Managing PoLR anxiety
Is this something you deal w often? And if so, how?
For instance, I have Te PoLR and it is something that makes its presence known every day. I make mistakes that set me back a lot or a little. Sometimes I make glaring obvious errors at work (always have, field-agnostic), or some small life thing that causes me to spend more than I meant to, etc. I've gotten easier on myself since learning that it's my PoLR. But man do I wish I had another one.
Do you usually notice your PoLR?
Last edited by lemontrees; 06-13-2019 at 07:40 PM.
When it comes to being the closest thing to a psychopath without actually being one, then my PoLR is a godsend. When it comes to being an empathetic person who doesn't have the emotional IQ of a doorknob, then it's the worst PoLR to have.
There's no such thing as PoLR, it's all in your imagination. I used to think that I had one, now I don't.
You might say, "Oh but I had PoLR even before I knew about Socionics!!". It's like you know, whatever, I don't even care.
So what do you do if you know that you have PoLR? That you should just avoid it and never deal with it? Then you're just never going to improve.
I mean sure, people have weaknesses and things that other people can do but you can't. But I don't think people can know about these things just by observing these things in other people and comparing it to yourself.
Socionics is just about comparing people and having certain similarities match. It's all just a bunch of statistics. Two "types" may have certain similarities, but no two types are exactly alike. It can't really know things about yourself with all of your unique qualities and abilities. People may be so impressed that the profiles are "so like them", but it's all pretty superficial.
Some logicals seem to revel in it, i.e. they are smart and successful so they see no reason to get more empathetic b/c $$$.Originally Posted by xerxe
I think the best ones (at least in the US) to have seem to be Ni and Se. These are sort of undervalued.
Not that I think Fi-PoLRs are necessarily unempathetic. They seem to lack context for what's driving the other person (i.e. not have an anchor w which to feel empathy).
@lemontrees what kind of mistakes do you make?
Yeah, in the form that my desire is to refuse following orders or commands from other people, without proper explaination from them.
I need time to reflect first why a task I'm ordered to do makes sense... which seems contradictory to me, because I often take actions without considering that much if they're reasonable.
Last edited by WinnieW; 06-13-2019 at 08:16 PM.
I'll PM you.
Yes! Socionics is a theory of information processing, and PoLR-related information is grainier and lower quality than information from strong functions.
I don't want to press the point too far because I still need to think about it, but the strength of someone's desire to sympathize or empathize isn't type-related. In my experience, there is no shortage of ethicals who range from apathetic to sadistic in their disregard for other people's feelings.
People can also compensate for their PoLRs by using their strong functions. If you can't feel what other people are going through, you can at least describe what they're going through using a logical function, then act on that information.
We have been working with a vendor to get a price on a piece of equipment that we need, and the guy in charge of the project here is an LII.
The vendor gave us an initial quotation, but then raised it by 30% when we asked for some slight changes. I told the LII that I thought this was theft, and he should call the vendor to get him to reduce his price to something that was not theft.
He looked about as uncomfortable and as unhappy as I've ever seen him. He just kind of froze and looked incredibly unhappy. I could see that he was simply not going to be able to exert Se pressure on the vendor during this call, so I told him to set up a conference call where we could both talk to the vendor.
In his case, he managed his PoLR anxiety by giving the task to someone else. Which is exactly what I try to do with my Si-related problems.
I've torn my house apart to get at the electrical and plumbing and HVAC and when it goes back together, I'm going to hire an Si-dom to redecorate. Or hire, at least, someone who actually has some taste in decorating, which I do not.
Which seems to be an adequate strategy. I guess my strategy would be very inflexible if I'd to handle such a situation all alone. I'm not that skilled at making business deals.
But every coin has two sides. By ignoring the vulnerable you can focus on developing your real strengths, but you'll miss the chance to improve your true weakness(es).
Last edited by WinnieW; 06-13-2019 at 09:05 PM.
So apparently I look like a person who does not want to have relations and would destroy even himself by being logically-idealistically consistent while in practice logic seems bit like momentary. Could be. I do not have anxiety over this as in relation towards myself but probably outwards much more of it... like doing stuff that means nothing to me, eh.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Edit: Bah. I posted too much. Lots of speculation follows.
--------
Your PoLR is part of your values, not a true handicap. It's a consequence of what your mind thinks is important and the fact that you can't do everything at once.
Which type are you (IEI or SEI?) and which would you rather be? If you want to be another type, would you be willing to sacrifice what you're good at and really be one of those? What's stopping you?
If you don't want to be any other type, maybe you're just not in the right environment. If socionics claims anything, it's that no PoLR is a big deal in everyone's eyes.
If your PoLR is Te, then you probably have a well-developed sense of what other people feel, what they want/need, and your typical focus is on bringing others (and yourself) in line with the world as you perceive it: Ni or Si.
Would you be happy to be a person who couldn't help but act coarsely towards others, with little regard for their personal needs and sensibilities? Someone who has trouble noticing when someone else is upset with them? Someone who doesn't understand how to get close to other people or who to push away? Someone who risks offending everyone around them by accident? Someone who can't always help being taken advantage of? Someone who can't defend themselves from intrusions into their life?
They're not all rhetorical questions.
---
I have one, therefore it exists.
It's a bold claim to say that anyone who believes they observed their PoLR is imagining it. If something has an effect on how you act, it's a thing that can be analysed and measured. Sure, your entire sociotype (if you have one) is in your head, but that doesn't mean that "it isn't a thing".
---
As to my own PoLR, I think about it often. Without socionics I would have thought of it in different terms, but it's still a thing anyone who knows me well notices. I don't like that it's so pronounced, but it's a consequence of my doing everything else that I enjoy and feel is valuable. My willpower is virtually nonexistent. I'll be forceful doing what I think is right, but I can't push for what I want for more than 10 minutes, and even that's rare. I don't want anything enough to work for it, and a part of me doesn't "want to want" anything. So I'm stuck with Se PoLR because I want a million things equally and each gets an infinitesimal slice of my willpower.
Strangely enough, some people who met me said that I was too strong-willed, but that's because their perception of willpower wasn't nuanced.
I can't remove myself from Te, but I manage the emotion by remembering everything in my life that's going well. So obviously, my Te mistakes didn't have "catastrophic" consequences.
accept that you are not perfect and do what is needed by strong functions
I can compare. I used to think I had PoLR, now I don't. I used to think my "Supervisor" made me uncomfortable, now the exact same person doesn't. It was all in my head. It has more to do with how I feel about the person rather than the other way around. How I think about myself creates potentials within myself that I can follow or ignore.
See, people make assumptions about themselves or the world. Then often, they are proven wrong by new experience.
Socionics might make that observation about you, and say you are that way forever.
It could be true that you will be that way forever, or it could not.
Again, previous experiences are proven wrong by new experiences. What was true about you could change. Actually, it's what you think is true about yourself. You don't really know what you're "really" like, because what you know about yourself could be wrong.
Hence, I don't think it's very meaningful to make an observation, and say that that observation will stay the same forever. Because you could easily make the wrong observation.
Please pm me too, it's relevant
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Yeah you cant remove yourself from Te and you should not do it. Instead you need to expose yourself to it little by little at work etc and that way you learn standard situations so its easier to manage.
Suffer and adapt
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I agree with you on the "forever" part. I didn't want to imply that sociotypes are permanent. For most people I expect them to be permanent (semi-permanent?), but there's nothing in the model saying they can't change.
The only ways I can think of for your PoLR's hold on you to lessen is for you to weaken your reliance on your Creative, or for your Base/Creative to change, swap, or to stop existing. In my mind, what's special about the Creative is that you value it and use it more than your ability to keep it turned on (and really understand it). Every time you don't apply your creative when you could, it feels like missing out. It leaves no room for your PoLR to grow if you use it a lot and without understanding its nuances as much as your Base.
But to use it as much as your Base, you have to value it as more than just "a tool" and at that point you're either stepping outside Model A or your Creative becomes your Base. You're back to square one now because your Role has less room to express itself. Even if you step outside the model, your mind can only work on so much. So to have 2 mental 4D functions is a lot; I struggle to imagine how that would work. Two mental 4D functions means that they're both actively monitoring the environment and that you're actively planning and manipulating both as they progress. Maybe someone could do that? My brain capacity isn't that high. I expect at least one of them to be unable to stay ahead. 3D keeps up; 4D races ahead of necessity.
If the IM Element is less than 4D (doesn't have enough capacity to run circles around reality), you lose sight of what happens when you ignore its results or make it step back -- hence the reluctance to use your PoLR (because the 3D Creative doesn't have the capacity to "catch up"), hence the lack of practice, hence the lack of information.
You can't be affected by PoLR hits if you're not sure of your type.
Szah-mat, socionics.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Socionics is like gravity. You are affected by it whether you believe in it or not.
PoLR?
Hit.
Theory?
In shambles.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Heh one of the reasons I dance around typing myself definitively is not having this, which seems like an important part of having a type and subscribing to theory. Which isn't to say im not flawed, lol, I just can't pin it all to one trait described by the theory. I notice socionics elements that im generally less skilled at than average but not one where im like... that motherfucker.
Life can take people to strange places, and because of it, I don't think everyone's PoLR is their worst weakness. I deal well enough with this PoLR of mine that it's been seen as 3D more often than PoLR by others, although my creative function sucks and that's because of my upbringing and suroundings.
The way I think, the way I act, and what I wish for are associated to different types, so I picked the one I think is most fitting of "cognitive functions" and went with it. I think that if everything about a person can be explained by something like socionics, there is a problem somewhere.
Everything goes fine and dandy until one day supervisor, who seems to be OK person or even better, comes along and makes you squirm mentally. You have managed your deficiency other ways but suddenly it is not OK but later you can get accustomed to it.
#myexperience
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
I'd say personality traits are like gravity. Socionics is only one of many categorizations of how people process perceptions and makes judgements based on them.
I'm a heretic now?
He said MBTIStone him to death.
Say I know a person who is always affected by Ti in a way accurately modeled by Socionics PoLR. They are not aware of socionics. If by all measures it looks like a Ti PoLR they're not aware of, can we not say their PoLR is probably Ti?You can't be affected by PoLR hits if you're not sure of your type.
Szah-mat, socionics.
You could say it's just a model and that it isn't true. That nothing is really real, but that's not very useful. Within Model A we can talk about the PoLR of people who aren't aware that we're modelling them. We need to be aware of socionics to discuss PoLR. One doesn't need to be aware of socionics to feel uncomfortable when they're forced to use what we estimate is their PoLR function.
----
Unless I completely misread your post and you were joking. Then assume I said "good one! You had me."
alcohol; and I do something fun where that shit doesn't matter.
Androgynous Robot Dreamer - Not really human, but good at pretending.
Right you are
I, myself, have never strongly identified with the aspect of a PoLR element. This is one of the many things that caused me trouble in finding out where I actually stand in this wibbly-wobbly system.
And that's pretty much it, my purring friend.
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Gravity is an explanation for why something happens the way that it does.
I can say that Person A makes Person B uncomfortable. But the real question is, why? As in my case, the explanation could be that I have subjectively felt that the Person A could do me harm by pointing out my weak points. That's a perfectly legitimate explanation. If I no longer feel that way, then Person A no longer makes me uncomfortable.
But if we don't know why, then we can't say necessarily that Person A making Person B uncomfortable is correlated. It could be that the reason was entirely subjective on the part of Person B, and it had nothing to do with Person A per se.
--
Socionics makes such correlations. It says that "We have observed that Person A making Person B uncomfortable. Therefore, Person X and Person Y who are similar, must act in the same way".
But the explanatory approach would throw the whole thing out: what if the way that Person B feels had nothing to do with Person A? It seeks true causations, and not mere correlations.
having multiple type options is great because then you have multiple PoLR options and can just blame any mistake you make on one of these possible options and never take real responsibility for anything. Check mate, personal growth.You can't be affected by PoLR hits if you're not sure of your type.
Szah-mat, socionics.
"I take back like half of the exclamation points.....they make me look....eager to please. Which I AM....but I don't want anyone to KNOW that"
- Carrie Fisher
I agree that for your description of PoLR, it doesn't make much sense to experience the discomfort if you're not aware of a weakness.
I find it hard to relate to the sense of potential harm. I don't experience "PoLR hits" that way. I don't believe I feel threatened by Se any more than a normal person. I probably respond to displays of aggression less than most people, because I think directly forcing people to do what you want is stupid. I want no part of that.
It doesn't usually matter how much power someone wields over me. I won't do what I think is unreasonable. It will bother them more than it will bother me.
It makes me uncomfortable when someone in a true position of power is making me do stupid things, but I expect an Si Base would also feel uncomfortable. I suspect an Se Base would also not like it.
The only difference is that I will indiscriminately reject Se assessments and never respond with Se myself. I don't want to be seen as someone who forces his will on others. (But I will force my Ti/Ne assessments on others.)
I'm not sure if people understand what I'm saying...
If we make a correlation, "Person A makes Person B uncomfortable", then we don't actually know if Person A actually has much to do with the reason why Person B is uncomfortable, or not. It could be correlated, or it could not.
For example, we might say that "A white person hates a black person, because he's a racist". But if all we do is make observational correlations, then we might conclude that white people and black people do not get along, and they're "conflictors". Or even if we gave a superficial "reason", then we might say that "White people have racist functions, and black people have racist PoLR", then that's even worse.
It's pretty obvious that the "because he's a racist" part is a very important information and an explanation. It had very little to do with those two particular individuals per se. It had almost everything to do with this complex idea, "racism", which works outside of those two particular individuals.
And yet that's exactly what Socionics is doing. It's all just about making correlations, without coming up with any explanations.
It's a mistake to say "Socionics affects us like gravity, regardless of what we think about it", because we don't actually know the objective reason for why people are affected in certain ways.
I can relate... and I start to reflect whether it can make sense or not, but as an immediate reaction I can't start the task I'm ordered to do.
(SeTe) "Submit the report by Tuesday."
(NiTi) "I can't finish it by Tuesday."
(Ne -> Se) "Come in on Saturday."
(Ne -> Ti) "As a lieu day?"
(Ne) "As whatever."
(Ne -> Ti) "How does overtime work in this case?"
(Te) "You just fill in the form. Normal pay."
(NiSe -> Ti) "It's not reasonable to expect me to work more hours just because we didn't plan this very well."
(Ne) "They need it by then, so figure it out."
(Ne) "Can you get someone to help me?"
(Te) "Yeah sure. I'll ask Jo."
(fake story; didn't happen; but that's how I imagine my response to unreasonable Se)
I'll admit I didn't understand your examples, but with this bit at least I know I disagree.
Let's work with something more concrete.
We know that Fi and Ti are "opposites". Not because it says so in books, but from our own observations and analyses.
1. Ti and Fi both address problems in the realm of rational connections and analysis.
1.a. Ti addresses the subjective logical jumps from one object/thought to another.
1.b. Fi addresses the subjective ethical attraction and repulsion between objects/thoughts/you.
(they do a little more, but this is enough for now)
Their scope has a great degree of overlap, so they can both be used to analyse most situations.
These methods of analysis are quite different, so they will sometimes (often?) come up with different answers. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer, so it's unrealistic to expect both to reach a single "truth".
When Fi and Ti disagree, neither can be used to follow the reasoning of the other. Not without a lot of effort anyway.
So whenever you use both, if you want to keep up in the world, you'll need to come up with a way to decide which one to pick when they tell you different things. I've not read much in socionics about how people do that, but there are likely many ways. Likely more than 16.
Say you know all of that. Now you meet a person who seems to often make Fi-driven judgements about situations, preferences, correct behaviour, lifestyle choices etc. It's not something you observe once or twice. You notice it a few times every day and you meet them every day.
Say you're also a person who's chosen to always pick Ti over Fi unless there's compelling evidence that it's a bad idea. You give it such a high priority that you constantly feed it with more information about the world. (Base Ti)
So, often when this person makes an Fi-driven judgement ("I'm vegan because it's wrong to kill animals.") you try to feed your Ti Base with context about them, so you ask "Why is it wrong to kill animals for food?" and you notice that this person is stumped for a moment. You're not clueless about people, so you know that's not a line of thought they'd followed. But they do their best and construct a Ti path to bridge what you said and what they said: "We have a responsibility to take care of the planet." You, being a very Ti-driven person, aren't satisfied with this and want to get to the bottom of it. So you continue with "How does eating a few eggs every now and then harm the planet?" You have to admit that if you've never given this any thought and you're not used to Ti-driven reasoning, answering these questions is a lot of work. But you know that they're thoughtful people who've considered whether they want to be a vegan. They likely prioritised Fi over Ti and neglected the Ti aspect of this decision.
This sort of thing happens multiple times in similar ways.
What would be your conclusion from that?
Mine is that they put a lot of thought into Fi analysis and prioritise it over Ti. They're out of practice with Ti. Ti analysis does not form a big part of their decision-making.
This case wasn't PoLR by any means (it looked more like Role Ti to me, hard to say), but to tie it back to what you said: I can definitively say that "Ti challenges" of that person's life choices made her slightly uncomfortable. It's the simplest explanation. It's not just labeling a correlation without understanding what's going on.
I guess I'm a bad person, but I did it for science.
@Luk
I'd like to postulate that+
is the systematic weighting of options. A demanded task from someone else might not be the best weighted option to our current state of systemization.
You didn't specify which one's the Base and which one's the Creative, so you left a lot of room for exploration. Happy to comply! 😊 It's Sunday after all.I'd like to postulate that
I think it goes deeper than that.
Creatively applying logic to develop the potential of the world? (ILE)
Creatively exploring what's hidden to develop the logical coherence of the world? (LII)
You could call this logical weighing of options, if you're okay with conflating Demonstrative Te and Base Ti, since those are the "logics" that guide ILE and LII respectively, and in different ways.
I'm not sure "systematic" is a good word for this and just this.
to LII
A demand appears to a Creative Ne like someone plucked a single option out of a wide variety. How does a LII analyse if they're picking the right option? Analysis (Ti) and looking for hidden risks (Ni), usually. They don't have all the possibilities ready (3D
With the same combination (
Volitional pressuring doesn't affect an ILE as much as it affects a LII. Neither of them likes it, but an ILE is better prepared for compromising Ne.
and
Opposite functions (Ne vs Se) don't really cancel each other out. They just sometimes cannot agree on their assessments. They're different methods to achieve similar things. Applying your willpower onto the world might not encourage development, but your attention will still remain on "what can be done with the world" (
"Rival" functions (Ni vs Ne) are the ones that tend to pull in opposite directions. Following one will pull you away from the goals of the other. They are similar methods ("look for what's hidden from view"
An ILE is far less likely to follow Ni than a LII because they value Ne so much. An ILE is okayish with occasional bursts of willpower and force.
What PoLR feels like. (Maybe)
Due to the habit of avoiding one's PoLR, dealing with it takes effort and feels unnatural. Everyone can do it, but it feels like you're putting your life on hold for something unnecessary. A lot of the energy of your Base goes into assessing whether this one use of PoLR is appropriate. If your Base is relatively strong, you can assess it more easily. If your Base is relatively weak, it will take more effort. If your Creative is relatively unvalued, it won't feel like as big a betrayal to your being to follow this PoLR just this once, assuming it's the right course of action. If your Creative is relatively more valued, you'll be well aware of all the possibilities you're giving up on or how this doesn't even try to look for the best course of action.
True, but I'm not completely sure about myself what is my base and my creative function. So I decided that based on my PoLR function, and I relate way more to the-PoLR description.
It's not that easy for me to write detailed explanations in a lanuage that isn't my native language. But I'll try my best.
Based on that description I'm likely more ILE, but
I don't think that
Maybe I'm challenged by understanding the meaning of some words of the English language to native speakers.
And I don't consider myself to be an expert in Socionics... because my talents are in MINT topics.
Thanks for your detailed description.
it's hard to understand directly anything besides strenght and valueSo I decided that based on my PoLR function, and I relate way more to the
also weak functions are lesser clear than strong to distinguish their fine straits directly
you better to use IR effects of irrationaly friendly sympathy with other people to understand your more possible type. and dichotomies
also you may get opinions about your type by a video. as you are so long can't understand own type
There are many different kinds of LII and ILE. And the distinction between mirror types isn't always obvious or applicable. For a little while I thought I was ILE. I certainly acted that way. I think it's reasonable that you don't fit perfectly in either. Or that you are truly one of the two, but your functions manifest atypically due to special circumstances.True, but I'm not completely sure about myself what is my base and my creative function. So I decided that based on my PoLR function, and I relate way more to the
It's not that easy for me to write detailed explanations in a lanuage that isn't my native language. But I'll try my best.
Based on that description I'm likely more ILE, but
I don't think that
Maybe I'm challenged by understanding the meaning of some words of the English language to native speakers.
And I don't consider myself to be an expert in Socionics... because my talents are in MINT topics.
Thanks for your detailed description.
Those two descriptions aren't exclusive to ILE and LII respectively. They're just the most natural thought patterns that they might form. Reality is a lot more nuanced.
Try to find out what your 4D IM Elements are (
Also, I believe that if you understand why PoLR exists at all, at a fundamental level, you can make much better use of socionics.
And it might not end up being how everybody understands it, but it's still "real world" useful.
Last edited by Luk; 06-16-2019 at 02:10 PM.
Now we're talking
“I want the following word: splendor, splendor is fruit in all its succulence, fruit without sadness. I want vast distances. My savage intuition of myself.”
― Clarice Lispector
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
