Examples of Te PoLR in ISFps and INFps

[Joy]

Again, facts and figures are always changing, and bias is ever-present. What can act as an authority when virtually everything is open to subjective interpretation?

Is this not also true of one's interpretation of their experiences?

Why should I not be skeptical of an authorative claim when it ignores the error of the source material upon which it is based?

How do you judge whether or not source material has erred?

[force my hand]

Is this not also true of one's interpretation of their experiences?

Of course. Do not assume that by criticizing the strength of the source material I am placing full confidence in personal experience. I am not. The 'best' system is likely to borrow from both.

If the goal is is some platonic notion of 'true knowledge' we can derive that knowledge either from a personal or impersonal means. That said, we're likely to only focus on the latter in how it can help us achieve the former because we are humans living in a human context. The vast majority of 'important' is somehow linked to us. Simply stated, crime stats are irrelevent if you just got mugged walking home from work. No one says, "well, violent crime went down this past year, so it's not that big of a deal I just got stabbed."

How do you judge whether or not source material has erred?

Superficially, contextually based either on the device or metrics used. At a deeper level, intuitive knowledge that no matter how precise the scale you use, a division likely exists. This is very general, obviously, but I doubt you could come up with any specific measure that does not fall prey.

[Slacker]

You say you only trust your own experience, but the issue is, why should *I* trust your experience? There has to be some objective source we can both draw from.

[force my hand]

You say you only trust your own experience, but the issue is, why should *I* trust your experience? There has to be some objective source we can both draw from.

So for the sake of argument, say we have found our objective source. What's that likely to be based on? If we take any sort of physical skill - for example, playing hockey - are we going to trust the coach who has a Ph.d in Hockey Science, or the coach who spent ten years playing it? If we have that authoritative 'hockey bible', from where was that knowledge derived? Likely through personal experience.

I probably wouldn't actively argue for trusting anyone's experience, because I note the possibility for failure in anything. I would, however, place favourable odds on it.

[Joy]

Your examples don't really fit the concept being expressed in the wiki.

My boss is ESFj, so he doesn't have a Te PoLR, but it's in his super ego block nonetheless. If we need information on something, he'll be like "Give my buddy so-and-so at such-and-such-a-place a call. He does *insert a BARELY related career here* for a living. He could probably point us in the right direction." I tell him that it would be more efficient to just look it up online or buy a book on it, and he's very hesitant to agree. He usually gives in and agrees in the end, but he doesn't like it. I'm baffled by this... Why the hell would I want to call up some random person you barely even know and haven't talked to in years to ask them for specific information that's barely even related to what they do? What reason would they have to help me? And even if they did, why would the information they give me be more reliable than information I could find in a book written specifically about the thing I need to learn about?

My point is that a more applicable example would be along the lines of someone saying that their buddy who played hockey when they were a kid knows more about it than the guy who has the Ph.D. in hockey science (is there such a thing?).

[force my hand]

Your examples don't really fit the concept being expressed in the wiki.

How so? The first quote deals with the value of practical experience/knowledge over the 'bookworm' variety. The hockey example is obviously not reflected in reality (and in that sense I may be guilty of a logical fallacy), but its absurdity effectively reflects the point I'm trying to make. Real-life examples may include non-parents correcting the child-rearing methods of true parents because they read that information in a book, or someone offering dating advice based on what they've read in The Rules and not what they've actually experienced in real-life dating situations.

My boss is ESFj, so he doesn't have a Te PoLR, but it's in his super ego block nonetheless. If we need information on something, he'll be like "Give my buddy so-and-so at such-and-such-a-place a call. He does *insert a BARELY related career here* for a living. He could probably point us in the right direction." I tell him that it would be more efficient to just look it up online or buy a book on it, and he's very hesitant to agree. He usually gives in and agrees in the end, but he doesn't like it.

This is a very relevent clarification - it may be I simply misinterpreted what the description was saying, but I'm inclined to believe the description itself is at fault (obviously). Simply taking the quote at face value, however, your interpretation isn't any more accurate.

[Joy]

I have a few observations on Te PoLR to add... but these are very subjective.

I've noticed Te PoLR types use incorrect terminology or mismatch terminology with definitions. If you correct them they're like "whatever" and either laugh it off as unimportant or ignore you and keep on using the incorrect terminology.

I've noticed Te PoLR types get irritated when you ask them what they're trying to accomplish with what they're doing or try to suggest a more efficient way of doing it. They'll just say that they like the way they're doing it, and who cares if something else would be more effective or efficient?

I've noticed Te PoLR types telling people what's happened or what is happening and say things that are incorrect, seemingly for the sake of making a greater emotional impact on the people they're talking to. I think they don't even realize that they're wrong sometimes... they're just recounting the way they saw things go down, and they happened to have seen one particular aspect of it while totally missing another (as well all do in some way or another).

I've noticed Te PoLR types saying factually incorrect things or making observations, and then get irritated or say they don't care when someone provides the factual reason behind what's going on or corrects them. They don't care much to hear random facts about something if it isn't related to something they're interested in. If it is related to something they're interested in but doesn't fit into their understanding of it, they'll scoff and say that you wouldn't know, that you just read that somewhere.

Keep in mind that Te is essentially about what works, which is why it values outside information. Why learn a bunch of stuff you don't need to know and sit around thinking about it just so you can systemize the information when all you really need to effectively and efficiently accomplish your objective is a few facts which you can readily obtain from an outside source?

The quotes sound like they're trying to describe ways in which someone would show that they don't value Te, which takes information from outside sources, by trusting first hand experience over information derived from outside sources... but they thing is that it sort of sounds like this means that they value practical knowledge over book smarts, which actually sounds backwards if we're talking about Te vs. Ti.

Te PoLR types trust their own Fe observations over objective facts from outside sources that they don't really understand. And they trust sensory information provided by their own observations (for ISFps) or their dual's observations (for INFps) over Te. They also trust the information explained to them in any amount of depth by a Ti type over a random fact that someone just quotes from a text book or encyclopedia.

[force my hand]

I've noticed Te PoLR types saying factually incorrect things or making observations, and then get irritated or say they don't care when someone provides the factual reason behind what's going on or corrects them. They don't care much to hear random facts about something if it isn't related to something they're interested in. If it is related to something they're interested in but doesn't fit into their understanding of it, they'll scoff and say that you wouldn't know, that you just read that somewhere.

Oof.

I work with a guy who fits this to a T. I'll often bring a science magazine of some sort to read on my breaks, and any fact given is immediately scoffed at. This guy would scoff at gravity.

[Joy]

Other types can be like that too, in one way or another. They just scoff at different types of information. If a Ti type tries describing facts to an ExFp, but they present the information in a Ti manner instead of a Te manner, the ExFp may think the information boring and pointless and say "who cares?" or something of the sort.

[Elro]

Other types can be like that too, in one way or another. They just scoff at different types of information. If a Ti type tries describing facts to an ExFp, but they present the information in a Ti manner instead of a Te manner, the ExFp may think the information boring and pointless and say "who cares?" or something of the sort.

What do you mean when you say "Ti manner" and "Te manner?" Could you explain that, or give examples?

[Expat]

A very interesting discussion.

I agree with the general idea of Joy's comments, not sure about every individual example, but the example of her ESFj boss is spot-on imo.

Another example would be this (biased in favor of Te): someone from Europe goes to spend one month studying (or working as a babysitter, whatever) in one of the poorest areas of the US - in West Virginia or Mississipi or wherever. That person will go back to Europe and then say how he was surprised at the US's poverty. Someone who's never been to the US, but who's read tons of books about it, will argue, "well that's not true of the country as a whole, you just happened to be in a particularly poor area". The person will scoff at this and not really take those arguments in consideration because he's seen "the US" with his own eyes and the other person hasn't - "you haven't been there, what do you know?"

Now for the counter-example:

Real-life examples may include non-parents correcting the child-rearing methods of true parents because they read that information in a book, or someone offering dating advice based on what they've read in The Rules and not what they've actually experienced in real-life dating situations

.

You see, you are taking for granted that obviously non-parents will never know enough about child-rearing methods to even say something to "true parents" just from reading "one book", but if that "one book" contains information given by thousands of parents, it's really the experience of those thousands of parents that the non-parent is giving, and it can be argued that it's arrogant from the "true parents" to simply brush that aside just because it's in a book. Now, of course any one book can contain a lot of nonsense, whether about hockey, the US, child-rearing or whatever, but Te is precisely about being confident in evaluating the worth of bookish information.

What you are displaying is precisely that lack of confidence, or skepticism, about anyone being confident or able about sorting out rubbish from useful information.

[Expat]

I will give you a true example --

I knew of parents who were being very protective of their children getting sick, to the point of making all their environment as antiseptic as possible - their clothes, their food, everything, and panicking at the thought of even getting in touch with cats etc. Now I would argue that this is counter-productive since it may inhibit the development of the children's immune system and there is plenty of information on that. Doctors will back this up. Should the parents' dismiss any information I give based on the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about because I have no children? Will they believe the doctor, then? What if the doctor also has no children, or even had no child patients - is his information worthless, too?

And so on and so forth.

[Expat]

In examining functions and function placement, on occassion I come across a statement that appears self-evident as a general 'truth' about the world, yet it is often passed off as a feature of that function and its placement. I cannot recall every example, but the most recent is the PolR. I'm interested in canvassing opinions to see if my reaction is shared, or if indeed it's credited to the socionics model.

That is very interesting since whenever someone makes a point of the sort, "but isn't everyone like that" or "this is not a functional preference, it's just what's obvious", that is the strongest evidence of a person's type.

But another comment on that -- your reaction suggests to me that the description was very accurately written, since the precise reaction I would hope from a PoLR description is precisely this: "what are you talking about? That's not a weakness!"

[Expat]

The quotes sound like they're trying to describe ways in which someone would show that they don't value Te, which takes information from outside sources, by trusting first hand experience over information derived from outside sources... but they thing is that it sort of sounds like this means that they value practical knowledge over book smarts, which actually sounds backwards if we're talking about Te vs. Ti.

I'm not sure I understood you. How does it sound backwards? You mean because "practical knowledge" is also Te?

Sure, but Te PoLR types do value "knowledge" in the sense of "knowing something", only they "know it" due to their processing logically either their or input. For the SEI, what they know is primarily based on + , for the IEI, + .

[Expat]

The vast majority of 'important' is somehow linked to us. Simply stated, crime stats are irrelevent if you just got mugged walking home from work. No one says, "well, violent crime went down this past year, so it's not that big of a deal I just got stabbed."

Yes but that is a totally emotional standpoint. Of course you care about being stabbed, but that does not change the fact that crime generally speaking went down, unless you think that the world consists only of what affects you personally.

To use a less violent example, if I lose my job in a downsizing (as I have, in the past), it's no personal consolation to me to read that, on the whole, unemployment is low - especially if my personal skills aren't very marketable at the moment. But it would make no sense for me to say, "I can't believe this unemployment figures, how can that be true if I lost my job and can't find any?" What I can say, though, is that that doesn't help me, not to deny its accuracy.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Do you really have to stick your head in a sewer to know how much it stinks? Jeesh.

America would be a much better place if we stopped overvaluing 'physical experiences.'

Human intuition. Learn it, live it, love it.

[Joy]

The quotes sound like they're trying to describe ways in which someone would show that they don't value Te, which takes information from outside sources, by trusting first hand experience over information derived from outside sources... but they thing is that it sort of sounds like this means that they value practical knowledge over book smarts, which actually sounds backwards if we're talking about Te vs. Ti.

I'm not sure I understood you. How does it sound backwards? You mean because "practical knowledge" is also Te?

Sure, but Te PoLR types do value "knowledge" in the sense of "knowing something", only they "know it" due to their processing logically either their or input. For the SEI, what they know is primarily based on + , for the IEI, + .

Using your student/babysitter example...

The student/babysitter wasn't convinced that the US is poor only because she had first hand experience in the US, it was because she had her own understanding of economic conditions in the US. She could have just as easily received that information from a television program that explained it in a Ti way, a person who she talked to, an article that she read that pulled her Fe strings, etc. The point is that she already had her own understanding of the situation, and you were contradicting it by saying that you'd read otherwise. What you happened to read somewhere doesn't matter to her because she already understands the situation in a different way. If you presented an argument the information you had in a Ti/Fe manner that explained to her why her understanding makes sense and yet it's only part of the story, and that overall the US is not a poor country, she would be much more willing to adapt her understanding even though it went against her own first hand experience. She may still be apprehensive and would still associate the US with the Fe impression she got seeing the people and the houses in the poor area she had visited, but she wouldn't scoff and say, "You can't believe everything you hear/read" or whatever.

Also, Te PoLR types don't necessarily need to have a Ti understanding of something, they can trust someone else's. If someone has given them reason to believe that they have a Ti understanding of something, or strong Ti in general, they'll be more apt to take that person's work for it on something even without a full explanation. If a Te type tries to tell them something, they'll probably already mistrust the information coming from that person based on experiences with or a vibe from that person. They'll see that person as a know it all and be suspicious of what that person says, even if they're attempting to provide an explanation.... especially if the Te PoLR type has already been told something else by a person who's demonstrated strong Ti in the past, even if not on that particular subject.

As far as the way force my hand had interpreted what you'd written as practical vs. bookwormy knowledge, given those two options I would definitely say that Ti is bookwormy and Te is practical. (Granted, "practical" can mean something different to different type, just like "the point" of something can be different things to different types.) Te is about what works, or in a sense, efficiency and effectiveness. This is the CAUSE of for Te types to value outside information over internal understanding. Like I was saying to force my hand, taking the time and energy to learn all about a subject and think it through, making sense of every point by means of a structured system of understanding is seen by Te > Ti types as a waste of time (unless that subject happens to be something of a hobby or they actually need to have such an understanding of the subject for some sort of practical purpose). Te types would rather look up what they need to know and then put that information to use. Some may know a lot of "useless facts", but it's because they've retained that information after having received it from an external source at some point (most likely because it either it struck them as interesting for whatever reason or they had to learn it in order to accomplish something).



Specific examples that could be related to a Te PoLR:

One time at a restaurant I mentioned that I didn't like peppercinni on my salad, and an INFp laughed and said, "They're not called pepperccinis!" I told her that I was certain that they were, and she told me that there's no way they could be called pepperccinis. I told her that while I didn't know if that's what they were called in the Mediteranian or if that was the scientific name for them, I do know that I've always heard them called that. She got a little... flustered?... at that point and said that I always had to be right. I told her that it's not about who's right, it's about what's right. She insisted that I always had to be right, saying that it's a "*insert my last name here* thing" and that she didn't really care what they were called and I should drop it. I was like, "No, I want to find out for sure now. I could be wrong, and if I am, I want to know it." I asked the waitress what those little peppers were called when she came back around, and she said they're called pepperccinis. The INFp was like, "Are you happy now, Joy?" in a bit of a biting tone, and I was like, "Well, like I said, I wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong..." and she was like "Whatever, you just always have to be right." (This is I believe an example of what I was talking about at the end of the second paragraph. She had labeled me as a know it all.)

There was another somewhat similar situation I experienced with an ENFj (again, not Te PoLR but Te super ego nonetheless). She mentioned that her belly button was a little irritated and showed me her navel piercing. I told her that it might be getting infected, and that the type of jewelry that she had in it makes it more likely that it will get infected. She snapped, "Whatever, Joy. You don't know everything." I was a little surprised... I told her that she was right, that I certainly did not know everything, and that even when I thought I knew something I could still be wrong. On that particular subject, however, I had been thoroughly trained when I worked in a piercing shop. I explained in depth the reasons that they jewelry she was wearing made infection more likely. She sort of laughed and said, "Okay, I guess you do know about that... But you still don't know everything!"

Another example of a Te/Fe conflict between myself and an INFp took place when the INFp had done something really shitty and was trying to explain herself and make up with me or something. She told me that she was concerned that her INTp husband had told me that she had indeed done what I said she had because he had been "telling a lot of people a lot of lies about her since they were on the verge of divorce". I asked the INTp about it before talking to her because I didn't believe her. He said that he didn't know what she was talking about and asked her about it before I had a chance to talk to her about what had happened. When I did talk to her, she said, "Why did you tell him that I said he was lying about me?!" to which I replied, "Why did you you say he was lying about you?!... I've known him for a long time, and while everyone has their faults and he is most certainly no exception, one thing he's not is a drama queen. He is extremely loyal and would have no logical reason to lie about you, even if he did want a divorce, which he doesn't. Besides the fact that he wouldn't do that even if he did want a divorce, it doesn't make sense for him to say something like that because I'm doing you two a big favor right now, and he would know that the only thing he could possibly accomplish by telling me something like that would be making it so I didn't do that anymore. Why would he do that? Furthermore, it doesn't make sense for you to say that to me to begin with unless you had done it and wanted to try to make it sound like you hadn't. If you really think that he would just randomly make something like that up about you, you should just divorce him right now..." and so on. The way I was talking to her isn't intended to be an example of someone hitting a Te PoLR, btw. I just described my end of the conversation to explain the reasons why what she was saying made no sense at all. I'm not saying that Fe > Te types are liars by nature, either.... just that when I've seen INFps lie on this and other occasions, their lies were designed to make sense at an emotional level and often do not make sense on a more objective level when you look at factors like the ones I mentioned to her (more so that it wouldn't make sense for him to do that than that he wouldn't do that).

Another aspect of a Te PoLR that we haven't mentioned here is business sense. While penny pinching and micromanaging a budget aren't exactly what Te is about, Te PoLR types have a poor sense of what's going on business wise or on a large financial scale. A recent example was a conversation with an INFp (<3) who mentioned that the US could solve the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico by just making Mexico another state. I don't think he was serious, but when I pointed out all of the obvious economic/financial problems that doing this would create for the US, he was like, "Oh yeah, true" as if he hadn't even thought of what I was saying. He had a few other similar suggestions which also demonstrated a lack of having put any consideration into the Te aspects of the situation. I've also seen this lack of business sense in coworkers who made suggestions for ways the company might be able to solve a problem. When someone points out why their idea wouldn't work or would create even bigger problems, they just laugh it off or get quiet.

*poof*

Anyways... some of these examples and some of the other examples I gave could be attributed to things other than the Te PoLR in and of itself. They're just things that I've noticed and thought may correlate to a Te PoLR in some manner, but I could be mistaken with some of them.

[force my hand]

Do you really have to stick your head in a sewer to know how much it stinks? Jeesh.

Of course not, because we all have prior, first-hand knowledge of how much shit stinks.

[force my hand]

Now for the counter-example:

Real-life examples may include non-parents correcting the child-rearing methods of true parents because they read that information in a book, or someone offering dating advice based on what they've read in The Rules and not what they've actually experienced in real-life dating situations

.

You see, you are taking for granted that obviously non-parents will never know enough about child-rearing methods to even say something to "true parents" just from reading "one book", but if that "one book" contains information given by thousands of parents, it's really the experience of those thousands of parents that the non-parent is giving, and it can be argued that it's arrogant from the "true parents" to simply brush that aside just because it's in a book. Now, of course any one book can contain a lot of nonsense, whether about hockey, the US, child-rearing or whatever, but Te is precisely about being confident in evaluating the worth of bookish information.

What you are displaying is precisely that lack of confidence, or skepticism, about anyone being confident or able about sorting out rubbish from useful information.

Essentially, I believe my position is that 'well-rounded individuals' - so defined - are going to encompass the best parts of theory and practice. A non-parent may be very knowlegdable in developmental psychology, how to raise a child, what have you - to an extent that succeeds many actual parents' knowledge. And while they may be able to imagine the pros and cons of various parenting scenarios, they never have that completely accurate picture of staying up all night when your kid is sick that the actual experience brings. I'm not a father, but I am able to take from other situations I've experienced to know that at some point theory breaks down and you end up flying by the seat of your pants - your experience.

I'm not suggesting it's a better, more rigourous knowledge, merely different and more relevent to actual human experience.

[Slacker]

I know a lot of really really bad parents I wouldn't let babysit my kid, and I know a lot of people I think are much more knowledgeable about children's needs and whom I would trust more. Including if she was sick and up in the middle of the night.

Actually, I've had conversations like this with other parents. This is a pretty common discussion and I didn't even know it was a Te/Ti one. One group of parents will say, "You shouldn't have to read about it - it's self evident when you've gone through it, and what do the people who write books know about your real-life situation?" And then the other group (including me) will say, "Parenting is the most important thing I'll ever do, and I can't imagine feeling like it's OK to do it without doing some reading about developmental stages so I know what is normal behavior and what is misbehavior, when it's biologically possible for children to sleep through the night, what symptoms warrant a call to the doctor in the middle of the night, etc."

[force my hand]

I will give you a true example --

I knew of parents who were being very protective of their children getting sick, to the point of making all their environment as antiseptic as possible - their clothes, their food, everything, and panicking at the thought of even getting in touch with cats etc. Now I would argue that this is counter-productive since it may inhibit the development of the children's immune system and there is plenty of information on that. Doctors will back this up. Should the parents' dismiss any information I give based on the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about because I have no children? Will they believe the doctor, then? What if the doctor also has no children, or even had no child patients - is his information worthless, too?

And so on and so forth.

In this case I would agree - what we know about human biology suggests this is true, and what we intuitively know about human experience suggests that the fun of being a kid is worth a cold or two.

The flip side of this coin is obvious to me: we take the knowledge we've read in books or heard from authoritative figures that germs cause disease, coupled with the prevailing mindset in our culture that our environments should be clean and antiseptic ("more bacteria on a telephone than in your toilet"), and therefore we ignore the experience that we are, in fact, still alive, and managed to surivive all those times we were sick despite what the information is telling us.

[force my hand]

The vast majority of 'important' is somehow linked to us. Simply stated, crime stats are irrelevent if you just got mugged walking home from work. No one says, "well, violent crime went down this past year, so it's not that big of a deal I just got stabbed."

Yes but that is a totally emotional standpoint. Of course you care about being stabbed, but that does not change the fact that crime generally speaking went down, unless you think that the world consists only of what affects you personally.

It is certainly an emotional standpoint, but I doubt even the strongest thinkers among us would discount it on that basis. Even the most logical among us still relate to the world insofar as how it interests them; were that not the case, we'd see an influx of INTx's doing crazy things like hanging out at clubs or street racing in their racers as opposed to the activities we stereotypically assign to them.

To use a less violent example, if I lose my job in a downsizing (as I have, in the past), it's no personal consolation to me to read that, on the whole, unemployment is low - especially if my personal skills aren't very marketable at the moment. But it would make no sense for me to say, "I can't believe this unemployment figures, how can that be true if I lost my job and can't find any?" What I can say, though, is that that doesn't help me, not to deny its accuracy.

This is a good counterpoint; however, I'm skeptical that if your sector was doing well, you would not question your lay-off. It seems overly accepting of the circumstances when we know both factually and intuitively that people in the working environment get screwed over all the time. For example, my company had a profit of $200 million last year, yet they scaled back their benefits package due to cost. I call bullshit on that, and I'm not convinced it's because I have a PolR.

In the case of violent crime and being a victim of such, I think it illustrates how objective figures can ignore context, while experience comes as a direct result of it. Because we live in the outside world, in a case like this I think experience is much more relevent; much more 'true' despite what the figures may say (obviously, there are cases where this does not apply).

[Joy]

Using your student/babysitter example...

The student/babysitter wasn't convinced that the US is poor only because she had first hand experience in the US, it was because she had her own understanding of economic conditions in the US. She could have just as easily received that information from a television program that explained it in a Ti way, a person who she talked to, an article that she read that pulled her Fe strings, etc. The point is that she already had her own understanding of the situation, and you were contradicting it by saying that you'd read otherwise. What you happened to read somewhere doesn't matter to her because she already understands the situation in a different way.

I just wanted to pull this point out, force my hand, because I want to stress that Te vs. Ti is NOT about personal experience vs. book knowledge.

[Expat]

This is a good counterpoint; however, I'm skeptical that if your sector was doing well, you would not question your lay-off. It seems overly accepting of the circumstances when we know both factually and intuitively that people in the working environment get screwed over all the time. For example, my company had a profit of $200 million last year, yet they scaled back their benefits package due to cost. I call bullshit on that, and I'm not convinced it's because I have a PolR.

That's not the point I made at all, we are talking past each other which is significant.

I just wanted to pull this point out, force my hand, because I want to stress that Te vs. Ti is NOT about personal experience vs. book knowledge.

Ah ok. If that is what you and others may be getting from my description, I agree with you. Te vs Ti generally is not about personal experience vs book knowledge, indeed. In the particular case of ISFps, I think that there is a case for putting it that way, but because of Si rather than just Ti.

[Blaze]

Te facts seem to be self evident. and they can be scientifically measured, calibrated, quantified, qualified, and charted. but ultimately Te is just one of 8 information elements, not the be-all end-all. ultimately, Te is helpful in certain kinds of situations, just like any other element. it can be over-used or under-used.

seems to me the key is balance. to follow expat's babysitter example, the truth is closer to a combination of approaches. while it is quite true that there are pockets of poverty in the US, these pockets do not represent the way the majority of people live here. and yet it is quite alarming that we have these pockets alongside the ostentatious displays of wealth and excess in the US. so there is a spiritual element to this also. then again, i spose this is a very Ne way of looking at it...i'd be inclined to gather information from all sorts of people and resources and then put together a comprehensive picture for myself.

maybe Te polr types maybe would not be able to balance this way?

[force my hand]

This is a good counterpoint; however, I'm skeptical that if your sector was doing well, you would not question your lay-off. It seems overly accepting of the circumstances when we know both factually and intuitively that people in the working environment get screwed over all the time. For example, my company had a profit of $200 million last year, yet they scaled back their benefits package due to cost. I call bullshit on that, and I'm not convinced it's because I have a PolR.

That's not the point I made at all, we are talking past each other which is significant.

Not really. My topics never do well, but trolling in the right manner can get a few replies.

[redbaron]

I have a few observations on Te PoLR to add... but these are very subjective.

I've noticed Te PoLR types use incorrect terminology or mismatch terminology with definitions. If you correct them they're like "whatever" and either laugh it off as unimportant or ignore you and keep on using the incorrect terminology.

I've noticed Te PoLR types get irritated when you ask them what they're trying to accomplish with what they're doing or try to suggest a more efficient way of doing it. They'll just say that they like the way they're doing it, and who cares if something else would be more effective or efficient?

I've noticed Te PoLR types telling people what's happened or what is happening and say things that are incorrect, seemingly for the sake of making a greater emotional impact on the people they're talking to. I think they don't even realize that they're wrong sometimes... they're just recounting the way they saw things go down, and they happened to have seen one particular aspect of it while totally missing another (as well all do in some way or another).

I've noticed Te PoLR types saying factually incorrect things or making observations, and then get irritated or say they don't care when someone provides the factual reason behind what's going on or corrects them. They don't care much to hear random facts about something if it isn't related to something they're interested in. If it is related to something they're interested in but doesn't fit into their understanding of it, they'll scoff and say that you wouldn't know, that you just read that somewhere.

Keep in mind that Te is essentially about what works, which is why it values outside information. Why learn a bunch of stuff you don't need to know and sit around thinking about it just so you can systemize the information when all you really need to effectively and efficiently accomplish your objective is a few facts which you can readily obtain from an outside source?

The quotes sound like they're trying to describe ways in which someone would show that they don't value Te, which takes information from outside sources, by trusting first hand experience over information derived from outside sources... but they thing is that it sort of sounds like this means that they value practical knowledge over book smarts, which actually sounds backwards if we're talking about Te vs. Ti.

Te PoLR types trust their own Fe observations over objective facts from outside sources that they don't really understand. And they trust sensory information provided by their own observations (for ISFps) or their dual's observations (for INFps) over Te. They also trust the information explained to them in any amount of depth by a Ti type over a random fact that someone just quotes from a text book or encyclopedia.

I would say this is pretty much right, although stated kind of negatively. Here's my example:

I once had a very emotional discussion with my aunt about c-sections. She was all for them, I had had one and didn't want to have another. I did a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) with my son and she thought that was dangerous. We really butted heads because besides doing my research (which, if you look at the real numbers indicate that a VBAC is not any more dangerous to the baby than a c-section and only a tiny tiny fraction more dangerous to the mother during THAT birth but MORE dangerous if you consider what it could mean for subsequent births....but I digress) I was also very determined that I had made the right decision for me and that nothing she could say, no additional numbers or studies or opinions she was going to throw at me could change my mind. It was based on the awful c-section experience I had had the first time around. I know in my head that c-sections can be fine but for me it was horrid and no rational argument would have me believing otherwise.

[Joy]

This is a good counterpoint; however, I'm skeptical that if your sector was doing well, you would not question your lay-off. It seems overly accepting of the circumstances when we know both factually and intuitively that people in the working environment get screwed over all the time. For example, my company had a profit of $200 million last year, yet they scaled back their benefits package due to cost. I call bullshit on that, and I'm not convinced it's because I have a PolR.

That's not the point I made at all, we are talking past each other which is significant.

Not really. My topics never do well, but trolling in the right manner can get a few replies.

I agree with Expat on this one. Your responses sometimes seem to miss the intended point entirely, and that's a good example. (I've not noticed this with conversations with anyone besides myself and him, but I don't really pay attention to everyone everyone posts.)

[Joy]

I would say this is pretty much right, although stated kind of negatively. Here's my example:

I once had a very emotional discussion with my aunt about c-sections. She was all for them, I had had one and didn't want to have another. I did a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) with my son and she thought that was dangerous. We really butted heads because besides doing my research (which, if you look at the real numbers indicate that a VBAC is not any more dangerous to the baby than a c-section and only a tiny tiny fraction more dangerous to the mother during THAT birth but MORE dangerous if you consider what it could mean for subsequent births....but I digress) I was also very determined that I had made the right decision for me and that nothing she could say, no additional numbers or studies or opinions she was going to throw at me could change my mind. It was based on the awful c-section experience I had had the first time around. I know in my head that c-sections can be fine but for me it was horrid and no rational argument would have me believing otherwise.

I dunno, that seems reasonable to me. It's your body and if you had a bad experience in the past, wanting to try to avoid that if you can is extremely understandable. If it was really that dangerous, the doctor wouldn't allow you to do it in the first place. And it's not like they can't change their minds when the time comes if factors present make a VBAC more dangerous or impossible. But I've gotten in trouble in the past for trusting doctors, so I may not be the best person to offer opinions on that sort of thing.

[force my hand]

I agree with Expat on this one. Your responses sometimes seem to miss the intended point entirely, and that's a good example. (I've not noticed this with conversations with anyone besides myself and him, but I don't really pay attention to everyone everyone posts.)

Can you provide an example that exists outside of this thread? Unless you've paid strict attention to my scant serious-posting - which is unlikely - I doubt you have much to go on. Because while the OP contains a moderately sincere reaction - and I suppose I could be judged on that - the resulting replies are overstated and subject the working definitions to a comical scrutiny for which they were clearly never intended. doesn't seem especially threatening to me, and if we operate on the definition that one's PolR is 'linked to certain personality problems they have," than simply does not fit the bill.

Though a couple of your examples make quite a bit of sense to me; I think my mother may be an ISFp (that or an ISFj) based on some 'advice' she has given in the past.

[Joy]

Oh, I don't think you're ISFp or INFp by any means. ISTj > ESTp > ESTj, based on what little I've seen. I can't really see you as an ethical type (again, based on what little I've seen). You seem Static and Ti.

As far as examples, you may be right. I can't remember anything specific. It's just a general impression that I've had. You seem eerily familiar to another person who used to post here, and as a result I may have associated that tendency with you without proper justification.

[force my hand]

Oh, I don't think you're ISFp or INFp by any means. ISTj > ESTp > ESTj, based on what little I've seen. I can't really see you as an ethical type (again, based on what little I've seen). You seem Static and Ti.

As far as examples, you may be right. I can't remember anything specific. It's just a general impression that I've had. You seem eerily familiar to another person who used to post here, and as a result I may have associated that tendency with you without proper justification.

Do you remember the nickname? I wouldn't mind doing some post-stalking.

[Joy]

Benny/Mercutio, but most of what I saw of him was in the chat.

[force my hand]

Benny/Mercutio, but most of what I saw of him was in the chat.

Ah yes, Benny - The Blue Blade on ritalin.

[Joy]

yeah, I think he's got an hyperactive thyroid or something like that

(I'm not trying to say that you're JUST like him... just that you two seem like identical types)

[Gilly]

Force FWIW I have always seen you as LSI. The picture you had in your avatar was the last straw

[force my hand]

Force FWIW I have always seen you as LSI. The picture you had in your avatar was the last straw

Oof.

Well, I may as well make my peace - rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules, rules.

[Gilly]

...huh?

[force my hand]

...huh?

It's a joke, dude.

[Gilly]

I surmised as much, but I didn't get it at all, lol.

Sorry, I'm high