Ni-PoLR -- How does it manifest in ESFjs and ESTjs?

[mfckr]

1) Ni PoLR does not equal not being philosophical nor disliking the abstract, nor does it has anything to do with an inability to reflect nor learn from mistakes.

2) Ni PoLR does not equal an inability to pay close attention to their emotions and thought processes.

3) Ni PoLR does not equal being disinclined towards fantasy, mysticism, symbolism, esoterics, existential questions, etc.

4) Ni PoLR does not equal needing to correct people's behaviour nor wanting to control people.

5) Ni PoLR does not equal lack of vision and foresight, superficiality, being unable to see the big picture nor a disability to think long term.

I agree with all of these.

What I have observed of myself which may be PoLR related:

1) Prioritization: What happens is that every night I make a mental note of what I need to do. In the morning, I make a general plan on what I need to do first, and go with that. I think of a list of items I need to do and want to tick it off my list as soon as possible. I get annoyed when my plans go awry due to unexpected events as this means that the items get brought forward to the following day, which delays things, so I try to keep a time buffer of sorts for these events. But if the plan goes entirely off, and I accomplish nothing at the end of the day, let's just say I don't feel very happy. Fortunately this rarely happens.

I can't say I prioritize much; in the sense that I dislike waiting and/or having to plan a great deal. When it comes to daily tasks/events, I mostly try to do things in the spur of the moment whenever the impulse strikes me to do it, because knowing myself—if I put it off or have to plan out a task much—it isn't going to happen. It's better for me to just jump in and do it right away, if possible.

2) Estimation of time: I sometimes take on more than I can chew and tend to underestimate (sometimes severely) the amount of time it takes to accomplish a certain task.

Yeah. Prevailing research suggests that humans generally fare poorly at time estimation. Which is part of why I've been insistent that has nothing to do with estimating time.

I may at times get caught up in a particular task and be unwilling to leave to the next task until I have completed it to my satisfaction, which may be interpreted as having a bad sense of time.

I think that's also normal. It's easy for me to get fixated on a task or situation too once I'm 'in' it, and other exigencies aren't in direct visible competition for my attention.

3) What-ifs: I am in love with what-if analysis. Gives me a sense of security to know every possibility that may occur so that I may never be caught of guard in anything. I want to be prepared for every possibility and occurrence in order to prevent the negatives from occurring. Nevermind that I may end up ignoring some of these probable possibilities until it blasts right up at my face as I get caught up with stuff. Ironic.

This is something I could see as -devaluing, esp. PoLR.

I don't really get caught up in what-if analysis much, because the inherent impossibility of being able to accurately forecast all contingencies. I just like to get a sense of the general trends of a situation, and trust I can wing it from there.

4) Gibberish: I get annoyed when people speak senseless nonsense which makes no sense, making motherhood statements, and the serious entertainment of unrealistic ideas without thought for feasibility.

What's a motherhood statement?

Some of what you're saying there could be seen as -valuing.

If I'm getting you, you're saying that we cannot view the creative and the PoLR as divorced from the other in the attempt to understand the PoLR (since strength in one area equate to weakness in another). I can see how strongly I emphasize Si in my approach, but what exactly do I miss out in terms of strength in Ni? As far as my understanding goes, Ni in this context in contrast to Si is about waiting out for the right/best/most appropriate moment to act in order to gain the most out of the least effort. Which I absolutely appreciate. If this were the case, my argument would be if there really is a right moment for anything? Why wait out when you can get it done now, though there might be an additional hassle in doing so, or even if the problem/task may disappear/not need to be done if delayed? How would one know if the problem may not grow bigger if not nipped in the bud? But perhaps I'm going rather off here since I honestly lack understanding of Ni as a function, or if what I had been attributing to Si is instead Se.

Well, I'm definitely for instant-gratification (do things NOW, waiting sux). But I also enjoy leveraging circumstances and exploiting fluctuating conditions to my advantage—i.e., to seize on transient opportunities or exposed loopholes in a person or a situation—so something awesome can happen; though this can sometimes necessitate patience.

In my approach towards studying a subject in preparation for an examination for instance, I tend to want to read and master everything about it if possible. If only time were to permit, I would even read from cover to cover, chapter by chapter to gain a strong or "perfect" understanding from base up to ensure that I would not miss out on anything in order that I could answer with ease no matter the exam question. I could see how this is extremely inefficient by Ni view.

The Ni valuers I know would tend to "spotting" questions, relying on tips by professors and studying on that alone. Though I may do this, it isn't something which I feel comfortable doing and would often end up burning the midnight oil studying the "irrelevant chapters" just-in-case. It is ineffective and goes against Pareto's principle, but is an approach I can't help but follow despite its ineffectiveness. It annoys me how an LIE I know go all smug at being successful about it (passing with less time/effort), when all I see is the potential flaws of his approach if these probabilities/factors he were banking on did not manifest.

I'd just concentrate on the significant aspects of the subject, until I felt I had sufficient working understanding of it to answer the scope of the questions. I wouldn't feel a need to have a meticulously perfect knowledge of it. Though sometimes it happens that shitty professors put in exam questions on obscure esoteric areas of the subject buried in the latter fringes of the irrelevant chapters I didn't look over closely, which is annoying.

[Galen]

1) Prioritization: What happens is that every night I make a mental note of what I need to do. In the morning, I make a general plan on what I need to do first, and go with that. I think of a list of items I need to do and want to tick it off my list as soon as possible. I get annoyed when my plans go awry due to unexpected events as this means that the items get brought forward to the following day, which delays things, so I try to keep a time buffer of sorts for these events. But if the plan goes entirely off, and I accomplish nothing at the end of the day, let's just say I don't feel very happy. Fortunately this rarely happens.

This fits with my ESFj dad. He likes to have somewhat major events in the day planned out ahead of time. When he's in a good mood and the plans go slightly awry then he's alright with it, but otherwise he'll go off.

2) Estimation of time: I sometimes take on more than I can chew and tend to underestimate (sometimes severely) the amount of time it takes to accomplish a certain task. I may at times get caught up in a particular task and be unwilling to leave to the next task until I have completed it to my satisfaction, which may be interpreted as having a bad sense of time. I see it as a task that takes longer than expected to complete due to an exploration/exhaustion of the task. Even in RPG games I prefer to explore every nook and cranny, complete every quest, collect all unique items, etc over a quicker, more efficient approach of going straight for the kill.

I'm hesitant to call this related to Ni PoLR, but it sounds roughly like my dad too. I relate to the RPG example fairly well too, so not sure what's up with this.

3) What-ifs: I am in love with what-if analysis. Gives me a sense of security to know every possibility that may occur so that I may never be caught of guard in anything. I want to be prepared for every possibility and occurrence in order to prevent the negatives from occurring. Nevermind that I may end up ignoring some of these probable possibilities until it blasts right up at my face as I get caught up with stuff. Ironic.

Dad does this all the time. He likes to rationalize saving up old odds and ends with an odd "what if this inconceivable thing happens at the exact moment this other unlikely thing occurs" argument, which can easily get annoying to me. "No dad, that's not going to happen, calm down."

4) Gibberish: I get annoyed when people speak senseless nonsense which makes no sense, making motherhood statements, and the serious entertainment of unrealistic ideas without thought for feasibility.

Eh, I think most people hate it when others try to convey something in a vague and unintelligible way.

[FDG]

The Ni valuers I know would tend to "spotting" questions, relying on tips by professors and studying on that alone. Though I may do this, it isn't something which I feel comfortable doing and would often end up burning the midnight oil studying the "irrelevant chapters" just-in-case. It is ineffective and goes against Pareto's principle, but is an approach I can't help but follow despite its ineffectiveness. It annoys me how an LIE I know go all smug at being successful about it (passing with less time/effort), when all I see is the potential flaws of his approach if these probabilities/factors he were banking on did not manifest.

Yeah, I can see myself being like that, mostly when I have to pass an exam related to a subject I don't like and consider useless / not valuable for my future / not enjoyable. Of course you're just betting on an unknown outcome, I don't think anyone would deny that such an approach can be risky. Sometimes I also try to bank on my ability to improvise, although you do need a relatively solid understanding before you can improvise well.
Although when I enjoy the subject I would prefer to gain a broad and interconnected understanding. I wouldn't read the book from start to end, though - I'd probably just concentrate my efforts towards what I perceive to be the core of the subject. This might be a clear difference between creative and creative.

If this were the case, my argument would be if there really is a right moment for anything? Why wait out when you can get it done now, though there might be an additional hassle in doing so, or even if the problem/task may disappear/not need to be done if delayed?

Because some things can't just be done at any given moment, you need to wait for external circumstances to be aligned in your favor. Examples may include weather, changes in legislation, market movements, even sports playing style - you might need to wait for the "best" moment to take a shot, although you could also try to force your way through the defense, as well - it's just a different approach.
The problem MAY definitely get bigger, but if I feel like it will, I just act now. Of course, it's relatively hard to rationalize this hunch.

Much of what you say, though, seems to be related to , because I feel like I share the same characteristics.

[Beautiful sky]

Ni PoLR is having poor estimation of time and losing ones sense of time when being absorbed in tasks (that comes with feeling rushed and disliking when others take up your precious time, expecting people to take the pressure off by being great-full and appreciative of the very little time you make for them); what stresses them out is rushing due to these things and conflict relations try to get you to stop doing things that are important to you with regards to things you have to get done in involvement of time or overemphasize this function/need of this function; for example, my ESE boss is married to an ILI and the conflict is created when she de-emphasizes on and instead is all about "do this now, otherwise something bad might happen" (in a prophetic like tone); at first, it's appealing to Ni PoLR to have this person, because you sense that the person may help you improve or guide you with this function, but what really ends up happening is that the person can't do other things that are relevant for the base and creative functions to survive by devaluing them.

They can very well see and sense (with the third eye) possibilities, ideas, and potential developments, which might stress them out, but always lean on their base functions, Te (rational activity) to deal with them and find solutions (solve problems).

The whole point of Ni PoLR is not being able to receive information or inadequately receive information from Ni, those primordial images and ideas and the evolution of in terms of events that might unfold in the long term, so TeSi tend to do things now, in the present short moment. Contrast to myself and Ni base types who are long seeing so we plan things in the long term and aren't always here and now, but rather live in the past and future because that's where these images arise and lead.

I've noticed in my boyfriend that even though he makes intellectual formulas to deal with things in life (formulas such as: if it stresses you out, then don't do it) the only formula for himself he's made to deal with Ni PoLR and stress of rushing or feeling rushed is to get wherever he needs to go early so he's always early, consistently.

[InkStrider]

I can't say I prioritize much; in the sense that I dislike waiting and/or having to plan a great deal. When it comes to daily tasks/events, I mostly try to do things in the spur of the moment whenever the impulse strikes me to do it, because knowing myself—if I put it off or have to plan out a task much—it isn't going to happen. It's better for me to just jump in and do it right away, if possible.

Same with me. Probably related to being Ej. I don't do much prioritization when it comes to accomplishing smaller tasks.

Yeah. Prevailing research suggests that humans generally fare poorly at time estimation. Which is part of why I've been insistent that has nothing to do with estimating time.

I think that's also normal. It's easy for me to get fixated on a task or situation too once I'm 'in' it, and other exigencies aren't in direct visible competition for my attention.

Which means that this hasn't anything to do with being Ni PoLR as well. Accepted.

This is something I could see as -devaluing, esp. PoLR.

I don't really get caught up in what-if analysis much, because the inherent impossibility of being able to accurately forecast all contingencies. I just like to get a sense of the general trends of a situation, and trust I can wing it from there.

I'm fascinated by what-if analysis/sensitivity analysis as a concept. The thought of having such a calculator excites me. Perhaps knowing what all these variables are and being able to monitor them gives off a sense of being all prepared so that I may never have to be caught off guard. I'd like to know that should A occur I will do X, if B occurs I will do Y. The focus is on if-then-how. I like to learn of the unexpected, just so to be able to incorporate yet another variable for monitoring. Problem is I don't tend to focus much on monitoring when I'm so busy discovering and preventing existing variables from occurring, such that when one of these existing variables switches momentum, it catches me off guard. How this relates to Ni PoLR/Ne HA is still a mystery to me. Also sounds rather Ti-ish.

What's a motherhood statement?

It's a blanket statement of sorts, which sounds true but in fact isn't.

A motherhood statement is one that that no one would disagree with, or about something that all listeners would agree was good, positive or worthwhile, so as to associate the statement with a concept or action that is potentially disagreeable or controversial, for example advocating further government regulation by associating the regulation with 'protecting the environment'. The person using the 'motherhood statement' hopes that his listeners will agree with whatever he proposes because it is presented in association with a goal that most are sympathetic with, although the policy being advocated in this way may have little to do with the stated goal.

Some of what you're saying there could be seen as -valuing.

Yeah, I probably should have left out point 4.

But I also enjoy leveraging circumstances and exploiting fluctuating conditions to my advantage—i.e., to seize on transient opportunities or exposed loopholes in a person or a situation—so something awesome can happen; though this can sometimes necessitate patience.

I do enjoy the thought of leveraging on circumstance and fluctuating trends, which was what partly attracted me to technical analysis at one time. It's a different story when it comes to actually seizing/taking advantage of these loopholes firstly as you said, because it so rarely happens that I prefer to place focus on present priorities. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't watch it like a hawk and jump with it if it offers a big enough advantage though.

I'd just concentrate on the significant aspects of the subject, until I felt I had sufficient working understanding of it to answer the scope of the questions. I wouldn't feel a need to have a meticulously perfect knowledge of it. Though sometimes it happens that shitty professors put in exam questions on obscure esoteric areas of the subject buried in the latter fringes of the irrelevant chapters I didn't look over closely, which is annoying.

I wouldn't call it a need, rather a strong wish as gaining perfect knowledge is extremely time-consuming and unfeasible for short-term purposes though satisfying. And yeah it sucks when professors come up with unexpected questions, but I also enjoy being able to recognize the core issue and address that to a certain extent.

This fits with my ESFj dad. He likes to have somewhat major events in the day planned out ahead of time. When he's in a good mood and the plans go slightly awry then he's alright with it, but otherwise he'll go off.

I relate. It gives me a sense of anxiety when it goes off too much, and I start worrying if I might be able to get it done on time, especially with additional obligations, etc.

I relate to the RPG example fairly well too, so not sure what's up with this.

Ne exploration vs Ni... stuff?

Dad does this all the time. He likes to rationalize saving up old odds and ends with an odd "what if this inconceivable thing happens at the exact moment this other unlikely thing occurs" argument, which can easily get annoying to me. "No dad, that's not going to happen, calm down."

A simple: "If this happens, we can easily do X" would calm him down. And a "Besides, this would only happen if Y happens if Z did, so you needn't worry" would serve as additional assurance.

Eh, I think most people hate it when others try to convey something in a vague and unintelligible way.

Yeah. Probably not related to Te PoLR nor even to type.

Yeah, I can see myself being like that, mostly when I have to pass an exam related to a subject I don't like and consider useless / not valuable for my future / not enjoyable. Of course you're just betting on an unknown outcome, I don't think anyone would deny that such an approach can be risky. Sometimes I also try to bank on my ability to improvise, although you do need a relatively solid understanding before you can improvise well.
Although when I enjoy the subject I would prefer to gain a broad and interconnected understanding. I wouldn't read the book from start to end, though - I'd probably just concentrate my efforts towards what I perceive to be the core of the subject. This might be a clear difference between creative and creative.

It may be, though I could also say I'm thinking for the long term because the pieces I missed and skipped may be of use in the future, although it isn't as of now. Reading the book from start to end is just an analogy of sorts to show my desire for wanting a more complete understanding, and I wouldn't call all or even most creatives as necessarily wanting to read something from start to end.

Because some things can't just be done at any given moment, you need to wait for external circumstances to be aligned in your favor. Examples may include weather, changes in legislation, market movements, even sports playing style - you might need to wait for the "best" moment to take a shot, although you could also try to force your way through the defense, as well - it's just a different approach.
The problem MAY definitely get bigger, but if I feel like it will, I just act now. Of course, it's relatively hard to rationalize this hunch.

This may be related to Ni PoLR. I couldn't help getting agitated at weather changes and even public holidays because it just messes up my plans. Let's say I've decided that I want to get to the bank or to the library and has everything lined up and went there the next day only to discover it's wasted effort and that everything is closed and that all my plans are just flushed down the drain. I hardly account for bad weather and most times choose to press on with set task even in the rain when delaying might be a better and more convenient option. It's just the impulse.

Ni PoLR is having poor estimation of time and losing ones sense of time when being absorbed in tasks (that comes with feeling rushed and disliking when others take up your precious time, expecting people to take the pressure off by being great-full and appreciative of the very little time you make for them); what stresses them out is rushing due to these things and conflict relations try to get you to stop doing things that are important to you with regards to things you have to get done in involvement of time or overemphasize this function/need of this function; for example, my ESE boss is married to an ILI and the conflict is created when she de-emphasizes on and instead is all about "do this now, otherwise something bad might happen" (in a prophetic like tone); at first, it's appealing to Ni PoLR to have this person, because you sense that the person may help you improve or guide you with this function, but what really ends up happening is that the person can't do other things that are relevant for the base and creative functions to survive by devaluing them.

Interesting example. It is as you've said. I would find such advice appealing as well, though I'm not sure how I would react with too much of it. I can see it as messing up my basic approach if someone were to tell me I need to address such and such a concern which I've not recognized as much of a concern now. I'd prefer an "after this", slotting in approach.

[Aiss]

1) Ni PoLR does not equal not being philosophical nor disliking the abstract, nor does it has anything to do with an inability to reflect nor learn from mistakes.

2) Ni PoLR does not equal an inability to pay close attention to their emotions and thought processes.

3) Ni PoLR does not equal being disinclined towards fantasy, mysticism, symbolism, esoterics, existential questions, etc.

4) Ni PoLR does not equal needing to correct people's behaviour nor wanting to control people.

5) Ni PoLR does not equal lack of vision and foresight, superficiality, being unable to see the big picture nor a disability to think long term.

Agree completely with all points, except a small note to 4: I don't think it's Ni-related, but Ni-PoLRs happen to be Ejs, and Ejs and pushiness... let's not get started on this topic.

What I have observed of myself which may be PoLR related:

1) Prioritization: What happens is that every night I make a mental note of what I need to do. In the morning, I make a general plan on what I need to do first, and go with that. I think of a list of items I need to do and want to tick it off my list as soon as possible. I get annoyed when my plans go awry due to unexpected events as this means that the items get brought forward to the following day, which delays things, so I try to keep a time buffer of sorts for these events. But if the plan goes entirely off, and I accomplish nothing at the end of the day, let's just say I don't feel very happy. Fortunately this rarely happens.

Following through with plans is not a Ni-egos strength, aye. In my experience though, the problem Ni-PoLRs have tends to be too detailed planning leading to something inevitably going wrong. And because the plan is very detailed and specific, usually when that thing goes wrong, it's a domino effect. Also, like most rationals (I think it's rationals anyway), Ni-PoLRs tend to salvage the old plans when something goes wrong, instead of planning anew. Those are their weaknesses IMO. That being said, they're able to work hard and get stuff done (a completely mysterious ability, to me).

2) Estimation of time: I sometimes take on more than I can chew and tend to underestimate (sometimes severely) the amount of time it takes to accomplish a certain task. I may at times get caught up in a particular task and be unwilling to leave to the next task until I have completed it to my satisfaction, which may be interpreted as having a bad sense of time. I see it as a task that takes longer than expected to complete due to an exploration/exhaustion of the task. Even in RPG games I prefer to explore every nook and cranny, complete every quest, collect all unique items, etc over a quicker, more efficient approach of going straight for the kill.

As have already been mentioned, studies show most people tend to be overly optimistic in time estimation. Although I like to think I'm quite good at it. Nevertheless, what I notice in Ni-PoLRs is not exactly bad time estimation, more inaccurate timing and sense of urgency. Like, there are things that need to be done now and things that can be done tomorrow (or any day, really). I've often seen Ni-PoLR go after the things from the latter group at the cost of the former group, if they realize they're short on time with them. It's usually related to panicking over being late, I think. Which paradoxically sometimes results in them being late.

This may apply more to ESE than LSE, on second thought.

3) What-ifs: I am in love with what-if analysis. Gives me a sense of security to know every possibility that may occur so that I may never be caught of guard in anything. I want to be prepared for every possibility and occurrence in order to prevent the negatives from occurring. Nevermind that I may end up ignoring some of these probable possibilities until it blasts right up at my face as I get caught up with stuff. Ironic.

What-ifs are neither related to valued or devalued Ni. One of the few useful Reinin dichotomies is carefree/farsighted, and it covers it quite nicely IMO. I sort of do the contingency stuff, for example. I just don't do it in detail, and it usually lets me move without stepping on mines.

That being said, contingency planning or no, Ni-PoLR plans blasting right up at their faces have been covered by reply to 1). I think those points could use to be merged. Also this:

This may be related to Ni PoLR. I couldn't help getting agitated at weather changes and even public holidays because it just messes up my plans. Let's say I've decided that I want to get to the bank or to the library and has everything lined up and went there the next day only to discover it's wasted effort and that everything is closed and that all my plans are just flushed down the drain. I hardly account for bad weather and most times choose to press on with set task even in the rain when delaying might be a better and more convenient option. It's just the impulse.

fits here.

4) Gibberish: I get annoyed when people speak senseless nonsense which makes no sense, making motherhood statements, and the serious entertainment of unrealistic ideas without thought for feasibility.

I don't know about that. Ni-PoLRs tend to annoy me by relating stories in detail and chronologically, though. I just end up stressed and want to scream at them to get to the point. Sadly, I sometimes do.

In my approach towards studying a subject in preparation for an examination for instance, I tend to want to read and master everything about it if possible. If only time were to permit, I would even read from cover to cover, chapter by chapter to gain a strong or "perfect" understanding from base up to ensure that I would not miss out on anything in order that I could answer with ease no matter the exam question. I could see how this is extremely inefficient by Ni view.

The Ni valuers I know would tend to "spotting" questions, relying on tips by professors and studying on that alone. Though I may do this, it isn't something which I feel comfortable doing and would often end up burning the midnight oil studying the "irrelevant chapters" just-in-case. It is ineffective and goes against Pareto's principle, but is an approach I can't help but follow despite its ineffectiveness. It annoys me how an LIE I know go all smug at being successful about it (passing with less time/effort), when all I see is the potential flaws of his approach if these probabilities/factors he were banking on did not manifest.

Yeah I'd say Ni people tend to be like that. Or at least I am. Si-creatives are in my experience types with the best work ethics - of course it's not going to apply to every individual but in general it stands, I think.

I'm fascinated by what-if analysis/sensitivity analysis as a concept. The thought of having such a calculator excites me. Perhaps knowing what all these variables are and being able to monitor them gives off a sense of being all prepared so that I may never have to be caught off guard. I'd like to know that should A occur I will do X, if B occurs I will do Y. The focus is on if-then-how. I like to learn of the unexpected, just so to be able to incorporate yet another variable for monitoring. Problem is I don't tend to focus much on monitoring when I'm so busy discovering and preventing existing variables from occurring, such that when one of these existing variables switches momentum, it catches me off guard. How this relates to Ni PoLR/Ne HA is still a mystery to me. Also sounds rather Ti-ish.

No, it sounds Dialectical-Algorithmic. Not saying it *is* it, though.

I think the Si-creative/Ni-PoLR part might be getting caught up in making detailed plans. I say you're getting caught up "in detail", because while you're describing it as problem with what-ifs, I'm fairly certain it can be done without being lost in it, likely due to less specific outlook. Or so it seems to me, anyway. It's possible I don't do it to nearly this extent, but I definitely have the tendency (and it's fairly consistent with having evaluatory Se/Ni).

I do enjoy the thought of leveraging on circumstance and fluctuating trends, which was what partly attracted me to technical analysis at one time. It's a different story when it comes to actually seizing/taking advantage of these loopholes firstly as you said, because it so rarely happens that I prefer to place focus on present priorities. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't watch it like a hawk and jump with it if it offers a big enough advantage though.

A simple: "If this happens, we can easily do X" would calm him down. And a "Besides, this would only happen if Y happens if Z did, so you needn't worry" would serve as additional assurance.

It may be, though I could also say I'm thinking for the long term because the pieces I missed and skipped may be of use in the future, although it isn't as of now. Reading the book from start to end is just an analogy of sorts to show my desire for wanting a more complete understanding, and I wouldn't call all or even most creatives as necessarily wanting to read something from start to end.

I remember what you said about speaking gibberish, so I'll try not to, but I don't know if it'll help.

Si and Ni are both dynamics of fields, an aspect of information focused on interacting processes in a system. I think a concept that describes them really well is "emergence". If you already know what it is, just skip the next part.

Emergence is the way complex patterns arise out of many relatively simple interactions. The emergent pattern or property of those interactions can be either directly traceable - we can notice X did that and Y happened and it resulted in Z - or impossible to directly trace, there's an amazing pattern or some complex problem gets solved, but it's hard to say where and how it happened within the system, you can't explain the "how" of interactions leading to this idea. The former is called "weak" emergence (it's emergent, but causality is directly observable) and the latter is called "strong" emergence (it's emergent and not clear how it came to be).

I'd like to underline "weak" and "strong" here don't mean anything like better or worse, those two are simply different in terms of looking at processes in detail or not. The former is how I think of Si; it knows what to do and when and how it will influence what exactly, which is in line with what you said above, btw. The latter is Ni, which is damn hard to explain, can't give valid justification for its claims half the time, and is generally vague to the point of infuriating Judicious quadras, but it's useful at estimating when exact analysis is impossible or impractical. Of course, how each individual succeeds or fails at specific tasks depends on their own abilities. Functions seem to be at most the "tools" they use.

[rat1]

The polr function is not really a deficiency. It distinguishes what's valuable & irrelevant. The individual is consciously aware of what they consider irrelevant and why. The area of value is infact highly specialized. Often you'll see polr descriptions say a person overcompensates for their polr. Truth is they're just focusing on their priorities. Descriptions will also talk about how terrible the type is at using the polr. They describe it in these terms because they don't understand the mechanics of the function.

I can see how strongly I emphasize Si in my approach, but what exactly do I miss out in terms of strength in Ni.

It's just a qualitative difference in how you use Ni. Strength is not really the right word. You'd use Ni to see if something was worth your time, make sure it's a good use of time. You don't like your time wasted by people. Contrast that with a Ni dominant type who's kind of lost in pondering what to do and you can see the clash.

[InkStrider]

Agree completely with all points, except a small note to 4: I don't think it's Ni-related, but Ni-PoLRs happen to be Ejs, and Ejs and pushiness... let's not get started on this topic.

I can't argue with that.

Following through with plans is not a Ni-egos strength, aye. In my experience though, the problem Ni-PoLRs have tends to be too detailed planning leading to something inevitably going wrong. And because the plan is very detailed and specific, usually when that thing goes wrong, it's a domino effect. Also, like most rationals (I think it's rationals anyway), Ni-PoLRs tend to salvage the old plans when something goes wrong, instead of planning anew. Those are their weaknesses IMO. That being said, they're able to work hard and get stuff done (a completely mysterious ability, to me).

Very true. I've gotten into the stupidest situations due to this. I've got to observe this domino effect you speak of. What I could think of is how my own plans go awry due to one task being dependent on the accomplishment of another. Which is exasperating when something unforeseen occurs or factors I have taken for granted doesn't and wreck it all up.

Nevertheless, what I notice in Ni-PoLRs is not exactly bad time estimation, more inaccurate timing and sense of urgency. Like, there are things that need to be done now and things that can be done tomorrow (or any day, really). I've often seen Ni-PoLR go after the things from the latter group at the cost of the former group, if they realize they're short on time with them. It's usually related to panicking over being late, I think. Which paradoxically sometimes results in them being late.

This may apply more to ESE than LSE, on second thought.

Possibly, but it sure rings a bell. I like the bolded.

What-ifs are neither related to valued or devalued Ni. One of the few useful Reinin dichotomies is carefree/farsighted, and it covers it quite nicely IMO.

Interesting. I'll relook it.

I don't know about that. Ni-PoLRs tend to annoy me by relating stories in detail and chronologically, though. I just end up stressed and want to scream at them to get to the point. Sadly, I sometimes do.

Lol, sorry about the antics of my Ni-PoLR kin. Fortunately though, I'm not the sort to chatter too much especially if I feel that the other party isn't up for it. On an average day without discussion on a topic of interest, I pretty much ask and listen more than I speak in my daily conversations. It's only with the strong introverts who hasn't much to say that I allow myself to chatter on, if only as fodder to get them to speak and open up. I'm pretty much a social introvert, which was why I first started off as MBTI INTJ before discovering socionics. No one would ever call me ESTj, considering the stereotypes associated with this type.

Yeah I'd say Ni people tend to be like that. Or at least I am. Si-creatives are in my experience types with the best work ethics - of course it's not going to apply to every individual but in general it stands, I think.

When I'm stuck with a task that gets me nowhere, or in an undertaking I know is doomed to failure or is unable to meet the deadline no matter how hard I try, I lose substantial momentum and in extreme cases of stress, even cease work and resign myself to failure.

I think the Si-creative/Ni-PoLR part might be getting caught up in making detailed plans. I say you're getting caught up "in detail", because while you're describing it as problem with what-ifs, I'm fairly certain it can be done without being lost in it, likely due to less specific outlook.

That's food for thought.

I remember what you said about speaking gibberish, so I'll try not to, but I don't know if it'll help.

The gibberish I refer to usually refers to abstract statements which I can't make head or tail of nor link to anything concrete, and you've explained the concept in a perfectly understandable manner. I've heard of the term emergence, and strangely I do have a fascination with the chaos concept, though it is commonly associated with Ni. I view it as a step ahead of what-ifs, and was motivated to explore it to see if it could be captured and converted into a what-if equation. That way, nothing could ever catch me offguard and I could be prepared for every possibility. The thought of it just wows me. It's as if I'm attempting to convert Ni into Si (which is probably impossible).

I'd like to underline "weak" and "strong" here don't mean anything like better or worse, those two are simply different in terms of looking at processes in detail or not. The former is how I think of Si; it knows what to do and when and how it will influence what exactly, which is in line with what you said above, btw. The latter is Ni, which is damn hard to explain, can't give valid justification for its claims half the time, and is generally vague to the point of infuriating Judicious quadras, but it's useful at estimating when exact analysis is impossible or impractical. Of course, how each individual succeeds or fails at specific tasks depends on their own abilities. Functions seem to be at most the "tools" they use.

Why do you call Ni useful at estimating when exact analysis is impossible or impractical? Any examples you can think of?

It's just a qualitative difference in how you use Ni. Strength is not really the right word. You'd use Ni to see if something was worth your time, make sure it's a good use of time. You don't like your time wasted by people. Contrast that with a Ni dominant type who's kind of lost in pondering what to do and you can see the clash.

Does it have anything to do with how immersed you are in the function? I know I'm often weighing the costs and benefits of what I do. Cost in terms of time and effort required, and benefits in terms of whatever it is I happen to value and the satisfaction I may gain out of it. IEIs would do this in their decision making process too, or am I wrong?

[Galen]

A simple: "If this happens, we can easily do X" would calm him down. And a "Besides, this would only happen if Y happens if Z did, so you needn't worry" would serve as additional assurance.

lol, I'll keep that in mind, thanks. I imagine he's also E8, so dealing with him when he's angry can be a bit intimidating.

[JuJu]

I'm trying to understand how the Ni PoLR manifests especially in LSEs and did a quick search for previous Ni PoLR threads. I picked out a number of views across various contexts for the purpose of this discussion.

 

Ni polr's get annoyed when you make subjective references that you cannot tangibly perceive.

Si likes contexts that you can sense, demonstrate, and "prove" (prove is an iffy word though)

Ni perceives the abstract and intangible context.

Ni polr's get irked when people make suppositions that cannot be traced back to any specific, concrete setting. "Where the hell did that come from?" "how does this apply here?" "How do you know that?" "That doesn't have anything to do with whats going on." "Show me how you know this".

When Ni-ers sense something unseen unfolding that cannot be "felt"

So Si polrs feel buried in too much information describing an environment that is unreal to them

Ni polrs feel there is not enough information for them to orient themselves and harmonize themselves within their setting.

They are trying to temper and understand their environment. To map out whats going on, the direction that things are moving, what is missing, where resources need to flow (Not Te, this is Si), etc.

Ni provides nothing to them. No good information to work with, its just empty space.

Doesn't have much to do with time at all.

But yeah, from my perspective, Ni PoLR often means being oblivious to the larger context of actions and failing to perceive the hidden implications of things, choosing instead to focus on the apparent and immediate.

Here are a few statements as starters for debate:

1) Ni PoLR does not equal not being philosophical nor disliking the abstract, nor does it has anything to do with an inability to reflect nor learn from mistakes.

2) Ni PoLR does not equal an inability to pay close attention to their emotions and thought processes.

3) Ni PoLR does not equal being disinclined towards fantasy, mysticism, symbolism, esoterics, existential questions, etc.

4) Ni PoLR does not equal needing to correct people's behaviour nor wanting to control people.

5) Ni PoLR does not equal lack of vision and foresight, superficiality, being unable to see the big picture nor a disability to think long term.


What I have observed of myself which may be PoLR related:

1) Prioritization: What happens is that every night I make a mental note of what I need to do. In the morning, I make a general plan on what I need to do first, and go with that. I think of a list of items I need to do and want to tick it off my list as soon as possible. I get annoyed when my plans go awry due to unexpected events as this means that the items get brought forward to the following day, which delays things, so I try to keep a time buffer of sorts for these events. But if the plan goes entirely off, and I accomplish nothing at the end of the day, let's just say I don't feel very happy. Fortunately this rarely happens.

2) Estimation of time: I sometimes take on more than I can chew and tend to underestimate (sometimes severely) the amount of time it takes to accomplish a certain task. I may at times get caught up in a particular task and be unwilling to leave to the next task until I have completed it to my satisfaction, which may be interpreted as having a bad sense of time. I see it as a task that takes longer than expected to complete due to an exploration/exhaustion of the task. Even in RPG games I prefer to explore every nook and cranny, complete every quest, collect all unique items, etc over a quicker, more efficient approach of going straight for the kill.

3) What-ifs: I am in love with what-if analysis. Gives me a sense of security to know every possibility that may occur so that I may never be caught of guard in anything. I want to be prepared for every possibility and occurrence in order to prevent the negatives from occurring. Nevermind that I may end up ignoring some of these probable possibilities until it blasts right up at my face as I get caught up with stuff. Ironic.

4) Gibberish: I get annoyed when people speak senseless nonsense which makes no sense, making motherhood statements, and the serious entertainment of unrealistic ideas without thought for feasibility.

I agree with everything you've written here.

[Lobo]

For me there's something "not there" when I deal with Ni PoLR types. They tend to miss a way of perceiving reality that comes naturally to me, which in the past made it hard for me to understand that there are actually people like that. It's not that I didn't know Ni polr people, but I just didn't get to that "enlightened" understanding point where you finally realize something about reality that you hadn't taken seriously before. I've noticed that for XSEs they might see events in a linear direction, like X situations cause Y. I don't think they focus a lot on seeing the relationship between seemingly separate situations, and allowing themselves to explore alternate realities from their own.

[Beautiful sky]

For me there's something "not there" when I deal with Ni PoLR types. They tend to miss a way of perceiving reality that comes naturally to me, which in the past made it hard for me to understand that there are actually people like that. It's not that I didn't know Ni polr people, but I just didn't get to that "enlightened" understanding point where you finally realize something about reality that you hadn't taken seriously before. I've noticed that for XSEs they might see events in a linear direction, like X situations cause Y. I don't think they focus a lot on seeing the relationship between seemingly separate situations, and allowing themselves to explore alternate realities from their own.

Yes, they are big on cause and effect (X causes Y) and they don't think of alternative if the assumption is reasonable and they agree with it. If I came home and said "I'm fine," but I don't look that way, they will explore into it and they can sense if you're giving them the whole truth. I guess that would be trying to figure out what caused the bad mood hence what would be X.

[rat1]

It's just a qualitative difference in how you use Ni. Strength is not really the right word. You'd use Ni to see if something was worth your time, make sure it's a good use of time. You don't like your time wasted by people. Contrast that with a Ni dominant type who's kind of lost in pondering what to do and you can see the clash.

Does it have anything to do with how immersed you are in the function? I know I'm often weighing the costs and benefits of what I do. Cost in terms of time and effort required, and benefits in terms of whatever it is I happen to value and the satisfaction I may gain out of it. IEIs would do this in their decision making process too, or am I wrong?

Yeah immersion describes the dominant function. Ni dominants use Ni in a more immediate, fluid way. It's not really about weighing options & planning with them. They see the world from a distance as unfolding processes, they're very passive and observant. IEIs are actually pretty lazy and non-productive. There are drawbacks to immersion, it kinda lacks direction. The dominant is adaptive; in a moment a Ni dominant can come up with a good plan, but these plans are made incidentally and they have a fleeting quality.

[InkStrider]

lol, I'll keep that in mind, thanks. I imagine he's also E8, so dealing with him when he's angry can be a bit intimidating.

Though I've not met an ESE E8 before, some LSE E8s can be really unhealthy asses. Getting angry is something I try to prevent and which rears its ugly head occasionally but it can usually be battled by being more forgiving and accepting. It's necessary to be non-confrontative when dealing with an E8 with a really bad mood. It usually is a call for attention and wanting to be babied in Fi and understanding (in the case of LSEs and perhaps LIEs). If you're able to see and get past that, they'll likely fall in love with you, so be careful

I don't think they focus a lot on seeing the relationship between seemingly separate situations, and allowing themselves to explore alternate realities from their own.

How so? Any examples?

Yes, they are big on cause and effect (X causes Y) and they don't think of alternative if the assumption is reasonable and they agree with it. If I came home and said "I'm fine," but I don't look that way, they will explore into it and they can sense if you're giving them the whole truth. I guess that would be trying to figure out what caused the bad mood hence what would be X.

Yes, I am really big on cause and effect. I'm interested in the causes of manifested effects, which causes ripples that then affect another. I think I tend to assign many factors (no matter the improbability) to a particular effect, which I then knock off. Hence the more the number of factors I could start with, the better.

So when X happens (someone feeling unhappy) an algorithmic map of possible causes come up to my mind, and I try figure out the one cause (or the main mix of causes) of why they are feeling the way they do by knocking off the unrelated ones as I gradually probe them (but since they're humans I have to go it very sensitively.) When I do, and its a practical problem that I can solve, I try to solve it. Or alternatively, provide sympathy and comfort. This trouble-shooting structure is usually how I go about working out problems.

Does it have anything to do with how immersed you are in the function? I know I'm often weighing the costs and benefits of what I do. Cost in terms of time and effort required, and benefits in terms of whatever it is I happen to value and the satisfaction I may gain out of it. IEIs would do this in their decision making process too, or am I wrong?

Yeah immersion describes the dominant function. Ni dominants use Ni in a more immediate, fluid way. It's not really about weighing options & planning with them. They see the world from a distance as unfolding processes, they're very passive and observant. IEIs are actually pretty lazy and non-productive. There are drawbacks to immersion, it kinda lacks direction. The dominant is adaptive; in a moment a Ni dominant can come up with a good plan, but these plans are made incidentally and they have a fleeting quality.

Ni sounds interesting and mysterious, fwiw. If only such information could be converted into the concrete, it would be very useful I would think. I've yet to grasp what it is like to be immersed in such, but I figure it would be very zen-like.

Why is Te such an anathema to you IEIs, if I may ask?

[Reuben]

Ni-PoLR manifests in complete ignorance of the concept of time and seasonal markers.

An LSE who is operating in pure Ego will do whatever he feels like doing whenever he feels like doing. Work for 48 hours straight? No fucking problem. Cross the street without waiting for the lights to turn green? No fucking problem. Walk in a snow storm naked? No fucking problem. What is winter? Doesn't fucking exist. But snow feels good on bare skin.

Chances are, he knows that you're having your period not because he keeps track of your monthly flow, but because of your smell, your body heat, and the subtle changes in your physical appearance and behaviour.

That being said, most LSE's know the importance of keeping time, not because they enjoy it, but because it is necessary to win their partners' and customers' trust.

[Nowisthetime]

I think it's quite easy to spot Ni polr, but harder to describe it

Some examples I've seen in people I know, that can be Ni polr related?

Difficult to find the right natural "rhytym" or "pace" of work. To be in tune with the "flow" of events. Especielly when there is a dead line. Has to be very explicit and plan ahead. Wants to finnish work ahead of time to avoid working in a tight time frame (is more sensitive to this than other types).

Wants explicit information about time, even in very everyday not-so-serious situations: "So do you mean that we are leaving now or soon? Now and soon is not the same thing". Can also be too laid back about time. Doesn't want to adapt dynamically to flow of time/events. For example swithching between fast/slow pace in a smooth way.

Problems dealing with vague information. What is percieved as "vague" is actually type-related.

I think there is a middle line where you can trust and deal with a situation even though it is vague. Somewhere between being naive and being too explicit about how events are unfolding. Ni polrs can have problems finding this middle line. (It shows more clearly when the external situation is more demanding, for example in team working with a dead line). This can lead to Ni polrs often wanting to correct a situation instead of waiting for the situation to solve itself.

[InkStrider]

Ni-PoLR manifests in complete ignorance of the concept of time and seasonal markers.

An LSE who is operating in pure Ego will do whatever he feels like doing whenever he feels like doing. Work for 48 hours straight? No fucking problem. Cross the street without waiting for the lights to turn green? No fucking problem. Walk in a snow storm naked? No fucking problem. What is winter? Doesn't fucking exist. But snow feels good on bare skin.

Chances are, he knows that you're having your period not because he keeps track of your monthly flow, but because of your smell, your body heat, and the subtle changes in your physical appearance and behaviour.

That being said, most LSE's know the importance of keeping time, not because they enjoy it, but because it is necessary to win their partners' and customers' trust.

 

And you're fucking stupid. Poop elsewhere.

I think it's quite easy to spot Ni polr, but harder to describe it

Some examples I've seen in people I know, that can be Ni polr related?

Difficult to find the right natural "rhythm" or "pace" of work. To be in tune with the "flow" of events. Especially when there is a dead line. Has to be very explicit and plan ahead. Wants to finish work ahead of time to avoid working in a tight time frame (is more sensitive to this than other types).

Wants explicit information about time, even in very everyday not-so-serious situations: "So do you mean that we are leaving now or soon? Now and soon is not the same thing". Can also be too laid back about time. Doesn't want to adapt dynamically to flow of time/events. For example switching between fast/slow pace in a smooth way.

Yes, astute observation. The bolded is very true.

Problems dealing with vague information. What is perceived as "vague" is actually type-related.

I think there is a middle line where you can trust and deal with a situation even though it is vague. Somewhere between being naive and being too explicit about how events are unfolding. Ni polrs can have problems finding this middle line. (It shows more clearly when the external situation is more demanding, for example in team working with a dead line). This can lead to Ni polrs often wanting to correct a situation instead of waiting for the situation to solve itself.

You're pointing out that discomfort with vagueness of information is the cause of their impatience and correction of a situation?

Interesting, because I would like everything to be very clear with appointments and such. Where and when to meet, etc. And I don't tolerate ambiguity in speech/writing very well, where I at times tend to grind people till they come up with something clear and concrete which I am able to accept due to wanting to be sure that I clearly understand/not misinterpret what they're saying. Which is also the reason why I take great care to the clarity of what I express in order to prevent unnecessary misunderstanding/misinterpretation of my words. At times repeating what I deem to be important info just to make sure people caught my meaning correctly. It also ties in to my dislike of people giving vague responses, of which I am inclined to dismiss: whether by content or by character.

[rat1]

Why is Te such an anathema to you IEIs, if I may ask?

It depends if it's related to something I care about. When I argue with Te types its when they're trying to force their priorities on me. I know I seem unproductive to them. They probably think I'm not serving any purpose. That's about half true. I always serve my own purpose, but sometimes people share priorities. Alot of times I ignore peoples priorities because it looks like they're chasing their tails or they're trying to use me. I have a really sarcastic, demeaning reaction at those times. If me and a Te person have a common goal though we'll become hyper aware of the flaws in eachothers work and strive to correct it, so it's kind of a grind but it's refining at the same time. Actually I think supervisor/supervisee is the best work relationship. Conflict relations are more focused on criticism than productivity. Constructive criticism is welcome but still leaves a bad taste. It's kinda unavoidable. It's not about just hating the conflictor. Conflict relationships will teach you to better suffer the world, which is something unique to them. Duals will just take over for eachother and its kind of debilitating.

[InkStrider]

It depends if it's related to something I care about. When I argue with Te types its when they're trying to force their priorities on me. I know I seem unproductive to them. They probably think I'm not serving any purpose. That's about half true. I always serve my own purpose, but sometimes people share priorities. Alot of times I ignore peoples priorities because it looks like they're chasing their tails or they're trying to use me. I have a really sarcastic, demeaning reaction at those times. If me and a Te person have a common goal though we'll become hyper aware of the flaws in eachothers work and strive to correct it, so it's kind of a grind but it's refining at the same time. Actually I think supervisor/supervisee is the best work relationship. Conflict relations are more focused on criticism than productivity. Constructive criticism is welcome but still leaves a bad taste. It's kinda unavoidable. It's not about just hating the conflictor. Conflict relationships will teach you to better suffer the world, which is something unique to them. Duals will just take over for eachother and its kind of debilitating.

I have a friend who's a very introverted INFp-Ni. We've done projects together and because I know he's inclined to be passive and gave me the impression of being uncertain of his own abilities, I remembered allocating to him the less Te oriented tasks which I mostly handled. Everything turned out well in the end. I don't think I've ever experienced any problems with IEIs being passive, probably only when they start arguing towards having things done a certain way (which is equally valid, but of which I don't find to be of much difference from the original and which I feel accomplishes the same purpose anyway), which sorts of undermine my effort in the process and I don't really enjoy that I guess, though I'm fine as long as the main purpose is achieved. It's probably the priority thing you mentioned.

I've only ever experienced conflict with one nasty IEI who antagonistically picked on me and my motives everytime we met, jabbing at me with each opportunity that presented itself. It felt crippling but my desire for peace forced me to wave them off as a joke. I think it was because he found me a fake and a hypocrite for 1) suppressing and not spontaneously expressing my emotions 2) for expressing my desire to live by certain principles which he thought to be bullshit in a dog eat dog world. If only he knew how hard a time I had controlling myself from smashing his guts out and feeding him to the dogs.

[InkStrider]

Reuben is hurt by Inkstrider's insensitivity. Reuben wonders if Abbie will laugh at the inside joke.

Practice your girl-wooing techniques elsewhere.


If you had meant your post to be addressed in seriousness:

Ni-PoLR manifests in complete ignorance of the concept of time and seasonal markers.

Over-generalization. Explain concept of time and seasonal markers, and how LSEs are more inherently ignorant of it than other types.

An LSE who is operating in pure Ego will do whatever he feels like doing whenever he feels like doing. Work for 48 hours straight? No fucking problem. Cross the street without waiting for the lights to turn green? No fucking problem. Walk in a snow storm naked? No fucking problem. What is winter? Doesn't fucking exist. But snow feels good on bare skin.

Do whatever he feels like doing whenever he feels like doing? Even going by the Si=comfort and relaxation stereotype, LSEs are Si creatives, not Si ignoring and are not likely to work themselves to death without regard for health. If they even do, it would be a matter of responsibility more than anything.

Chances are, he knows that you're having your period not because he keeps track of your monthly flow, but because of your smell, your body heat, and the subtle changes in your physical appearance and behaviour.

Your 'inside joke'?

That being said, most LSE's know the importance of keeping time, not because they enjoy it, but because it is necessary to win their partners' and customers' trust.

LSEs aren't manipulative bastards. Quit pretending to be one.

[Beautiful sky]

I have a few issues to address in regards to Ni PoLR; because LSE are negativist types, they ask the negative questions inadvertently. They will automatically assume that where they need to go may not have parking, they may not be able to find their way around, that they may get lost (notice all these things are negativist assumptions) and because of this they get discouraged for going somewhere. These questions, that arise automatically, make experiencing something spontaneously less pleasant for them, while for me, it makes it something wow like and interesting.

With time related things:

Everything they do always gets done in time, but they take on too much. They are very aware of exact timing if they are given a deadline.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

In my experience, Ni polr people don't like talking about interesting things that aren't physically going anywhere. Which is, sort of like the opposite of how a ni-ego INFp usually behaves. While they can still be insightful, they don't like being insightful in deep or exaggerated ways.

ESFjs and ESTjs both are all very action-oriented. ESTjs can seem kind of rude, because they don't really like to sit and talk and dwell for hours if they hurt somebody's feelings or whatever. Whereas an INFp is apt to write an entire novel based on how they got personally hurt in one circumstance. Of course they will work to objectify this issue in ways that many other people can relate and understand.

Generally Speaking: Deltas have stern faces and they PUSH their energy. Betas have more cute/baby faces and they REBEL against being pushed. Gammas are somewhere in the middle, and Alphas are more babyish than Betas, but less adolescentile rebellious.

[Beautiful sky]

The darn Ni PoLR isn't the real amazing part about LSE, what's truly amazing is how they can absorb my feelings. Take me, I get so quiet and introverted, don't talk and think and come off monosyllabic on the outside with my "fine" "ok" "yes" statements when there's so much going inside and my boyfriend (poor soul) walking around saying, "what's wrong, honey." "I feel as though you're angry about something" or just plain joking with me to uplift my mood. Anyone else in the same room with me would probably get angry and leave or would ignore me or would do something silly and make me cry. He's perfect for me.

[shakealittle]

I don't know if it's the Te or lack of Ni, but they really look down on people who do not show outward signs of work (as in tangible, physical signs of work).

A few of my older family friends who are LSEs I guess probably fret that I've been studying for 7 years or so instead of having a full time job that pays me to work. They don't get that it's all been carefully planned and that in the end, I will be starting off on a very good salary etc.

Whenever I'm at my friends house, her LSE mum is always cleaning things that I don't think even need to be cleaned like the paths outside...it's like they are productive but not calculating with what they do....they don't choose their battles.

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't know if it's the Te or lack of Ni, but they really look down on people who do not show outward signs of work (as in tangible, physical signs of work).

A few of my older family friends who are LSEs I guess probably fret that I've been studying for 7 years or so instead of having a full time job that pays me to work. They don't get that it's all been carefully planned and that in the end, I will be starting off on a very good salary etc.

Whenever I'm at my friends house, her LSE mum is always cleaning things that I don't think even need to be cleaned like the paths outside...it's like they are productive but not calculating with what they do....they don't choose their battles.

Most definitely, goes for ESEs too.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Like I have stated before, which seems to be forgetten, likely because its implied but rarely explicit, but all introverted functions are about relationships (not specificially of people). Ni is not an exception, as is Ni-polr.

[DirectorAbbie]

Ni=asking a bunch of outlandish questions that have no meaning and no answer just to annoy people who have better things to do than contemplate questions with no meaning and no answer.

[mikesilb]

You joke, but I could *totally* answer that as a philosophical question

Counter-question: Are you awake?
. . . I think this could be a nice example of conflict between the way an Ni person and an Si person see things. I asked this question with the idea in mind of "awake" in a philosophical sense, but an Si person would likely answer simply, "Yes." To be fair, anyone might answer simply, "Yes," but a non-Ni-valuing person would be more likely to become annoyed if I pressed for more. "No, silly, I mean are you awake (to life)(to your true desires)(to full experiencing yourself)(etc.)." That would piss them off, while it might start an interesting discussion with a fellow Ni type, so long as they were in the mood. An Si type, I expect, would almost never be in the mood.

I absolutely LOVE this differentiation between and ! I think that this type of scenario involving the word 'awake' is a perfect differentiation between the two.

I am tempted to find a generalization based on this scenario. Could it be that is all about taking a concrete entity and abstracting it so wide that larger meanings and ramifications emerge from the act of widening the conceptual frame (from asleep [in your bed] to ASLEEP in a metaphysical sense)?

How might this be different from ? Would be all about enumerating all the possible ways/orientations, etc. that a person could be asleep?

Any thoughts about this?

[Ningyo]

I LOVE most of what Aiss said. This has also been my experience largely with ESXjs.

Poor time estimation affects us all. The very worst time-estimators (wtf) I've ever MET were ENXXs and ISXXs. What ESXjs lack, IME, is actually the inability to see how their plans could backfire. My Ni-creative and Se-creative friends would brag incessantly after finishing a game with 100% completion, so I doubt that has anything to do with Ni-PoLR. I'll even devote time to get as much done as possible if I'm "into it." IME, Ni users know exactly what they're getting out of their efforts, even when they're arguably wasted, whereas Ni-PoLR struggles to predict this. They might struggle to tell where an activity is headed if in a group and feel the need to control the group to make sure "their turn" arrives. An Ni-dominant is more likely to go with the flow for as long as they feel like it, or until they can assess the value of the situation. If there's nothing in it for them, they'll happily excuse themselves rather than sit around in anticipation of a favorable event that's never going to transpire.

[Ningyo]

Ni=asking a bunch of outlandish questions that have no meaning and no answer just to annoy people who have better things to do than contemplate questions with no meaning and no answer.

Love you too ESTjs.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

As have already been mentioned, studies show most people tend to be overly optimistic in time estimation. Although I like to think I'm quite good at it. Nevertheless, what I notice in Ni-PoLRs is not exactly bad time estimation, more inaccurate timing and sense of urgency. Like, there are things that need to be done now and things that can be done tomorrow (or any day, really). I've often seen Ni-PoLR go after the things from the latter group at the cost of the former group, if they realize they're short on time with them. It's usually related to panicking over being late, I think. Which paradoxically sometimes results in them being late.

Maybe this boils down to time-estimation as well, but this reminds me of a conflict between my parents (ESE and base). We need to be somewhere at a certain time. Before we leave, the base will start working on something (like a project that needs done); inevitably, he's not done in time, and it makes us late. This really pisses off my mother, who prefers to be on time. Could this be an example of weak in the base?

[Beautiful sky]

I watched Ni and Ni polr at work when my mom, ILI, made a little Ni observation and recounted her "image" of the moving picture and my LSE cousin looked to her with nothing to add or comment. The topic of the conversation was someone my LSE cousin saw at my nephew's graduation who she could not recognize; the reason why this person was difficult to identify was because she had had some plastic surgery; my cousin pointed out the certain features of that surgery she saw, like how this person's nose was different, "her nose is different here and you can see the scar; that made her look different." My mom took this difference of appearance due to plastic surgery and recalled an episode from one of the shows she watches and interjected a story like comment about how she thought plastic surgery changes a person, but more of a perceptual/dynamic/evolutionary kind of way, "this reminds me of a show I watch where this young man is injured by multiple slash wounds on his face; they decided to change is whole face, suturing him up, in such a way where they changed is appearance; the doctors also found something wrong with his voice and decided to change it; then he became a whole other person because of this procedure."

You see, my LSE cousin is "here and now"; she gathered her observation from the person who is objective and tangible and my mother is "living in the past" in that her relation with stories are other stories that she's watched or heard of that carry the same theme. To an Ni polr, it would be redundant to recall such instances that don't have any "new" ideas to them and they don't probably because TeSi and FeSi are concerned about immediate and tangible environments, being both Sensory types and being extraverts.

My mother's little story quieted my cousin, perhaps causing her to shift into her imaginary inner world of viewing this past process that had a relation to what she saw today, but more a deeper reflection of these events.

[Beautiful sky]

Interesting example. It is as you've said. I would find such advice appealing as well, though I'm not sure how I would react with too much of it. I can see it as messing up my basic approach if someone were to tell me I need to address such and such a concern which I've not recognized as much of a concern now. I'd prefer an "after this", slotting in approach.

LSE tend to receive information, and give themselves time to think about it.

[Beautiful sky]

"I hate living by time. I wish that i could move somewhere where things weren't done according to time"

ESE: " I read a book that says men should have an established career at the age of 40. I'm almost there." Another example of working by time

[Erk]

Maybe this boils down to time-estimation as well, but this reminds me of a conflict between my parents (ESE and base). We need to be somewhere at a certain time. Before we leave, the base will start working on something (like a project that needs done); inevitably, he's not done in time, and it makes us late. This really pisses off my mother, who prefers to be on time. Could this be an example of weak in the base?

No. This is a good clear example of problematic Te. It's time to go and your dumb ass is doing something that has no basis with the task at hand. A lot of what has been said in this thread is actually Te vs. Fe, and has nothing to do with Ni/Si.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

"I hate living by time. I wish that i could move somewhere where things weren't done according to time"

ESE: " I read a book that says men should have an established career at the age of 40. I'm almost there." Another example of working by time

the first quote in this post is still Ni polr?

[Beautiful sky]

the first quote in this post is still Ni polr?

Yes because we complain about the function's roles and thus attracting conflict relationships who at first seem to help us in that regard but ultimately devalue our base function

[Suz]

Why not? 27 month ago I've asked my ESFj-Si friend what annoys him most. He said that he can't tolerate when people are being late. At that time I didn't knew anything about socionics and I found his answer to be very strange and I was thinking: "OK that can be annoying but there are much worse things than that".
My ESTj father gets really, really angry when TV-program doesn't follow schedule. Even one minute of discrepancy is accompanied by cursing and swearing.

Si is "now and here", Ni is "everywhere except now". So if you're ESxj (especially Si-subtype) you're in deep trouble if someone constantly applies "everywhere except now" -Ni on you.
As you said:

I am still trying to figure out whether or not I'm Ni-POLR, but i will say that i have actually ended friendships with people who demonstrated lack of respect for my time. This however, does not refer to people who have been under 30 min late, or people who had extenuating circumstances, or something like that. It had to be a recurrent problem of making me wait for unreasonable amounts of time without a heads up that they are running late, and being unreachable when they are MIA.

That said, i'm quite forgiving of people running late, it's just that it's respectful and considerate to give me a heads up about that. I am sometimes running late myself, and i make it a point to do same if i am going to be making people wait (usually it's extenuating circumstances too, or me having gotten lost, etc).

[Suz]

That's the opposite of what I've seen. Si-PoLRs are often late, and people with strong Ni are ultra punctual. An example - my ESFj and ISFp inlaws were visiting at my house, and they were supposed to go hang out with my ENTj and ENFj parents. I told them how hyper-punctual my parents were and had to work hard to get them out of the house, because they are usually late to things. I got them out at least close to on time, but TWO MINUTES after they were supposed to be there, my parents called asking why they were late.

Also, my ISTp husband, not Ni PoLR but weak and unvalued Ni anyway, is always late. He will tell me he'll be back at 1 and I just translate it in my head to 1:30 to 1:40 or so. And it's worse if he's out with his ESTj friend. They just don't pay attention at all to the time. If they say they'll be back at 1, I might end up calling at 4 to see where they are.

I think it's probably both extremes... that'show POLRs usually are. "All or nothing."

[Suz]

Good thread.

I've never seen a Ni polr get too involved in a book or imaginary world. (They can like guilty pleasures but nothing ever abstract or grand scheme-y.)

They brush off complex problems with a just 'Get over it!', They tend to break through problems with raw force at the expense of analyzing their true feelings, which works for them because hey, something is always getting done - but it doesn't end up ideally at all, which is what the Ni-type needs. (Or maybe I'm just talking about IEIs) They make stupid decisions by their 'just do it' philosophy, lacking the sense and time of when something should ideally be executed. They try to cover this up by more and more actions, when what they really need to do is sit the fuck down already and pay closer attention to their own emotions and thought processes.

They're rarely honest with their own emotions, but will constantly chastise others if they see them being down. They're unable to admit that they're really upset, and kinda go along until they explode. This EJ-ness upsets IP to no end.

yeah i can resonate with these to some extent, actually. Although i dont feel that my decisions are stupid. But maybe from a time judgement standpoint they can be stupid, sure. It's just that i consider other things in my decision making, and i suck at considering/estimating time (though am getting better at it over the years, and situationally). Actually, when i'm stressed and the fire is under my butt, i do better with time planning.

but i think people in the chatbox here even have witnessed me being a bit callous with my "snap out of it" mentality. It's how i approach life myself.... life is too short with too many awesome opportunities out there, to be wallowing in defeat, rejection, failure, what have you. And in the rare event that i myself start wallowing, i appreciate when someone reminds me to snap out of it too.

In regards to being in touch with one's own emotions, i actually kind of think being too focused on my own emotions is bad for me... also a separate issue is that sometimes i dont want to make a certain emotion official too quickly because my feelings about something might change, or it might be something so inconsequential that it's better left unbothered -- more peaceful, and easier on everyone including myself. If it's a recurrent problem, then yes it will come out eventually.