Examples of Te PoLR in ISFps and INFps

[Trevor]

You make a great point, Trevor. I hope others will follow by example.

You make points similar to those Ashton makes.

[717495]

Points of least resistance?

[Trevor]

Yes, polisario.

[Words]

Filatova's PoLR quotes:

Difficult to work hard at anything business related.

Difficult to keep house tidy.

Hard to keep finances in order (Money left lying around the house etc.)

Buying spontaneously, spending money on appealing but unnecessary purchases, resulting in houses full of useless things.

Inability to act in a logical, rational way with minimal time and less effort.

Have problems with boring/tedious jobs.

Promises made may go unfulfilled due to distractions/temptations.

One of them... Women keep a tidy house, some of them are Te PoLRs.

Filatova must be tripping.

[The Ineffable]

How my gf (SEI) is:

Difficult to work hard at anything business related.

Not sure, but yeah working hard sounds like trouble.

Difficult to keep house tidy.

Definitely not. She's like "programmed" to clean from time to time and enters some sort of a trance when any delay is excluded. She becomes angry (and control freak) when I drop grumble or stuff on the floor, if I get out withe the same slippers I use indoors, etc.

Hard to keep finances in order (Money left lying around the house etc.)

In a way yes, but there's some rules I imposed - paying bills in time, keeping track of finances, etc -, otherwise we're going down. So I'd say she can handle it but needs some motivation, being scared of the consequences.

Indeed she often leaves cash and other things in disarray and it is hard to draw a bottom line, if urgently needed.

Buying spontaneously, spending money on appealing but unnecessary purchases, resulting in houses full of useless things.

No, and from what I know that was never her case. In fact it's the other way around, she holds me back from making irrational expenses (eg "why do you need a new guitar?", "I don't need a new computer, this works fine").

Inability to act in a logical, rational way with minimal time and less effort.

True. Sometimes I see her making useless operations when doing something, from computer tasks to cooking. Complicates simple things, IMO. Sometimes the other way around, takes the shortest path in detriment of quality or missing the point of the procedure.

Have problems with boring/tedious jobs.

Certainly so. Something that needs to be done repeatedly with no apparent end in sight demoralizes her. I try to remind her of things that need to be done, but I feel awkward to do that because they obviously depress her. There are things one can do to moralize her, but it's off-topic.

Promises made may go unfulfilled due to distractions/temptations.

Yes but I am the same way (if mot more so).
(Edit: I could block i-am-bored.com, cracked.com and the likes from the firewall, but if she finds out I'm toast )

[Words]

How my gf (SEI) is:

Difficult to work hard at anything business related.

Not sure, but yeah working hard sounds like trouble.

Definitely not. She's like "programmed" to clean from time to time and enters some sort of a trance when any delay is excluded. She becomes angry (and control freak) when I drop grumble or stuff on the floor, if I get out withe the same slippers I use indoors, etc.

In a way yes, but there's some rules I imposed - paying bills in time, keeping track of finances, etc -, otherwise we're going down. So I'd say she can handle it but needs some motivation, being scared of the consequences.

Indeed she often leaves cash and other things in disarray and it is hard to draw a bottom line, if urgently needed.

No, and from what I know that was never her case. In fact it's the other way around, she holds me back from making irrational expenses (eg "why do you need a new guitar?", "I don't need a new computer, this works fine").

True. Sometimes I see her making useless operations when doing something, from computer tasks to cooking. Complicates simple things, IMO. Sometimes the other way around, takes the shortest path in detriment of quality or missing the point of the procedure.

Certainly so. Something that needs to be done repeatedly with no apparent end in sight demoralizes her. I try to remind her of things that need to be done, but I feel awkward to do that because they obviously depress her. There are things one can do to moralize her, but it's off-topic.

Promises made may go unfulfilled due to distractions/temptations.

Yes but I am the same way (if mot more so).

You'll never shut up about you

[Cat King Cole]

Substituting reasoning for facts and experience is another one. Ineffable's list is really good.

[Words]

Substituting reasoning for facts and experience is another one. Ineffable's list is really good.

Could be, except so many of the points are actions and personality listed. Goodness knows what we'd do without these things and all the Te PoLRs who aren't his bird, with different lives etc.

Well it would make socionics less of a supposed quick fix.

[Crispy]

Whoops. On this and the other PoLR threads I see I have neglected to mention I stacked quotes from both the INFp and ISFp PoLR descriptions (as long as there weren't 2 of the same) and Filatova may have differentiated the two a bit. Examples: (Not) Cleaning the house and buying frivolously were under the INFp PoLR description, while inability to act in logical/rational way etc. and "problems with boring/tedious jobs" were under ISFp PoLR description.

[Words]

Whoops. On this and the other PoLR threads I see I have neglected to mention I stacked quotes from both the INFp and ISFp PoLR descriptions (as long as there weren't 2 of the same) and Filatova may have differentiated the two a bit. Examples: (Not) Cleaning the house and buying frivolously were under the INFp PoLR description, while inability to act in logical/rational way etc. and "problems with boring/tedious jobs" were under ISFp PoLR description.

Makes much more sense

[The Ineffable]

You'll never shut up about you

You're right here, that's my actual experience.

The last time I talked "too much" about you, you reported me to SG, pussy. Need some attention now?

[Trevor]

Whoops. On this and the other PoLR threads I see I have neglected to mention I stacked quotes from both the INFp and ISFp PoLR descriptions (as long as there weren't 2 of the same) and Filatova may have differentiated the two a bit. Examples: (Not) Cleaning the house and buying frivolously were under the INFp PoLR description, while inability to act in logical/rational way etc. and "problems with boring/tedious jobs" were under ISFp PoLR description.

Yeah. ISFps are pretty good with house cleansing.

[Words]

You'll never shut up about you

You're right here, that's my actual experience.

The last time I talked "too much" about you, you reported me to SG, pussy. Need some attention now?

Nah, thought you had me on ignore. Whenever you're local, please give me a shout, sure you'll have no probs chatting to the 'little physical guy' you have me as

But that'll never happen in the real world, sadly not, it would be so educational for me, so it's just words n yours bore me, back to ignore....

[Aleksei]

Filatova's PoLR quotes (From both IEI and SEI descrips):

Difficult to work hard at anything business related.

Difficult to keep house tidy.

Hard to keep finances in order (Money left lying around the house etc.)

Buying spontaneously, spending money on appealing but unnecessary purchases, resulting in houses full of useless things.

Inability to act in a logical, rational way with minimal time and less effort.

Have problems with boring/tedious jobs.

Promises made may go unfulfilled due to distractions/temptations.

Holy shit.

I might be IEI after all.

[Clumsy]

So how is Te PoLR demonstrated?

[Beautiful sky]

So how is Te PoLR demonstrated?

Te wants you to be convinced with facts but Te PoLR receives Persuasion rather that wanting to be convinced by facts; they are emotional and they doubt things that are stated as facts.

is a sense perception conditioned by a Feeling Judgement that devalues Thinking Judgement (that which is factual and objective), but because it is a conscious function, they can and have the ability to read facts, in decision making, they are less apt to trust and be moved to do something because of it. AKA, facts don't speak for themselves.

[woofwoofl]

I know an Fe-SEI, and when I tell her about the facts on the ground, I get something along the lines of "I'm entitled to believe what I want to believe" and it's usually in this "boo hoo I'm angry and offended" tone too

Makes me want to bash my head into concrete; I might be able to connect with that line of reasoning after a few hours of hard enough bashing, actually...

[The Ineffable]

Off-topic:

Nah, thought you had me on ignore. Whenever you're local, please give me a shout, sure you'll have no probs chatting to the 'little physical guy' you have me as

But that'll never happen in the real world, sadly not, it would be so educational for me, so it's just words n yours bore me, back to ignore....

Nice try, but as you know, I never bury my head in the sand using the ignore feature. Nor your bluff is sufficient to make me confess whether I saw your pictures or not: in the end having a good laugh with some online friends is a private matter.

[silke]

When people fallback on science or quote a supposed facts I often ignore them because I think they lack the proper context.

That depends on your education/background. I work in R&D in scientific field and typing people I've met through work I can say that there are many Te-devaluing types driving the scientific progress forward. Despite lack of Te none of us have any problems with empirical approach or accepting scientific facts. If you go to your local university and start typing professors there you'll find quite a few alphas and betas among them.

That was also the main issue I had getting into Socionics (and still have) is that there is no actual evidence that would back up its existence.

Occasionally I will bluff to know something I don't know just to manipulate a situation .. either for entertainment purposes or for some larger belief I have which contradicts the supposed fact.

This sounds closer to home.

She spoke with a degree of confidence that it would be similar to the timing of the previous days and did not double check. It turned out that she was wrong, and we arrived late.

When other types tell you something which is later proven to be wrong which function do you attribute it to?

2) The distance of the earth from the sun popped up in our conversation.
Me: Anyway, who cares. It doesn't really matter.
Her: (Indignant emo outburst) How could you say that?!! Don't you know that the distance of the earth from the sun is very significant?
Me: (Frowns) Huh? What does it matter that the measurements run a little? So what if the sun is 1 millimeter nearer to the earth?
Her: (Confused) ... I don't know how, but I just know that it is really significant. (Sulks)

That's an example of Ni-Si clash. You are saying is that in the context of everything (Ni) this little detail here do not matter, while she cannot understand how you can just disregard this factual information. She has no Ni to evaluate how meaningful it is and thus insists that it matters.

Substituting reasoning for facts and experience is another one.

Other types do this one too afaik.

[rat1]

I dont see how that's relevant to what I said. I'm talking about finding meaning in facts. I think Ti is important for evolving science.

[Beautiful sky]

Because facts are just facts.

No they're not. One of the worst epistemological errors is the assumption that so-called "facts" somehow magically 'speak for themselves'.

My boyfriend says that, "facts don't always speak for themselves and that's why we sometimes have to state them."

[silverchris9]

I dunno ashton. First of all, "experiential orientation towards reality" is already too vague, because it totally encompasses as well. So how are you going to differentiate them. To me, the obvious answer is to reclassify Te, at least partially, as an "experiential orientation towards epistemology," that is, wants knowledge-as-it-is-experienced, rather than (what Ti-valuers like Kant would call) "pure" knowledge.

This change makes the crucial differentiation between and , which is that is a abstract function (rather than involved), which just means that it is more mentalized, and more "conscious" than .

I know you'll castrate me for this, but the best analogy I can think of is: is the push and is the path. Obviously if you can push, you can see the path; and if you can see the path you can push it to your destination, or at least explain to someone in great detail how to do so.

Anyway, this refocus on the "mental" aspect of allows for a more sophisticated version of the "Te = facts" argument. Obviously, everybody cares to some degree about facts, because anything true is a fact (although on an intuitive level, Truth vs. Facts does convey, albeit imprecisely and with a huge potential for misunderstanding, some of hte difference between and ---Lord, Ashton, how on earth do you have the patience to click on those damn symbols every time you want to mention an IE/IM/IA/iWhatever?).

Anyway (again), obviously everybody cares about facts. But Te is inherently interested in what was experienced, and again, what was experienced from the POV of abstraction. And you yourself (and looktothesky/Mattie) are good evidence that is interested in precision, in avoiding error. So a precise mental rendering of an experience sounds an awful lot like a fact. And even then, I could easily describe a poem as an accurate (if not precise; that is, if you understand what it means, it is correct/adequate-to-reality; but there is a high potential for misunderstanding) mental rendering of an experience.

So yes, = accurate mental renderings of experience. Which is a fact.


Also, emotional attachment to conclusions, if anything, is totally not-type-related. What you describe as emotional attachment I also see in Te-valuers: I find that they cling to "reality" and have trouble adjusting to things that don't fit that conception of "reality," or "how things work." Trouble adjusting to conditions as they are. More a TeSi problem than a TeNi problem I suppose. But the point is that the commitment is as irrational, if not as adept in directly provoking an emotional response, as any Ti attachment to thought.


Also also, what you perceive as a failure to adjust the theory when it doesn't fit reality is not inherently bad, as you characterize it (another Te thing I think is not being aware or conscious of the implicit colorings of their communication; "excessive" focus on the explicit information conveyed, although you may have been perfectly aware that you were hating on us Ti valuers, lol). Because facts do change, trusting internal coherence over available information works as often as not. And of course, as with anything (as with the example about poetry and instruction manuals I give above or below or something), there are areas in which the internal coherence of theory is more important (generally areas in which there is little factual information available), and areas in which the external correspondence with facts is more important.

In other words, don't hate on us for sticking to our guns 'cause it works sometimes, dammit!

But I guess sometimes we get overly emotional about our theories not working out... but whatever. Maybe personal attachment to theories is a necessary price to pay for computing power, for 'thinking with your whole body'.

---


Anyway, I experience Te-polr in many of the ways described above. I have a below average capacity for checking the details to make sure they're right, which only occasionally bites me in the ass.

There is nothing I find more insufferable than mundane work and practical details, and I will frequently stall, procrastinate, and find ways to avoid such work. This is because I cannot see a clear connection between the organizational strategies that streamline a project and the ultimate goal of the project. It's not that I'm lazy; I can easily stay up all night finishing a project if I have to. It's just that I find work like making labels and updating databases and making schedules (unless that schedule is a "deliverable" in which case I can mentally reclassify it as "mission-critical" and therefore worthy of my damn time) so insufferable that I'd rather do a really difficult job that isn't so menial than do a quick, easy menial job.

I need something that engages me mentally. If the task is too easy or doesn't require me to do something I'm good at (organizing information--as opposed to objects--communicating effectively, uncovering meaning, etc), then I either avoid it or try to do it in such a way that I don't have to think about it while doing it (which of course usually results in me doing a worse job, but c'est la vie), so that my mind is free to engage in more stimulating thoughts.

You might say, "oh, that's just a trait of intelligence or laziness or a certain lifestyle" or whatever, but I honestly think it has to do with exactly what socionics has to do with, which is how people think, how people's internal worlds operate. (Type as intelligent---read: adaptable---software, rather than hardware, I suppose).

I have a strong distaste for specificity, or at least a suspicion thereof, which I associate with Te-polr. You can communicate effectively without boiling down al your information to discrete bits. It's holistic communication, wherein every aspect of the communication (down to the words) contributes to the overall message. The message is in the impact made by the totality rather than the specific "take-away points."

Of course we can all agree that some avenues are better for holistic communication (poetry) and others are better for discrete communication (instruction manuals), but that doesn't change the fact that a) some people have a preference for one over the other (a preference which falls roughly along type lines, and types who have unexpected preferences have generally recognized the preference, approaching it differently than the more standard or expected type), and b) we disagree about gray areas (such as socionics posts, lol, or even philosophy).

Of course, the ideal perspective is the balanced one, wherein both discrete specificity and overall impact work in harmony.

In other Te-polr news, I've got plenty of stories of me giving people the wrong information about when they were supposed to arrive somewhere (once I gave them the right info which I thought was the wrong info and then gave them the wrong info once they arrived, which was hilarious and a fail) and other details.

I also tend to assume I know how to get places and I never do, lol. (but when not getting lost is "mission-critical," i.e., when getting lost means wandering into the wrong neighborhood, I'll get a specific route whenever necessary. Substituting one concrete function------for another---. We can all be practical, we've just got to find our own ways there).

What else am I bad at Te-polr wise? I can't think of much of anything.

---

Also, if anyone's read Anna Karenina (which I swear is a socionics manual), Stepan is a great example of an EIE with Te-role.

[The Ineffable]

So-called empirical "facts" aren't natively unique to and people who insist on that need to be stabbed in the face with screwdrivers. Like any IE, is a phenomenological orientation towards apprehending reality, not "facts" or "practicality" in and of itself. Fuck off with that.

Like any Bodies (Extroverted) you mean?

Anyway, IMO only Te can be fully qualify as the IE of facts, all the other Bodies have a quirk. The closest comes Se, which can be qualified as such in a restricted sense.

[GuavaDrunk]

Late to the party:

When someone explains things to me, interesting though they be, through what I think is a Te filter, I get annoyed because they are giving me information at the exact halfway point between anecdotes I could abstract a rule-of-thumb from and a rule-of-thumb.

It's information I can't do anything with (since I desire a rule of thumb) and I usually end up asking irritated questions to redirect their delivery toward one of the two desirable categories.

My reaction to this has mellowed over time. I used to throw tantrums or start crying with frustration and feeling inadequate. I now try to not fume too much and work the point out before reaching saturation.

[Ave]

No they're not. One of the worst epistemological errors is the assumption that so-called "facts" somehow magically 'speak for themselves'.

Sometimes people make me happy.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Lol. I've shortcodes that automatically replace as I type—for instance if I type "\ti" it makes "".

I just type : Ti : without the spaces. Much faster than clicking.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Te is the push, and Se is the path. You were on the right track, but you got it backwards.

Te is dynamic, and Se is static. Therefore, Te is actually the 'pushing function' and Se is not. Look at how Asston behaves here. Stabbing people in the eyes with screwdrivers? Telling people to bluntly fuck off???

You can just say he's kidding around (and he is to a large extent) but come on now.

He's fitting a stereotype of a Te-ego.

So yes, INFps and ISFps don't want to to be 'pushed' when we don't want to be. Te is simply the external dynamics of objects, or 'objects in motion.'

Se is a static path for Ni (internal dynamics of fields) to travel down, in order to reach a higher pure power level and not be so ambivalent, the way that IEIs and SEIs naturally come across. Se-dual seeking is about finding the romantic 'one special thing' that causes you to soar. Se appears independent and strong only because it's so static, and that's what its giving its nature of singularity and independence. But it's much more like a Rock, not a Dagger. It doesn't push. It protects.

Instead of aruging what I say (Just because it's fun to argue) , as a knee-jerk reaction- please just think about it because I know that I'm right. =D Don't write me off as a Te polr, because you're not making much sense. I still almost always know what I'm talking about, Te polr or not.

*gay man huggles*

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I dunno ashton. First of all, "experiential orientation towards reality" is already too vague, because it totally encompasses as well. So how are you going to differentiate them. To me, the obvious answer is to reclassify Te, at least partially, as an "experiential orientation towards epistemology," that is, wants knowledge-as-it-is-experienced, rather than (what Ti-valuers like Kant would call) "pure" knowledge.

Uh no. You are trying way too hard. All Te means, is 'external dynamics of objects.' That might sound vague to you but that's what Te means, in a nutshell- and so we have to be careful not to stereotype things based on that. Te means the fast-moving world of business logic. Business moves fast and it's about the quick, dynamic exchange of external objects. So that's why it's related to Te. That's why ENTjs and ESTjs love that stuff, and that's why Ashton has the "Capitalist Rant" spell.

I've always been stereotypically poor at this, because it is my polr. As smart and talented as I am, I still have refused to participate in the business world to a degree that isn't normal for somebody in my age group.

The neurotic thing you're espousing (I'm really trying not to be an asshole here) is something that isn't really related to the function...

Anyway, this refocus on the "mental" aspect of allows for a more sophisticated version of the "Te = facts" argument. Obviously, everybody cares to some degree about facts, because anything true is a fact (although on an intuitive level, Truth vs. Facts does convey, albeit imprecisely and with a huge potential for misunderstanding, some of hte difference between and ---Lord, Ashton, how on earth do you have the patience to click on those damn symbols every time you want to mention an IE/IM/IA/iWhatever?).

It has nothing to do with facts... it's about a facet of reality. Ni can be about facts too. It's simple about the dynamic nature of external objects, or 'business logic.' That's just a normal facet of reality. A Te polr is somebody who simply isn't really paying attention to that aspect of reality, because it's a personal weakness for them. And it's more objectively obvious than other polrs, being an EXTERNAL polr, that's why people like to tease IEIs and SEIs about it.

Also, emotional attachment to conclusions, if anything, is totally not-type-related. What you describe as emotional attachment I also see in Te-valuers: I find that they cling to "reality" and have trouble adjusting to things that don't fit that conception of "reality," or "how things work."

Yeah, Ashton was correct in a lot of what he said but he does need to lay off on the 'emotions are weaknesses' cliche.

I'll split up your other rants in another post because it's fun for me to correct other people haha. I love you though don't take it personally okay. I'm just going through a personal crisis right now and need these forums to blow off my middle-class steam. Okay so NEXT.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Also also, what you perceive as a failure to adjust the theory when it doesn't fit reality is not inherently bad, as you characterize it (another Te thing I think is not being aware or conscious of the implicit colorings of their communication; "excessive" focus on the explicit information conveyed, although you may have been perfectly aware that you were hating on us Ti valuers, lol).

Well from Ashton's pov, he's not hating on anybody, he's just being 'factually correct' (Yeah I'm not buying that, either) Even though there is something about his raw vibration that makes a lot of people feel uncomfortable. It's probably not socionics related though, because I don't get the same vibe from FDG. =p So don't feel too much like your supervisor is gutting you a new one. That seems kinda dark, slow suicidalish and weird.

Because facts do change, trusting internal coherence over available information works as often as not.

Te isn't just 'available information.' Any function can be about available information, and any internal function can be about an internal coherence. Te is about external dynamics of objects. Are you really comprehending this?

And of course, as with anything (as with the example about poetry and instruction manuals I give above or below or something), there are areas in which the internal coherence of theory is more important (generally areas in which there is little factual information available), and areas in which the external correspondence with facts is more important.

We all need other people to support us emotionally, and I'm not sure arguing with Ashton is the best way to go about that. But I'm being hypocritical, I know. I agree with you... poetry is good for aligning with your own romantic soul, but for pretty much anything else, rational input/"external correspondence" is a lot more helpful. But that's not really what Te is about. That's more of an association, than a direct definition.

In other words, don't hate on us for sticking to our guns 'cause it works sometimes, dammit!

He's not hating you. Watch. Like a logical, blunt straight man he's going to say "I'm not hating on you, silverchris. Nobody cares that you're a ******" Or something like that. Or "Other people's emotions are weird."

Like Miley Cyrus, he's just being Asston. lol god it cracks me up thinking of Ashton in drag singing 'Nobody's Perfect' and 'I can't wait to see you again.'

You're the supervisee so it's coming across as hate but to him it's benevolence assistance. Again I'm not buying that EITHER because it's Ashton we're talking about , but that's what the theory says.... *shrug*

But I guess sometimes we get overly emotional about our theories not working out... but whatever. Maybe personal attachment to theories is a necessary price to pay for computing power, for 'thinking with your whole body'.

You're slipping up. Other people are going to listen to him more, just because he's being blunt-er, and because they don't really know any better.

Anyway, I experience Te-polr in many of the ways described above. I have a below average capacity for checking the details to make sure they're right, which only occasionally bites me in the ass.

Ashton isn't more 'detailed than you.' You yourself just criticized the guy for being too vague and not detailed enough! He's simply more focused on the business world, the external dynamics of objects, objects in motion facet of reality.

There is nothing I find more insufferable than mundane work and practical details, and I will frequently stall, procrastinate, and find ways to avoid such work.

That's boring for everybody, silverchris. But why does Ashton rant about how much money and capitalism rules, but you really don't? Why are your posts about social justice causes and he just scoffs at that stuff? It's because he's Te-leading, and you are Te polr. WHY CAN'T YOU SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THE FUNCTIONS. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO INSECURE ABOUT THINGS. REALLY?

This is because I cannot see a clear connection between the organizational strategies that streamline a project and the ultimate goal of the project.

I think you need some self-confidence. It has nothing to do with you. That shit is objectively boring for everybody, even ENTjs. Being an ENTj is about being smart in an Enterprise-ish/entrepreneur way, nothing to do with sticking your head in shit-work that no smart person wants to do.

It's not that I'm lazy; I can easily stay up all night finishing a project if I have to. It's just that I find work like making labels and updating databases and making schedules (unless that schedule is a "deliverable" in which case I can mentally reclassify it as "mission-critical" and therefore worthy of my damn time) so insufferable that I'd rather do a really difficult job that isn't so menial than do a quick, easy menial job.

I wish you understood how you were *actually* different from other people, rather then complaining about something that no smart, self-aware person enjoys doing.

I need something that engages me mentally. If the task is too easy or doesn't require me to do something I'm good at (organizing information--as opposed to objects--communicating effectively, uncovering meaning, etc), then I either avoid it or try to do it in such a way that I don't have to think about it while doing it (which of course usually results in me doing a worse job, but c'est la vie), so that my mind is free to engage in more stimulating thoughts.

You're closer to the right track here, still a little off but you're beginning to realize what you're actually weak against not 'what you think you're weak against' and not something that all intelligent people avoid like the plague.

You might say, "oh, that's just a trait of intelligence or laziness or a certain lifestyle" or whatever, but I honestly think it has to do with exactly what socionics has to do with, which is how people think, how people's internal worlds operate. (Type as intelligent---read: adaptable---software, rather than hardware, I suppose).

Ramble ramble ramble. Now Ashton is going to say two blunt words "I'm straight" and totally eviscerate you in the next post.

I have a strong distaste for specificity, or at least a suspicion thereof, which I associate with Te-polr.

That isn't Te related though.

You can communicate effectively without boiling down al your information to discrete bits. It's holistic communication, wherein every aspect of the communication (down to the words) contributes to the overall message. The message is in the impact made by the totality rather than the specific "take-away points."

The only reason why you don't think very specifically, is because you are a naturally intelligent person.

Of course we can all agree that some avenues are better for holistic communication (poetry) and others are better for discrete communication (instruction manuals), but that doesn't change the fact that a) some people have a preference for one over the other (a preference which falls roughly along type lines, and types who have unexpected preferences have generally recognized the preference, approaching it differently than the more standard or expected type), and b) we disagree about gray areas (such as socionics posts, lol, or even philosophy).

You really are the Water to Ashton's Fire. It's interesting actually.

Of course, the ideal perspective is the balanced one, wherein both discrete specificity and overall impact work in harmony.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

In other Te-polr news, I've got plenty of stories of me giving people the wrong information about when they were supposed to arrive somewhere (once I gave them the right info which I thought was the wrong info and then gave them the wrong info once they arrived, which was hilarious and a fail) and other details.

LoL?

I also tend to assume I know how to get places and I never do, lol. (but when not getting lost is "mission-critical," i.e., when getting lost means wandering into the wrong neighborhood, I'll get a specific route whenever necessary. Substituting one concrete function------for another---. We can all be practical, we've just got to find our own ways there).

You're drifting away. Come back to us, chris. *Slaps ya back into str8 man reality.*

What else am I bad at Te-polr wise? I can't think of much of anything.

You're like a mist that doesn't go anywhere sometimes. You are a faggy, clear water mist and Ashton is a fire spell. I'm bullying you a little but you're making it too easy.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Btw Chris, other people don't really hate you... we just get objectively annoyed at your mistiness sometimes. It's like you are just hot air and don't go anywhere.

It's more of an annoyance then a hate. You are a likeable guy , and your softness is a strength. I don't see how anybody could possibly hate you. Even Ashton.

You'd have to be pure undiluted evil to hate an IEI or an SEI. I mean, come on. We're just so cute.

[Aleksei]

You'd have to be pure undiluted evil to hate an IEI or an SEI. I mean, come on. We're just so cute.

That's what they want you to think...

[Eye of the Potato]

This is really interesting. It's easier to get a grasp of what Te is when you see it working poorly.

I've been coming to the conclusion lately that Te types need to learn how to put facts into context.

Te types think that if a person does x,y and z that means they are (insert label here) without taking into account that they would only do x,y and z in a certain context and doing x,y and z would be out of character for them usually.

Facts without context are how the newspapers of this world make their money.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

You'd have to be pure undiluted evil to hate an IEI or an SEI. I mean, come on. We're just so cute.

(o_o )

[silverchris9]

Te-polr is the ability to fly.

[Pa3s]

You'd have to be pure undiluted evil to hate an IEI or an SEI. I mean, come on.

Some IEIs I know can be pretty malicious.

[Park]

You'd have to be pure undiluted evil to hate an IEI or an SEI. I mean, come on.

Some IEIs I know can be pretty malicious.

Like trojan horses inside your computer.

[Pa3s]

Like trojan horses inside your computer.

Pretty much, yeah. Nice, comforting and unaggressive when everything is at peace, but selfish and unreliable when it comes to the point.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to all of them, that should be clear.

[HandiAce]

There was this kid once who was very lost one day. Did not know what to do with himself because he had obligations to meet, but no plan on how to take them on. So he asked for some help on time management. The women who went to help him out brought out an open schedule on paper and a planning notebook for him. He never liked To-Do lists and timetables so explained that he could never follow his own schedules and anything we wrote down would be ignored. The women said that it was mandatory that he write things down. He immediately got up and left the table. He never went back to the woman again.

So basically he asked for help because he was unsatisfied with how he was using his time in school and when he was provided the tools to manage his time and shown how to use them, he rejected them. Could that be Te-PoLR in action?

[force my hand]

If not, something very close to it.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I couldn't guarantee that it is. I would likely reject advice that didn't make sense to me, and I'm DS.