. its like we never would have had to leave the jungle if we just wanted rules with no mercy to be the operative principle (nature imbued existence with plenty of rules by default). its like all we will have achieved is giving monkeys machine guns. technology itself has never shown to improve people, but rather simply amplify the consequences of behavior so I sort of wonder what could be more important than feelings if feelings are fundamentally that which is amplified. its like, its precisely the point that Fi tends to get in the way of what is considered "more important"--Fi is attention to and study of what exactly is important, and it busies itself with precisely that work. the Fi polr camp misunderstands: that Fi is correct in "getting in the way" that's why they're doing it . instead Fi polr substitutes the most infantile and metaphysical narrative possible which is to simply wipe out value itself in an attempt to evade criticism at the root, which can only be considered disastrous, because the entire inconvenience directed at them is itself rooted in the question of how best to act. to fundamentally posit that such a question has no place because it gets in the way of acting, is to miss the point in the most obtuse possible manner and act with what can only be described as contempt for oneself. this all makes Fi polr types fundamentally extremely pitiable characters, corroborated by the fact they seem to arise out of having extremely harsh upbringings and why they often tread the line of sociopathy.

it seems to me if they had their way and freely invented all the technology possible, and given free reign with which to pursue that goal, they would still fundamentally only end up precisely in the position of having to decide what to do with it all, which makes all that invention little more than a distraction perpetrated on oneself to avoid having to address what exactly matters. it gives up on establishing a cohesive direction as a matter of personal judgement and simply substitutes the demands of the environment, essentially diluting the individual into a pure instrumentality from the onset. in this way they are completely driven by Fi, but only in the most malformed possible way, which is to say, they have a single Fi commitment: to never explore their Fi commitments; but such a singular commitment is not without consequence, and the consequence they are forced to live with is they are forced to run from wherever such a thing begins to rear its head. this is an absolute vacation of the self from itself in a way that can only be described as murderous toward oneself and ultimately toward others, which is what imposing a narrative that "there is more at stake than you feelings" terminates in. Fi polr types are not dangerous per se or sociopathic per se, because they still recognize consequences for their actions in principle. they're simply on the other side of an inner degradation they don't recognize and cling to their physical existence because that's all they have, which makes them inherently unfree, because of how easily the physical situation can be manipulated. and they call this "rational" and elevate this bondage over "feeling" as their highest statement of value. in this way it is complete love for slavery, that is self sacrificial beyond even what a Fi type can manage, because where a Fi type would likely kill themselves to rebel Fi polr would barely even perceive the weight of the cross. in a certain sense I have a kind of admiration for these types simply because they embody a self sacrifice beyond imagining, the only problem is they are not on the other side of enlightenment, rather they have not even begun to perceive the problem

[ashlesha]

considering the Fi type likely views degradation as worse than death, they would probably argue there is nothing more important than their feelings, not even self preservation. its hard for me to conceive of what could be more important than ethics without at the same time making such a thing the most important ethical consideration, in essence, just reverting to a personal statement of values. this is why Fi polr types often strike me as being the biggest "muh feels" types of all, they seem to me to project their own 1 dimensional understanding of ethics onto the world. they just put in zero work and claim victory, and hold everyone around them to their own shrunken and malformed ethical perspective. This seems like the sort of thing that absolutely cannot be confined to the unconscious for long without having serious negative effects in a society. it really is a sort of moral anarchy, where "rules" abound but constitute more a system of regulations than an actual culture. its like we never would have had to leave the jungle if we just wanted rules with no mercy to be the operative principle (nature imbued existence with plenty of rules by default). its like all we will have achieved is giving monkeys machine guns. technology itself has never shown to improve people, but rather simply amplify the consequences of behavior so I sort of wonder what could be more important than feelings if feelings are fundamentally that which is amplified. its like, its precisely the point that Fi tends to get in the way of what is considered "more important"--Fi is attention to and study of what exactly is important, and it busies itself with precisely that work. the Fi polr camp misunderstands: that Fi is correct in "getting in the way" that's why they're doing it . instead Fi polr substitutes the most infantile and metaphysical narrative possible which is to simply wipe out value itself in an attempt to evade criticism at the root, which can only be considered disastrous, because the entire inconvenience directed at them is itself rooted in the question of how best to act. to fundamentally posit that such a question has no place because it gets in the way of acting, is to miss the point in the most obtuse possible manner and act with what can only be described as contempt for oneself. this all makes Fi polr types fundamentally extremely pitiable characters, corroborated by the fact they seem to arise out of having extremely harsh upbringings and why they often tread the line of sociopathy.

it seems to me if they had their way and freely invented all the technology possible, and given free reign with which to pursue that goal, they would still fundamentally only end up precisely in the position of having to decide what to do with it all, which makes all that invention little more than a distraction perpetrated on oneself to avoid having to address what exactly matters. it gives up on establishing a cohesive direction as a matter of personal judgement and simply substitutes the demands of the environment, essentially diluting the individual into a pure instrumentality from the onset. in this way they are completely driven by Fi, but only in the most malformed possible way, which is to say, they have a single Fi commitment: to never explore their Fi commitments; but such a singular commitment is not without consequence, and the consequence they are forced to live with is they are forced to run from wherever such a thing begins to rear its head. this is an absolute vacation of the self from itself in a way that can only be described as murderous toward oneself and ultimately toward others, which is what imposing a narrative that "there is more at stake than you feelings" terminates in. Fi polr types are not dangerous per se or sociopathic per se, because they still recognize consequences for their actions in principle. they're simply on the other side of an inner degradation they don't recognize and cling to their physical existence because that's all they have, which makes them inherently unfree, because of how easily the physical situation can be manipulated. and they call this "rational" and elevate this bondage over "feeling" as their highest statement of value. in this way it is complete love for slavery, that is self sacrificial beyond even what a Fi type can manage, because where a Fi type would likely kill themselves to rebel Fi polr would barely even perceive the weight of the cross. in a certain sense I have a kind of admiration for these types simply because they embody a self sacrifice beyond imagining, the only problem is they are not on the other side of enlightenment, rather they have not even begun to perceive the problem

Yeah it's not absence of feeling or value judgements I find grating, it's the hypocrisy of the delusion that the person is operating without them, and being haughty about it to boot. I've seen this in weak Fi types of all stripes, and even in ethicals who have internalized that this is the way to be or something. Dunno how to quantify the differences in this between the types.

[Delilah]

Yeah it's not absence of feeling or value judgements I find grating, it's the hypocrisy of the delusion that the person is operating without them, and being haughty about it to boot. I've seen this in weak Fi types of all stripes, and even in ethicals who have internalized that this is the way to be or something. Dunno how to quantify the differences in this between the types.

Thanks for putting this in words, it was something i vaguely saw as true without being able to put my finger on it exactly. And i agree, of course

[Bertrand]

I feel like the main difference is this is the kind of analysis Fi suggestive would want to hear, because I just potentially jumped them ahead years in hard personal effort, whereas Fi polr sees this as nothing but a threat. in the same way if, for the sake of argument, an amazing piece of Te v Ne can be the difference between hope and depression for ESI. one crushes their sense of potential in the world ("bad Ne"--"your resume could be better" "this isn't exactly what employers are looking for" something to that effect), vs Te ("49/50 resumes are rejected on average during the typical job search by even fully qualified applicants, meaning 49 rejections is normal and not cause for alarm, and you're not wasting people's time with aps that ultimately get rejected, its all part of the game). Suggestive says provocative stuff mainly in virtue to "beg" whereas polr is more generally hostile on a deep level, even if they're more willing to debate openly. I think its actually a psychological distinction wherein typical outward manifestations are themselves type related, but the inner truth is something like suggestive wants and appreciate the information, even if their pride colors that in a way that seems ungrateful. Whereas polr really is inwardly highly resistant and resentful, except to all but the most massaged method of delivery

i think of ILE v LIE as more "pure theory" v "targetted application". ILE is probably more likely to explore issues with no Fi connection supporting the need to do so (this is an advantage for humanity in certain doses), but LIE is more likely to think in terms of "greatest need in time" think Elon Musk with his battery technology or bill gates and various disease research. Fi would slow down someone working on certain forms of pure knowledge because it was question the propriety of such an endeavor, whereas, ideally, LIE's pursuits would actually stand up to scrutiny and benefit from it, in other words, it only becomes a question of people questioning it more i.e.: they want to have that discussion on battery technology. when Leo did his thing on Musk they were resonating for that reason, it was a real collaboration in that sense. "raising awareness" is often a Fi mode of Te promotion; Gates is the same way, they want the Fi scrutiny because it motivates and helps direct them. SLE prefers accolades for what they achieve for the collective, but they don't want to go into the subjective ethics of the thing. for them it is sufficient that their group found it praiseworthy. "I got you what you wanted didn't I?"--they tend to cut off subjective ethical evaluation in terms of Te demonstrative, like its all just subjective and unimportant in light of the binary success/failure. the why is embedded in the Fe in the air and speaks for itself. if Musk were a SLE he's just as likely to steal a bunch of batteries as invent them, supposing society demanded it (of course Ti rationalizes, its not stealing if society demands it: it is imminent domain, etc. Trump reasons: its not obstruction when the president does it, etc)

[waddup]

I feel like the main difference is this is the kind of analysis Fi suggestive would want to hear, because I just potentially jumped them ahead years in hard personal effort, whereas Fi polr sees this as nothing but a threat.

A threat? Not really, just a little unrealistic from their perspective. I mean, if they don't energetically feeling that moment, they are not wanting to hear about assessments over the statics. Almost like bringing up the wrong point of view at the incorrect moment. To them, it feels like an admonishment on their behaviour...hmm, I guess threat works. shrug.

I knew a EII I worked with at a landcaping company, and we, by necessity, had to spend a lot of time one on one, hands and knees, pulling out weeds. She wanted to know about me, my personal history, and at the time I was going through a lot of shit outside of work and didn't really feel like "getting to know each other" in that way. I just wanted to "do my job" if I was working with another man (men have the ability to work together in silence because that is appropriate in our culture, not that they have to, just that they are allowed to)... or be silly and have fun and joke and laugh and play little games because in all seriousness we were mowing lawns, like it wasn't rocket science. Every time she did this, I got my back up and more like, umm, just shut up about getting to know me can't you see I don't want to talk about it right now?

To her, it must have looked egotistical, and because her product is for LSE who may also act annoyed, none-the-less appreciative of the effort. I realize this is also just a very female thing to do, ask personal questions to fill the void. For SLE it needs to be done gently, not all at once, and not obviously either. It also shouldn't really be done regarding their actions "you shoulds". Great for LSE, not so great for SLE, because its somewhat nerve racking as they are already trying to be loved anyway. On the other hand, they might just dismiss it any way as a joke and do whatever it was you deemed wrong, trying to take you along with them. IEI is the tagalong version of the fawning lackey.

BTW, I'm not saying anything on my sociotype, just something about the nature of Fi in those paragraphs.

[Delilah]

I wanted to add that I've known a couple of ILIs behave really dishonestly at work (like enter into another person's database and get information) so i can't help wondering whether some much touted as Fi related morality/ 'rules' features r actually related to Fe. I have my doubts

[Bertrand]

I found that ILI probably looks more dishonest than they really are, I bet they could explain themselves and even if they came right out and said "i'm being dishonest" there's probably some deeper rationale as to why. most the time deep down they're trying to do the right thing, its just the world is shit and they get put into weird positions and are often made to look bad, so they de emphasize those considerations (Fe) which is both their strength and their weakness. Hamlet could potentially host a witch burning at their expense but at the same time ILI is likely holding more cards than it seems. in any case, if they're really ILI I bet they have a sympathetic tale worth trying to understand before writing them off. often times rushing to judgement plays right into the hands of simplistic narrative peddlers like EIE, when the real situation is often more complex, especially when relating to work drama. for example, I'd be willing to trust ILI to make an accurate evaluation of the complex factors at work than have someone like EIE tell me what to think about ILI's actions. often times the ILI is going to have a greater understanding that precisely because people are stupid that makes ILI prone to being misunderstood and scapegoated, because people would rather deal with a pleasant myth than the real situation in all its complexity, but it turns out the ILI could be dealing in better faith than anyone on that front

[Delilah]

I found that ILI probably looks more dishonest than they really are, I bet they could explain themselves and even if they came right out and said "i'm being dishonest" there's probably some deeper rationale as to why. most the time deep down they're trying to do the right thing, its just the world is shit and they get put into weird positions and are often made to look bad, so they de emphasize those considerations (Fe) which is both their strength and their weakness. Hamlet could potentially host a witch burning at their expense but at the same time ILI is likely holding more cards than it seems. in any case, if they're really ILI I bet they have a sympathetic tale worth trying to understand before writing them off. often times rushing to judgement plays right into the hands of simplistic narrative peddlers like EIE, when the real situation is often more complex, especially when relating to work drama. for example, I'd be willing to trust ILI to make an accurate evaluation of the complex factors at work than have someone like EIE tell me what to think about ILI's actions. often times the ILI is going to have a greater understanding that precisely because people are stupid that makes ILI prone to being misunderstood and scapegoated, because people would rather deal with a pleasant myth than the real situation in all its complexity, but it turns out the ILI could be dealing in better faith than anyone on that front

Bertrand, I actually just now had this strong impression that this person might be LSE instead. So this is not so much relevant to Fe polr anymore, but i do wonder why they did this. I also find this person really difficult in some way, like they feel to me like they are being competitive for no good reason - it is almost as if in their search for outside sources to measure themselves against they have picked me to compare with. It makes things strained. But yeah, off Fe polr topic at this point

[Bertrand]

by threat I mean adverse to their goals, which "unrealistic" is just another word for. one logic and sensing is probably pretty keen on using in order to classify that which they would like to exclude, whose imposition therefore constitutes a threat in their view. of course being the supermen they are they would never admit such language since it would be tantamount to admitting some form of potential vulnerability or weakness, so I'm sure they'd prefer to consider it more of a nullity, but that wouldn't explain them acknowledging it at all if that were the case. there's simply no reason a practical person would spend any amount of time on a nullity. no, there's an underlying need there and its rooted in threat sensitivity. the ones actually in touch with their emotion to some extent would know enough to not try to win a word game and call it conquering their fear

[waddup]

by threat I mean adverse to their goals, which "unrealistic" is just another word for. one logic and sensing is probably pretty keen on using in order to classify that which they would like to exclude

Why would they like to exclude though? This is a common misconception of Fi that it is the least prioritized. It's more like, they need others to be on the look out for it, which stands for all the polr. Fi polr from the SLE standpoint sees internal feelings as another type of object. Explaining to them in ways that leave it open to their interpretation (well I can still move objects around) gives them freedom of movement, not necessarily excluding altogether. Some prominent SLE here have personal issues that clouds there opinions. Super ego polr is both categorically rejection AND also stating a complete incompetency. Why wouldn't a balanced person admit to something like this no matter what sociotype? And in my observation I've seen it, so its not a total rejection.

With Fi suggestive and HA they are asking "tell me what I need to do for us right now." Most SLE and ILE are more innocent to that approach and not as orientated towards it--->"oh they did not like me".--->end of story no further analysis.

I think even older Fi-polr are amusingly surprised that other people have an internal world separate from the rest and are open to hearing about it as a kind of another set of circumstances they had not ever considered. I've seen them sit while another connects the dots for them. Younger ones struggle. lol. To me, this all relates to how you proposed SLE are fringe, nare-do-wells, and I frankly disagree, lots of healthy family types. Everything gets balanced in socionics and along with a Fi polr you get a "to be loved" hidden agenda, so it works.

Ni is another balance and because it is thinking down the road, it doesn't get hung up on needing to case by case, word by word, work through something each time it happens. It can hit key opportunities to set down sentiment quickly and effortlessly, only to watch the seed of that grow further on down the line. Even if what had happened was a positive thing.

For instance, at a wedding a drunk SLE is dancing with everybody, comes gushing over to you and says, "I think they all like me!" Being mindful of Fi, yet not focused on it being totally correct about it you might say "Yeah, it looks like they did, just be careful out there, you are showing a lot of energy!" “I know mauhahahaha.”

Even though, they probably might not have liked him so much, and you are giving him some roundabout advice to not screw up, without going directly at it. You also showed some Ni by predicting the changes in reactions to his kinetic reactions having seen it before. (IEE and SEE do something similar, but through different routes. At another wedding the seed of that may take root. Similar things happen with LSE except they have a more direct transmission route.

Any SLE out there reading this, don't start bitching because you think this is manipulative tactics, its for your best interests and its really not an overly focus on right wrong in regards to how people feel towards you so relax.

, whose imposition therefore constitutes a threat in their view.

That would depend on their level of security and health. Very little threatens healthy ILE and SLE, or any body, if you are balanced and lack personal energetic historical trauma.

of course being the supermen they are they would never admit such language since it would be tantamount to admitting some form of potential vulnerability or weakness, so I'm sure they'd prefer to consider it more of a nullity, but that wouldn't explain them acknowledging it at all if that were the case. there's simply no reason a practical person would spend any amount of time on a nullity. no, there's an underlying need there and its rooted in threat sensitivity. the ones actually in touch with their emotion to some extent would know enough to not try to win a word game and call it conquering their fear

Are they really so uncharming as you make them out to be? There is a lot you can do to work with them, but it takes time and key programming. I've seen SLE do total 180's after a factoring reset, to do, say and become the thing that yesterday they denied. You kind of have to let them be themselves in order to change them. Weird but true.

[Bertrand]

i mean they would like to exclude the unrealistic. they find "feelings" to be objects in others and in themselves subject to manipulation as a logical entity which is not so much wrong as incomplete. obviously one can manipulate people's values as if they were objects. this is Machiavellianism. inasmuch as feelings stand in opposition to their goals they exclude them, that is the why. it still is essentially feels v feels, with the Fi polr's own feels abstracted from itself but nevertheless operative in a primitive way. "priority" can mean different things, from a firsthand value point of view Fi is not a priority. from the point of view of making something happen it may become a priority in being acted upon or accounted for. sort of how you might not like chocolate but eat it for a 1000 dollars. it becomes a priority, but it doesn't mean suddenly you like chocolate. the bible says live by the sword die by the sword, and that applies to everyone including SLE, by this I mean the more machiavelian they are the more subject they are to it, hence why they are so easily manipulated by IEI despite thinking of themselves as somehow above it. however this dynamic is considered appropriate from within the dyad so its hard to call it unhealthy. more like it could be unhealthy if other people were to adopt it who didn't likewise understand eachother. nature has done a great job of providing everyone with what they deserve

To me, this all relates to how you proposed SLE are fringe, nare-do-wells, and I frankly disagree, lots of healthy family types.

SLEs don't care about Fi in a Fi sense, whereas LIE does. that's the difference. whether you believe that is "fringe or nare-do-well" is obviously a matter of taste. I would say the fact that SLE looks up to LIE as benefactor is probably the closest thing you can get to an admission of any kind on the matter

[waddup]

i mean they would like to exclude the unrealistic

Fanciful Fi
What does excluding the unrealistic even mean?
something about that sounds more LSE, trying to find the real Fi. Pragmatism comes to mind when I read your sentence and that is more Te territory.

[waddup]

i mean they would like to exclude the unrealistic. they find "feelings" to be objects in others and in themselves subject to manipulation as a logical entity which is not so much wrong as incomplete. obviously one can manipulate people's values as if they were objects. this is Machiavellianism.

The optics of it look tribal, yes. Keep in mind their efforts in control towards that end are sooo primative. Like they can’t play mind games. Only super juvenile and pathetic words and actions, as in barely hitting the target, because they don’t know the Fi playing field. They can’t tell what the weaknesses are so they just lash out in childish ways that are easily sidestepped.

For example a spaz, or a pout, or coming up to someone and confronting them out right “why did you do that?” Funny enough SEE and IEE are waaaay better at hitting a person’s sore point in ways I would better describe as Machiavellian because they know what drives people, individual’s actual psychology. Mind games are so cruel and I’ve seen some doozies and it was never from a ILE or SLE. SLE are closer to dogs barking at the mail man. ILE just get moody in the worst case scenario and most confused, yet available in the best. Also, nothing happens in a vacume and personal charm is a quadra value here —>human people are always the first resource. Funny enough in reality it looks like the ILE and SLE teaching wholesome values so go figure/ how do you explain that?

Having said all that, whose to say they are despotic and tryrannical by nature? Parenting and upbringing play a huge role in how one acts in life towards others so let’s not paint by numbers here. One man’s tyrant is another’s king. Do not all the STs like to play the leading hero in some shape or form?

inasmuch as feelings stand in opposition to their goals they exclude them, that is the why. it still is essentially feels v feels, with the Fi polr's own feels abstracted from itself but nevertheless operative in a primitive way. "priority" can mean different things,

Most times its adorable and reassuring. ILE are actually worse for making it worse imo, because at the very least IEI can throw a scene, or play aloof to get a result. SEI have less to work with because they are just always mediating.

from a firsthand value point of view Fi is not a priority. from the point of view of making something happen it may become a priority in being acted upon or accounted for.

Yeah way more than you are giving it credit for. Again, balanced people dont suck so much.

sort of how you might not like chocolate but eat it for a 1000 dollars. it becomes a priority, but it doesn't mean suddenly you like chocolate. the bible says live by the sword die by the sword, and that applies to everyone including SLE, by this I mean the more machiavelian they are the more subject they are to it,hence why they are so easily manipulated by IEI despite thinking of themselves as somehow above it.

Which is why ignoring it, ignorning bad behavior in the Fi realm goes so much further with Fi polr people than pursuing a value system does. Ignorning doesn't mean agreement, it means freedom in this instance. Look the other way and then swoop in during a quite alone moment works the BEST. Same goes for all the polr during an act of trangression. And during all the other times? Don’t worry we speak english Here, no need to speak french.

however this dynamic is considered appropriate from within the dyad so its hard to call it unhealthy. more like it could be unhealthy if other people were to adopt it who didn't likewise understand eachother. nature has done a great job of providing everyone with what they deserve

For all of deltas amazing qualities which are numerous, it still feels at times so stuffy, so many boundries, so many toes to step on. So many opinions.

SLEs don't care about Fi in a Fi sense, whereas LIE does. that's the difference. whether you believe that is "fringe or nare-do-well" is obviously a matter of taste. I would say the fact that SLE looks up to LIE as benefactor is probably the closest thing you can get to an admission of any kind on the matter

I mostly wont quibble with this one except to say I read you stated SLE border on sociopathy at times and criminality and that was what I was referring to. I’m sure if you broke down real stats (impossible), Se might rank high in prisons, which is sad because one: its sad and two: it colors popular conception of what object sensing truly is. I wonder how many incredible Se people with personal integrity exist because according to you, objectively none.

[Bertrand]

I get the feeling it would be like trying to explain sight to a blind man, so ill leave it to the lyric if they want to make that their mission. in any case the idea that you can reduce Fi to a Ti consideration is the idea in contention. that SLE doesn't understand or admit it, proves my point. Reinin summed it up nicely when he said it can hardly be given words. for someone who identifies exclusively with (Ti) words it might as well not exist, which is precisely the basis for the SLE IEI pairing

[waddup]

I get the feeling it would be like trying to explain sight to a blind man, so ill leave it to the lyric if they want to make that their mission.

Everyone needs a calling and a little discussed phenomenon is after all the drama and if there is growth and health, these two types can mate for a long time. Where else is the SLE going to find someone who can manuever and understand while being the right hand to the king? Lol Im just kidding. No one ever said the IEis put up with shitty behaviour like some broken serf.

in any case the idea that you can reduce Fi to a Ti consideration is the idea in contention.

Please elaborate I dont understand this fully yet.

that SLE doesn't understand or admit it, proves my point. Reinin summed it up nicely when he said it can hardly be given words. for someone who identifies exclusively with words it might as well not exist, which is precisely the basis for the SLE IEI pairing

I don’t understand this yet either. Do you mean SLE are words people or that IEI are words people? Because—> no way are SLE words people. Sensing first and Always energy/object sensing first and foremost. Sensing is a very intuitve touchy feely process. —-> IEI are not just word people, they participate in life just like anybody else. —>Ti is creative and like all creatives it gets shut off frequently.

Regarding polr: all polr are explainable and workable and cope-able. Right? You need a little bit of everything. Thats my personal conviction and as someone who practises this stuff, like tons of people here Im sure, I can adapt because Im aware of the map (IE-Function position). And also UPBRINGING. Like I cant stress that enough.

[powerrainbowcrystal]

One dimensional Fi is pretty bad, you do a bunch of horrible ethical no-nos that other people just take for granted. Not just polr, but LSE/LIE suggestive Fi as well. (it's just not as noticeable because american society values Te so much over Se - and if you give them Fi they like it, but crappy Fi is crappy Fi.) I feel once again you are moronically and hatefully/irrationally being too unfair with Betas/Fe valuers instead of looking at the bigger picture. Why do you think so many people get pissed off at LIEs/LSEs for being heartless business men with shity interpersonal skills etc. Just like my Se sucks so bad even though I value it. I often am not forceful enough with people or I'm too harsh with others. LIIs also do this frequently.

However, people have told me how shocked (sometimes good shock, other times bad) about are how nice I am to some SLEs despite of this. I guess it just doesn't personally bother me as much. Duality at work. Obviously, I would care if they murdered or raped somebody. Even most SLEs understand that that's wrong though. They just don't understand the subtleties or intricacies of human ethical interaction much at all though (especially male SLEs, who naturally have inferior social skills to females anyway on top of their Fi polr), and get almost everybody pissed at them lol.

Instead of always shitting on SLE for being immoral (which is very easy) I think we should encourage them in jobs that play well their strengths and can still contribute to society. I know a few reformed SLEs who got jobs in construction after they served their prison sentences haha.

Also Fi polr (I get that we're talking about Fi polr not suggestive, just had to balance the Fe hatred out a bit) can be like something where you get really personally offended at things most people shrug off, like your ethics suck because of how much they lack objectivity. This is also a duality thing- as IEI is typically very forgiving and compassionate to people's personal quirks and sensitivity like that even if they aren't objective 'wrongs.' So we are often the cliched good girl in hollywood movies that can see the bad boy's humanity when nobody else can lol.

[Adam Strange]

One dimensional Fi is pretty bad, you do a bunch of horrible ethical no-nos that other people just take for granted. Not just polr, but LSE/LIE suggestive Fi as well. ......

Instead of always shitting on SLE for being immoral (which is very easy) I think we should encourage them in jobs that play well their strengths and can still contribute to society. I know a few reformed SLEs who got jobs in construction after they served their prison sentences haha.

I hired an SLE after he served ten years in Jackson prison for armed robbery. A totally likable, trustworthy guy, completely connected to the world around him and not at all to the future. Hard to beat an SLE for knowing where things are and taking direct action, and this guy is built like a tank. Nothing to do in Jackson but lift weights. I've seen people cross the street rather than walk past him. I think he just got in with the wrong guys and didn't see where he was going.

I kind of "get" him, with respect to his need to be liked and refusal to ask for it. He and I both have 1D Fi, 2D Fe.

[Bertrand]

Ti is words, words aren't intuitions so much as rational formulation. what the words mean and are intended to represent can be concrete or abstract perceptions. the problem is all rational functions use words, so confusion arises because people unknowingly equivocate between eachother, which is a product of projection. I can't really express how I experience Fi in relation to Ti without making Ti sound autistic. Fe bridges the gap of ethics to Ti, it knows how to "reach" Ti in some kind of way but what Fe and Ti valuing both fundamentally share is an ontological commitment to Ti as the "ground" on which reality is logically structured. Its this common understanding that by definition excludes affect as an introverted rational consideration, rather relegating it to a kind of black box. when these types proclaim people irrational its more a statement on their own irrational perception than a statement about the actual rationality of the person in question. in other words, the irrationality is their picture of the other person, whereas the rationality is missed like two ships in the night. obviously mutual understanding is possible but its hard not to privilege one in the description, I think its fair to say socionics tries to contextualize Fi within a Ti system and does a very good job of it, but there is irreducible difficulty in conveying the what its like across type. it is nothing less than the problem of intersubjectivity itself. in any case the strength of lyric is to convey to SLE certain aspects of reality in language they can understand, while maintaining its "relevance" so as not to be "excluded" by SLE as a threat; rather it is seen as a help. it manages to bring to SLE's attention ethical concern that would be incomprehensible in Fi terms, but since its in a Fe package it manages to get through because it presents itself "objectively" which is how SLE likes their ethics. they might prefer to call this "relevant to their interests" and therefore "real", but it goes back to how its formulated which is from a shared Ti worldview. Fi from the point of view of Ti is inscrutable because its like they say things that make no "logical" (Ti) sense.

Like when I said today in class "work breaks are within the scope of employment" the Ti types got kind of irritated with me, because to them by definition a "break" is defined in distinction to "employment" as being a "break from work" i.e.: not within the scope. But if you realize the question at issue is Fi ethical question as to whether or not (Te) plaintiffs can recover from businesses on a respondeat superior theory from an employee who injured them while on a break, you realize the "scope of employment" doesn't mean work/not work but "should we hold this entity responsible for creating the conditions that lead to the injury" and in that sense breaks should be considered a part of employment, inasmuch as employers include breaks in the furtherance of their business venture, which they do (because within work the concept of bathroom and food breaks are necessarily nested, because people work precisely to eat [the break in question was a 15 minute meal break], hence it unconscionable disavow accidents on a break as somehow being categorically separate from scope of employment when the whole reason the person was in that situation was that they were employed). Anyway, this is the sort of divide between Ti and Fi which is far more subtle than I think people realize. SLE would just cut it off with, employment is when you're literally fulfilling only those duties explicitly enumerated in your job description (they're not really interested in construing the language with a Fi slant--in other words its a battle over what the words represent and what we should do with them). To me this is slightly autistic because of how much it ignores, but it proceeds straightforwardly on the basis of those relatively simple and few logical premises in order to reach their conclusion. SLE needs someone like IEI who understands this and thinks in this way to convey via Fe any missing information, which from my point of view takes the form of wailing and so forth. There is a myth that Fi language is necessarily flowery. This is actually Fe, and also why IEI not EII is lyric. Fi language is more language that may or may not be flowery but is more ethically charged in the sense of say literature v science. it is a vector for introverted rationality, which is structural and comprehensive in its scope, which is what a great novel usually is with its far ranging and complex interactions between characters, but usually with some kind of "spine" or "skeleton" of Fi underlying it all, which is what its "message" tends to be. you can think of JK Rowlings archetypal themes in Harry Potter as being a form of Fi Ne, fleshed out not as a poeticism per se but as a rational work of a far ranging yet centrally integrated scope. a moral rather than scientific treatise if you will. a logical version of the same thing would be like Aristotle's "nichomachean ethics" (if you look closely he actually seems to be exhibiting a form of fi suggestive in his "look to good people to begin one's analysis"). Virtue ethics is generally awesome for this reason, because it admits the interplay between people who first embody ethics and then only later are they understood as such and codified by others, and subsequently promulgated to society in the form of articulated rules, which is precisely how the clock of the socion also understands things, but I digress..

[waddup]

Ti is words, words aren't intuitions so much as rational formulation. what the words mean and are intended to represent can be concrete or abstract perceptions. the problem is all rational functions use words, so confusion arises because people unknowingly equivocate between eachother, which is a product of projection.

Alright so I think you are saying: this<>this. A system of relations between *anything* really. And the only way to do that is using words, written, spoken, cognized. You can't have perception without using words to describe it. Well, you CAN, this is a state most often discussed in buddhism ---> the Emptiness of form. In other-words, a tree is not a tree, it is simply an object expressing energy in a form without any mind made words to describe it. I am in agreement about the rational functions, yes. I mean, clearly Si is an irrational function with perception "as is" without application of a word first.

I can't really express how I experience Fi in relation to Ti without making Ti sound autistic. Fe bridges the gap of ethics to Ti, it knows how to "reach" Ti in some kind of way but what Fe and Ti valuing both fundamentally share is an ontological commitment to Ti as the "ground" on which reality is logically structured. Its this common understanding that by definition excludes affect as an introverted rational consideration, rather relegating it to a kind of black box.

Oh you are in another galaxy regarding your understanding awareness of this stuff, arn't you? No wonder you feel like a God among mortals. Better to take that as a compliment over an insult.

when these types proclaim people irrational its more a statement on their own irrational perception than a statement about the actual rationality of the person in question.

If they are healthy and have some perspective, they can overcome this challenge. Not everyone believes their own conception of reality at all points in time. If everyone did, there would literally be no freedom whatsoever. You get *solid* moments where your psyche is very tight and bound, and you get very *loose* moments. I think you could claim positive intertypes allow for loser moments and negative types, you come across hardening. Let's assume we are talking about people who are their sociotype with limited awareness.

Sorry, I don't know how else to describe that process. Also, I've come full circle with socionics and its not my only system to understand psychology and information dynamics. I mean, its pretty good because there are soooo many nuances and ways to explore with it.

in other words, the irrationality is their picture of the other person, whereas the rationality is missed like two ships in the night. obviously mutual understanding is possible but its hard not to privilege one in the description, I think its fair to say socionics tries to contextualize Fi within a Ti system and does a very good job of it, but there is irreducible difficulty in conveying the what its like across type.

I'm reading this as their rational Ti element is behaving in a conventionally irrational way? It's super hard to discuss this with out specific real world examples and I think its possible this is becoming a little bit to conceptual, so I'm just going to assume you have done the leg work and have pulled this from your own real life observations and tbh right now I'm ok with that. Good job As far as socionics goes being Ti, I mean yeah sure boring yawn that topic has been done before.

it is nothing less than the problem of intersubjectivity itself. in any case the strength of lyric is to convey to SLE certain aspects of reality in language they can understand, while maintaining its "relevance" so as not to be "excluded" by SLE as a threat; rather it is seen as a help.

Mmmhmm. Yup.

it manages to bring to SLE's attention ethical concern that would be incomprehensible in Fi terms, but since its in a Fe package it manages to get through because it presents itself "objectively" which is how SLE likes their ethics. they might prefer to call this "relevant to their interests" and therefore "real", but it goes back to how its formulated which is from a shared Ti worldview.

Nice summary of the past few times we talked about this yesterday.

Fi from the point of view of Ti is inscrutable because its like they say things that make no "logical" (Ti) sense.

I think you used little quotes there because in real life terms, it's not really logic as the word is used conventionally. It just sort feels like *oh this is the way things work around here, this is the system we are all agreeing to participate within* Nothing about it feels like a logic, which is where soooo many people make a real misconception when they think about Ti people. They are picturing people who are LITERALLY logical, like savants, or nerds. I mean sure those could happen, but its not what Ti does, or is. So bravo for trying to assemble the explanation. And for SLE, Se is always so much more apparent.

Like when I said today in class "work breaks are within the scope of employment" the Ti types got kind of irritated with me, because to them by definition a "break" is defined in distinction to "employment" as being a "break from work" i.e.: not within the scope.

Those guys just sound dumb. lol. Middle class yuppies or something, doesn't even sound like they have worked in their life ever, so how would they think a break is not a part of it? lol. You have to be around people like that all the time? lol out of touch.

But if you realize the question at issue is Fi ethical question as to whether or not (Te) plaintiffs can recover from businesses on a respondeat superior theory from an employee who injured them while on a break, you realize the "scope of employment" doesn't mean work/not work but "should we hold this entity responsible for creating the conditions that lead to the injury" and in that sense breaks should be considered a part of employment, inasmuch as employers include breaks in the furtherance of their business venture, which they do (because within work the concept of bathroom and food breaks are necessarily nested, because people work precisely to eat [the break in question was a 15 minute meal break], hence it unconscionable disavow accidents on a break as somehow being categorically separate from scope of employment when the whole reason the person was in that situation was that they were employed).

Wow, I could actual following this. Is is a matter of white ethics? I don't think so. hmmm, I'd have to think about this some more. I think a SLE is seeing it less of a matter of: Well EVERYDAY (as if they care when breaks happen lol) we are required to take a break AT 9:30 am and 2:30 am and while you are on your break you are responsible for your safety. I do not however think a SLE would be peevish about being forced legally to pay out compensation for an injury..actually I think all logical types would be annoyed with it, as they are all slightly whiny about these things. I don't think a LSE would be any less confrontationally annoyed as any other type if they were in the same situation, no matter how a Fi type could break down the moral obligations for them. I think a LSE would follow through out of a sense of duty to being ethical, whereas a SLE would just grumble about it. At the end of the day, does it matter what one felt about doing it, if they had to do it anyway?

It seems Fi types demand A LOT out of their duals, because not only do they ask them to take the most ethical course of actions, they also demand they feel good about doing so, just because it's right and here are the reasons why! Hahah, its kind of hilarious if you look at it from that stand point.

A Ni type is going to be preforming the same thing, yet will be far more objective when they break down the reasoning, coming at it from all angles instead of just the most suitibly "right" one. For instance, explaining how and why, explaining what will turn out, explaining how to survive with least amount of damage, working towards homeostasis of the internal situation, using it as a leveraging point to further prove loyalty, as in claiming "see, I don't suck as much as those guys". Its tough though for sure, because Fi polr always seemed to ask "well why should I?"

random thought during this--->Te might come at it in delta as being tied in with Si somehow. As in, having breaks is a necessary requirement of staying productive.

Anyway, this is the sort of divide between Ti and Fi which is far more subtle than I think people realize. SLE would just cut it off with, employment is when you're literally fulfilling only those duties explicitly enumerated in your job description (they're not really interested in construing the language with a Fi slant--in other words its a battle over what the words represent and what we should do with them).

I think as a thought experiment, a SLE doing this is just wrong. I disagree, I do not think a SLE would do this as you laid out. Reading further.

To me this is slightly autistic because of how much it ignores, but it proceeds straightforwardly on the basis of those relatively simple and few logical premises in order to reach their conclusion.

It can be, yes. I don't think people give beta NFs enough credit for what they put up with. Its probably hard plumbing the deepest human truths and coming back out to a people who are so straight forward at times. Where do you think a lot of the dynamic here comes from though? Like why do socionics descriptions describe IEI and EIE as being so complex and conflicted? Clues and answers lay in this direction.

SLE needs someone like IEI who understands this and thinks in this way to convey via Fe any missing information, which from my point of view takes the form of wailing and so forth. There is a myth that Fi language is necessarily flowery. This is actually Fe, and also why IEI not EII is lyric. Fi language is more language that may or may not be flowery but is more ethically charged in the sense of say literature v science. it is a vector for introverted rationality, which is structural and comprehensive in its scope,which is what a great novel usually is with its far ranging and complex interactions between characters, but usually with some kind of "spine" or "skeleton" of Fi underlying it all, which is what its "message" tends to be. you can think of JK Rowlings archetypal themes in Harry Potter as being a form of Fi Ne, fleshed out not as a poeticism per se but as a rational work of a far ranging yet centrally integrated scope. a moral rather than scientific treatise if you will. a logical version of the same thing would be like Aristotle's "nichomachean ethics" (if you look closely he actually seems to be exhibiting a form of fi suggestive in his "look to good people to begin one's analysis")

Yes because it (Fi) is talking about field ethics, which is an ACTUAL thing, albeit not visible. So, I'm there with you on this one.

---> Fi can be twisted though, which is the reason you get very singular minded, imo stupid Fi, lets not assume objectivity - which is a character trait an Fi type may lack.

Virtue ethics is generally awesome for this reason, because it admits the interplay between people who first embody ethics and then only later are they understood as such and codified by others, and subsequently promulgated to society in the form of articulated rules, which is precisely how the clock of the socion also understands things, but I digress..

Isn't University fun?

[powerrainbowcrystal]

@Betrand

You make good logical points there just seems be this underlying irrational hatred sometimes when you make a post about Betas or Fe valuers or SLE/IEIs or often all of the above. Did a Beta molest you as a kid or something? I just don't always get it. You then often say 'don't get me wrong, I like xxx' after some long hannibal-ish tirade against the entire quadra to try and smooth things out but I'm not sure if it works out that well lol. Do Gammas show their affection by over analyzing everything to death?

I get that we suck sometimes but jeesh, I'm not a dog. Rubbing my nose in my shit isn't the way to make me learn better.

[powerrainbowcrystal]

You're just giving Bert even more ammunition to think you are a Fe valuer but yeah. Sounds about right.

Nothing to do in Jackson but lift weights

Ain't that the truth.