How do you cope with your PoLR? Reactions and compensation.

[Ryan]

Appropriating the skill of logical reasoning to any one function would be idiotic.

why

It's less idiotic than the alternative

[strangeling]

This is true. I like how people who are interested in psyche tend to have a fucked one.

Yes. And I like how the people that think they aren't fucked up tend to be ignorant of what fucks people up.
It may not be pretty, but I would trust a fucked up person who aims to understand over a normal person who is willing to compartmentalize a fucked up psyche because they don't understand it.
At least with fucked up people, there is hope of understanding. With the normal person, they create stigma, contention, and misunderstanding. It's not really a bad thing, as far as I can see (though I'm not saying I think that you think that).

I answered both.

I recommend you ask an IEE what Ti PoLR is like to better understand Ti.

HAHAHA. Yes, let's ask an IEE what their most undervalued function is like.
Seeing as how you often confuse vomiting with posting, I can see potential for a sitcom; I've even got a title - The Chronicles of a Monkey King.

[JWC3]

why

It's less idiotic than the alternative

I respectfully disagree.

I view the connection between what is colloquially understood to be logic and the socionics definition of introverted logic to be, not just tenuis, but completely nonexistent. To me such a comparison is akin to the comparison between colloquial introversion and socionics introversion. The two don't look the same, they don't function the same, and they do not deal with or codify the same information.

A definition of socionics introverted logic that is substantially more suitable could be 'rules' rather than 'colloquial logic' or 'formal logic'. However using a term like 'rules' betrays my own bias. Accounting for my own prejudice the most accurate term I could use to describe introverted logic would be 'theoretical framework'. Think of introverted logic as the walls to a house. Yes those walls restrict movement, technically a room with a door dictates where you may or may not enter that room. At the same time walls also support the house which, in this metaphor, may represent higher thought or intellectual understanding.

In light of this more accurate interpretation it's worthwhile to note that colloquial logic is ripe with theoretical framework. However, so is any intellectual discipline: logic, mathematics, even performance art. Any discipline that has begun to build upon its understanding has theoretical framework that supports later made intellectual extrapolations. It's simply how constructing knowledge works. For example in formal logic logical systems must follow the rules of: consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness. Though there are exceptions, a notable one being Godel's incompleteness theorem. An example of rules that govern performance art are: pace, flow, and 'don't break the fourth wall'. Again there are exceptions, a good example of which would be the epic theatre movement by Brecht.

Essentially equating introverted logic to colloquial logic is something I view as a simplistic interpretation that drastically misses the point by misinterpreting both introverted and colloquial logic. The discipline of logic is more than simply formal logic, and not all parts of it function in the same way or for the same reasons. Introverted logic is more than being able to construct an 'if-then-else' statement. The theoretical framework that supports higher thought may be constructed by way of implementing formal logical boundaries for how thought works and how it should be communicated but, by no means is that the only building material available.

[Ryan]

I respectfully disagree.

I view the connection between what is colloquially understood to be logic and the socionics definition of introverted logic to be, not just tenuis, but completely nonexistent. To me such a comparison is akin to the comparison between colloquial introversion and socionics introversion. The two don't look the same, they don't function the same, and they do not deal with or codify the same information.

Codify? Impressive. So you have read on the subject of knowledge.

A definition of socionics introverted logic that is substantially more suitable could be 'rules' rather than 'colloquial logic' or 'formal logic'. However using a term like 'rules' betrays my own bias. Accounting for my own prejudice the most accurate term I could use to describe introverted logic would be 'theoretical framework'. Think of introverted logic as the walls to a house. Yes those walls restrict movement, technically a room with a door dictates where you may or may not enter that room. At the same time walls also support the house which, in this metaphor, may represent higher thought or intellectual understanding.

Theoretical framework is an oxymoron. Rules restrict, logic doesn't. If I had to lump 'rules' somewhere I'd put it under Se.

In light of this more accurate interpretation it's worthwhile to note that colloquial logic is ripe with theoretical framework. However, so is any intellectual discipline: logic, mathematics, even performance art. Any discipline that has begun to build upon its understanding has theoretical framework that supports later made intellectual extrapolations. It's simply how constructing knowledge works. For example in formal logic logical systems must follow the rules of: consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness. Though there are exceptions, a notable one being Godel's incompleteness theorem. An example of rules that govern performance art are: pace, flow, and 'don't break the fourth wall'. Again there are exceptions, a good example of which would be the epic theatre movement by Brecht.

Mathematics is not pure logic, nor is performance art. Bad examples.

Essentially equating introverted logic to colloquial logic is something I view as a simplistic interpretation that drastically misses the point by misinterpreting both introverted and colloquial logic. The discipline of logic is more than simply formal logic, and not all parts of it function in the same way or for the same reasons. Introverted logic is more than being able to construct an 'if-then-else' statement. The theoretical framework that supports higher thought may be constructed by way of implementing formal logical boundaries for how thought works and how it should be communicated but, by no means is that the only building material available.

Colloquial logic is no of concern to me. Good post, but your biggest mistake is thinking that Ti logic (and btw, I'm only adding 'logic' because you would obviously miss the point if I didn't include it) is just about 'rules', did you really think I held that view?

[JWC3]

Codify? Impressive. So you have read on the subject of knowledge.



Theoretical framework is an oxymoron. Rules restrict, logic doesn't. If I had to lump 'rules' somewhere I'd put it under Se.



Mathematics is not pure logic, nor is performance art. Bad examples.


Colloquial logic is no of concern to me. Good post, but your biggest mistake is thinking that Ti logic (and btw, I'm only adding 'logic' because you would obviously miss the point if I didn't include it) is just about 'rules', did you really think I held that view?

I tend to think poorly of most people who equate the discipline of logic to introverted logic. So yes, I'm sorry if I missed your point due to my own misinterpretation.

Also as a personal request, if you're going to quote me in the future and don't feel like keeping the little thing in that will allow me to know we are now entering a discussion, could you like throw an @JWC3 in there someplace? I'd appreciate it. I tend to not go back in look at things after I've written them. I tend to write them, look at them millions of times in like the next 10 minutes, and then forget and go do something else so I almost missed this bit.

[JWC3]

@Ryan, I mean, ok. My views on the equation of introverted logic and the discipline of logic is something that's come to me slowly over a long period of time, and for that reason is a personal view point that I have. Not one that I can objectively point out sources and back myself up with anything other than my own opinion.

What I mean by this is I'm open to being wrong if you'd care to make a case for equating them that makes sense to me. I mean, you saying I'm wrong is all well and good, and it's easy, and as a habit for behavior it's just much easier to say 'no' to people. I know this very intimately and am in no way accusing you. It's part of life, no biggie. However, I'm far more interested in why the two should be equated if that is your perspective, than why my perspective is incorrect.

EDIT: Not to be a dick or anything, but I spent almost two hours drafting and editing that post and I'm not even that good at editing (part of why it takes me so damn long lol). I'm just not going to be swayed by a 'No' here, even if it's a really good 'No'. I may be swayed however by a very convincing 'Yes' with perhaps some 'No' peppered in, or some 'No' connotations or implications. It's just solely cutting down my effort isn't really going to convince me of anything, that's all I'm trying to say. I do mean that is all I'm trying to say.

[Suz]

I somewhat agree with invisible jim there...

the POLR function, while undervalued, is very CONSCIOUSLY undervalued (unlike the DS function). Characteristics of a function that evokes strong negative feelings can actually be a stronger, more honed stimulus to pinpointing what exactly is entailed in that function than perhaps even trying to tease out the positive feelings towards one's dominant or creative (and maybe DS and HA) functions.

in other words, sometimes i know what i dont like better than what I do like.

[InvisibleJim]

HAHAHA. Yes, let's ask an IEE what their most undervalued function is like.
Seeing as how you often confuse vomiting with posting, I can see potential for a sitcom; I've even got a title - The Chronicles of a Monkey King.

Analysis by exception is a very interesting way to understand a problem. Many people are very good at 'liking everything' in a very broad way but they are also very good at understanding exactly what it is that they really dislike in detail.

Cast your eyes upon this thread (not my thread): http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-types-I-think