How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[silke]

This is analogous to why I loathe the notion of "facts" being associated with .

yes, according to a lot of posts I've seen it sounds like Ti types are stuck blindly following rules meanwhile Te types are stuck mindlessly absorbing facts :/ which is sad

I think we have the same idea in mind, just with different vocabulary. What occurs to me now is that "static" may not refer to the staticness of the system in general, considering how formless/malleable Fi is, but rather that it provides staticness to the corresponding Je functions by grounding them with meaning/context. Otherwise I'm kinda starting to lose grip on "static" or "dynamic" having any real meaning other than in a temperament scheme.

I think so, I took the word "static" in its literal interpretation but it looks like you meant it in context of theory, so we're on the same page here.

Could be, I imagine it'd be more of an Alpha Ti deal. With both of their object functions being internal (Ne and Fe, malleable, squishy, etc blah blah), it seems like they'd have little difficulty turning things into just variables and working with external frameworks (Si and Ti both reinforcing each other as external IEs). Or something. Betas would be grounded in more explicitly observable points of data/holistic contexts a la strrrngs description.

From what I understand their Ti definitions and categories are tied to some concrete variables while in Beta Ti is connected with some unified conceptual framework (Ni). That actually explains why I've observed Alpha NTs come up with theories and idea which they would treat as if they were something completely new, while for me it simply looked like a slight variation of an old concept. Then I'd become perplexed why they got all excited about it lol.

What I'm noticing here is that the coherency of a system and the good feeling are separate entities from how you described it. The status of the system causes a feeling, which isn't so much a gestalt as it is a reaction, unless I'm misunderstanding something. For Fi, or at least for me, the system and the feeling are the same thing. Points of data are taken in, and at the same time they shape the noumenal structure in whatever way. Then if you ignore the points of data and instead just take note of the structure's resulting shape, that shape would be the sort of "gestalt" feeling I'm referring to.

I've read Fi-valuers describing Fi as a sort of feeling of resonance or harmony when some information coming in from outside feels just right to you. The feeling of "coherency" that Ti gives I think is analogous to it. At least that is how I see it, once again basing from my premise that there is symmetry in this model. One big difference seems to be that while judging what resonates and what doesn't, Fi is striving to maximize the personal component while Ti is striving to take this component to nil.

I don't treat F functions as actual feelings per se because that doesn't seem to correspond to what can be observed of real people (i.e. types 'low' on F don't seem to be deficient on actual feelings or have lower feeling capacity, etc.) I mean it has been dubbed as "feelings" as per Jung but there seems to be some other modifier in effect here.

As a more concrete example, I've done a bit of metacognitive analysis and came up with some interesting points. I find that whenever I stare off into space, when I'm not actively trying to process or deal with information, my eyes will subconsciously move themselves so that the information received from my entire field of vision "feels" the best. By this I mean that my eyes/brain will scan my environment for fields of colors, shapes, discernible objects, etc. Then, still at the subconscious level, it seems my brain takes all of the things in that field of vision and somehow synthesizes it all down to a "feeling," an actual emotion that I can understand.

Sounds like NeFi. I cannot relate to this. I'm usually absorbed into my own thoughts, then at some point something might click together and it would just feels right though if somebody asks me to describe why it feels right I wouldn't be able to.

Admittedly, "rules" was a terrible choice of word for what I was trying to explain, lol. I'll just drop that part of the argument until I can explain it better, if ever.

I've used the word "principles" in past as opposed to Fi "values" - some basic premises that on individual level one considers to be true - but that doesn't quite hit the mark either. "Rules" imho is a rather loaded term to use which can lead to misinterpretations in terms of actual behaviors that follow.

[Galen]

From what I understand their Ti definitions and categories are tied to some concrete variables while in Beta Ti is connected with some unified conceptual framework (Ni). That actually explains why I've observed Alpha NTs come up with theories and idea which they would treat as if they were something completely new, while for me it simply looked like a slight variation of an old concept. Then I'd become perplexed why they got all excited about it lol.

This makes a lot of sense, given how a lot of the Alpha NTs on here like to pass off other people's arguments as "oh he uses a different system, there's no way to reconcile it."

I've read Fi-valuers describing Fi as a sort of feeling of resonance or harmony when some information coming in from outside feels just right to you. The feeling of "coherency" that Ti gives I think is analogous to it. At least that is how I see it, once again basing from my premise that there is symmetry in this model. One big difference seems to be that while judging what resonates and what doesn't, Fi is striving to maximize the personal component while Ti is striving to take this component to nil.

I think the main difference here is that the same feeling of resonance in Fi is, as you're saying with Ni, it's intangible. Fi can't point to something concrete and say "that feels right" because there's no solid cohesion to point to. I could maybe point to a few of the more important points being taken into account, but that doesn't say anything about the entire coherency. All I can really do is take in all the points of data that I can and determine whether or not this field of vision is "right" or "wrong." Not even "right" or "wrong" in a sense of punishment or reward, but just in judging whether or not a scene "makes sense" or something.

I don't treat F functions as actual feelings per se because that doesn't seem to correspond to what can be observed of real people (i.e. types 'low' on F don't seem to be deficient on actual feelings or have lower feeling capacity, etc.) I mean it has been dubbed as "feelings" as per Jung but there seems to be some other modifier in effect here.

I agree, this is a bad habit to break that should really be broken. It'd be best to just treat them as external/phenomenal vs internal/noumenal.

Sounds like NeFi. I cannot relate to this. I'm usually absorbed into my own thoughts, then at some point something might click together and it would just feels right though if somebody asks me to describe why it feels right I wouldn't be able to.

Oh it's Ne+Fi out the ass, lol. I talked with Riddy (Ne-ENTp) about the same thing, and he does the same sort of thing where he looks for entire fields of color/shape/whatever. The difference in his case is that his resulting consolidated field isn't really noumenal, rather he said something along the lines of the consolidated image representing a physical "situation" or something.

[Blaze]

rantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee

Things I've noticed about Ti-PoLRs are: a love of pointing out exceptions to the rule

Absolutely yes. I don't even really care for "the rule" to begin with, because no single rule I've come across has ever really encompassed everything it tries to do, no matter how hard people try to bend it. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.

What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.

That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.

^Ti polr in action.

seriously, this is what i notice about them. they totally overreact to Ti...this is the main characteristic of Ti polr. they claim that Ti is rigid....when really it's that they don't understand what Ti egos are talking about.

[Galen]

^Ti polr in action.

seriously, this is what i notice about them. they totally overreact to Ti...this is the main characteristic of Ti polr. they claim that Ti is rigid....when really it's that they don't understand what Ti egos are talking about.

Well to be fair, Ti is rigid lol. At least when compared to Fi. You're right though, if a Ti ego (well, Ti subtype really) and I agree on something there's not going to be much difficulty in communicating, and vice versa.

[Blaze]

^Ti polr in action.

seriously, this is what i notice about them. they totally overreact to Ti...this is the main characteristic of Ti polr. they claim that Ti is rigid....when really it's that they don't understand what Ti egos are talking about.

Well to be fair, Ti is rigid lol. At least when compared to Fi. You're right though, if a Ti ego (well, Ti subtype really) and I agree on something there's not going to be much difficulty in communicating, and vice versa.

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

[Blaze]

Se: the car
Te: is moving at 100 km/hour

yes!

[Begoner]

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

On the contrary; despite being a -ego, I believe I use quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.

[Words]

Well to be fair, Ti is rigid lol. At least when compared to Fi. You're right though, if a Ti ego (well, Ti subtype really) and I agree on something there's not going to be much difficulty in communicating, and vice versa.

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

Even Jung struggled to speak about a function in isolation.

But I'll try too

Ti leading: flexible as an accepting function.

Ti in creative function is not acceptable while it's working.

How does this work?

Meh... ISTj... it doesn't fit in how things are done..that fits with proper explanation, ok.

ENTp...no it's wrong. *tomorrow* yeah what about this!

Meh, others can batter in with explanatos.

[Blaze]

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

On the contrary; despite being a -ego, I believe I use quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.

Ti is the framework itself, and it is the tendency to use frameworks. pointing out that not everything fits into frameworks...they are only guidelines. furthermore, there are lots and lots of frameworks, they intersect, overlap, and sometimes are in opposition. the working of all these frameworks is a flexible process.

the process of using frameworks interchangeablely and being to apply multiple frameworks to various phenomena is inherently not a rigid process by any means. if one is familiar with a lot of frameworks, then the person has quite a bit of understanding to work with. to me, the word rigid is better associated with static than it is a specific information element.

Ti polr focuses on the framework itself instead of the process...and chooses Fi, since it is better understood by the person. so Ti polr doesn't really understand multiple frameworks nor does it want to. the main aspect of Ti polr is discussing how Ti concepts are rigid. Ti polr thinks they're rigid because of their limited understanding.

also, some frameworks are crap.

[Blaze]

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

Even Jung struggled to speak about a function in isolation.

But I'll try too

Ti leading: flexible as an accepting function.

Ti in creative function is not acceptable while it's working.

How does this work?

Meh... ISTj... it doesn't fit in how things are done..that fits with proper explanation, ok.

ENTp...no it's wrong. *tomorrow* yeah what about this!

Meh, others can batter in with explanatos.

well i guess. understanding the theoretical components of a framework takes time. but applying frameworks is sort of like throwing a grid on top of one small aspect of phenomena, not the whole ball of wax. the grid will account for many aspects of a phenomenon....and probably there is another framework that can explain said phenomenon nearly as well. it's more like a way of understanding things. some things cannot be understood yet. or fall outside of a framework. but when a framework fits, it fits. overtime, new frameworks evolve that explain things differently. thus is the evolution of ideas.

having said all this i really don't see how Ti is all that rigid. it can only be used rigidly. or be perceived that way by folks who don't understand the information.

moreover, LII is flexible in that they know what they know. they know what frameworks explain what phenomena best and they stay away from any frameworks they are not familiar with. you can be sure if LII is applying a framework, it is one that they have looked at in a lot of detail and they usually are not wrong. the flexibility of LII comes in where they will not apply a framework that they have not yet understood completely. in this way, they only use frameworks with a high level of validity. they will also know clearlly and in detail why the framework is valid.

[Raver]

All this talk about being anything about "the rules" is sickening (although I guess LSI's would prefer it to "laws").

Fully differentiated Filatova -PoLR Quotes: (May decide to revamp the other PoLR threads in the future)

IEE

Weak in administrative functions such as organization of work schedules, writing instructions, reports and the like.

Have trouble restraining themselves to certain boundaries.

Does not accept anything predetermined.

Difficulty in logical analysis.

Cannot sit and meticulously do what is necessary, instead preferring to bounce a multitude of ideas off those around them.

Inability to analyze things deeply

Pay attention to the many minute details while failing to grasp the big picture

SEE

Difficulty with logic

Not easy to decide what is needed and what can be sacrificed in a given system.

Reluctant to accept objective basic laws.

Cannot give themselves a reasonable explanation for their impulsive actions.

Completely sure of themselves even if doing a job that is completely unsuitable for them.

If told it is better for them to work on something else, they will either not understand, not hear, or not believe it.

Sounds about right, both the IEE and SEE parts.

[plotter]

On the contrary; despite being a -ego, I believe I use quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.

Maybe this is about the difference between being Ti-base and Ti-creative, but I would never be able to have that conviction to any belief/framework/rule. Then again I'm not certain I am the type I claim I am either...

You've "all" said stuff about Ti-polr not liking categorizations or something like that, but I think that would apply to more people than just Ti-polr. Maybe it's just about Fi>Ti.

One thing that came to mind just now was a recent conversation with a friend of mine that I think is pretty strong on the Fi.
It started with a discussion about "sexual deviations" and suspecting such things of people and went on to general categorization.

Well, basically this guy told me that it is devaluing to X if you think X belong in category Q (that is established by "objective" criteria), when said category is thought less of by "the general public"*.

I on the other hand said that the fact that you suspect X of belonging to category Q could never in itself be devaluing. The devaluing of X must be seperate from the categorization according to me, since the categorization is just an aknowledgement that X fulfills these criterias that we've established makes category Q.

So what do you Ti-polr think of this? Or maybe Fi-valuers in general

*not sure if he actually meant that or he just meant what he thinks less of.

[Begoner]

Well, basically this guy told me that it is devaluing to X if you think X belong in category Q (that is established by "objective" criteria), when said category is thought less of by "the general public"*.

I on the other hand said that the fact that you suspect X of belonging to category Q could never in itself be devaluing. The devaluing of X must be seperate from the categorization according to me, since the categorization is just an aknowledgement that X fulfills these criterias that we've established makes category Q.

Huh? Suppose people can be verbally devalued in some way; then there must exist a statement S which is sufficient to devalue them. Let the group Q consist of people to whom the statement S applies. Logically, therefore, by stating that an individual belongs to Q, you are also asserting that S applies to him, and are implicitly devaluing him. I suspect you intended that certain restrictions be imposed on the set of possible categories; for example, you might restrict this set to not include properties pertaining directly to a person's character.

[silke]

Maybe this is about the difference between being Ti-base and Ti-creative, but I would never be able to have that conviction to any belief/framework/rule. Then again I'm not certain I am the type I claim I am either...

I think so. As I understand it for alpha NTs Ne counterbalances Ti by sweeping in and suggesting that there are other possibilities open, that there exists certain open-endedness, which would weight in more heavily with Ne-leading ILEs and Ne-LIIs. I've noticed that with Ti-LIIs it can be very difficult to convince them otherwise, as with less Ne their Ti frameworks are more rigid making them more set on their judgments and opinions (same thing occurs with Fi-EIIs vs Ne-EIIs).

One thing that came to mind just now was a recent conversation with a friend of mine that I think is pretty strong on the Fi.
It started with a discussion about "sexual deviations" and suspecting such things of people and went on to general categorization.

Well, basically this guy told me that it is devaluing to X if you think X belong in category Q (that is established by "objective" criteria), when said category is thought less of by "the general public"*.

I on the other hand said that the fact that you suspect X of belonging to category Q could never in itself be devaluing. The devaluing of X must be seperate from the categorization according to me, since the categorization is just an aknowledgement that X fulfills these criterias that we've established makes category Q.

It sounds like your friend is prone to synthetic reasoning while your reasoning has more of analytic bent to it, so for you this statement that X belongs to category Q is true just by itself while he is including another concept, that general public holds negative opinion about category Q. Afaik this is not related to Fi, but dynamic types are more prone to synthetic reasoning and static types to analytic.

[plotter]

Huh? Suppose people can be verbally devalued in some way; then there must exist a statement S which is sufficient to devalue them. Let the group Q consist of people to whom the statement S applies. Logically, therefore, by stating that an individual belongs to Q, you are also asserting that S applies to him, and are implicitly devaluing him. I suspect you intended that certain restrictions be imposed on the set of possible categories; for example, you might restrict this set to not include properties pertaining directly to a person's character.

My choice of using the word devalued might not have been optimal, but I couldn’t find a better one. Maybe ”offend” or something similar.

Well even if the criteria for belongin in Q include personal characteristics, and S applies to everyone in category Q, I can’t see how my implicit suggestion that S might apply to person X, because I suspect that X is in category Q, could be seen as ”wrongful” on my part which is basically what this guy said.

I think so. As I understand it for alpha NTs Ne counterbalances Ti by sweeping in and suggesting that there are other possibilities open, that there exists certain open-endedness, which would weight in more heavily with Ne-leading ILEs and Ne-LIIs. I've noticed that with Ti-LIIs it can be very difficult to convince them otherwise, as with less Ne their Ti frameworks are more rigid making them more set on their judgments and opinions (same thing occurs with Fi-EIIs vs Ne-EIIs).

Sounds plausible!

It sounds like your friend is prone to synthetic reasoning while your reasoning has more of analytic bent to it, so for you this statement that X belongs to category Q is true just by itself while he is including another concept, that general public holds negative opinion about category Q. Afaik this is not related to Fi, but dynamic types are more prone to synthetic reasoning and static types to analytic.

Thanks! A good explanation. I suspect this guy of being LIE-Ni so that might be true. (They’re dynamic right?)

Well in reality they just suck at understanding and creating rules/concepts that includes all necessary information.

lol so are Ti egos then, because I find exceptions to their rules all the time.

Hehe, missed this one before. What I really meant was that Fi-valuers tend to ignore the Ti-info being expressed for the Ti-model to work properly, making the model useless. I would assume the same thing is true (or something similar) when Fi-valuers try to explain some model to a Ti-valuer.

And to be completely honest I don’t find it realistic to try to construct models that will encompass all possible scenarios with specific rules. All encompassing frameworks are often very general or macro oriented, while the micro oriented frameworks are more specific in their construction, and used with ”precaution”.

So it would probably be easy to find exceptions or errors in the application of a framework, when the framework is applied in the wrong way. Plus I’m not saying Ti-egos are geniuses. People will always be wrong about stuff.

[HandiAce]

What does Ti-PoLR (Point of Least Resistance) look like in real life? If anyone has any videos showing something along the lines of it manifesting, I'd be highly interested to see.

[Codie]

What does Ti-PoLR (Point of Least Resistance) look like in real life? If anyone has any videos showing something along the lines of it manifesting, I'd be highly interested to see.

The one thing that immediately makes me suspect polr ( in -IEE's anyway ) are either huge walls of text, using lots of details and mentioning loads of other possibilites - when what they're saying could be summed up with 80% less writing. It's like some want to give ALLL the details in case they miss something. I don't really see their behaviour as "illogical" cause so is mine , but I apreciate logical structure and they seem to ignore it.

I was looking at an - IEE's work resume, and while seemingly impressive and very heavy, the amount of detail she gave was superfluous and headache inducing.

[HandiAce]

The one thing that immediately makes me suspect polr ( in -IEE's anyway ) are either huge walls of text, using lots of details and mentioning loads of other possibilites - when what they're saying could be summed up with 80% less writing. It's like some want to give ALLL the details in case they miss something. I don't really see their behaviour as "illogical" cause so is mine , but I apreciate logical structure and they seem to ignore it.

I was looking at an - IEE's work resume, and while seemingly impressive and very heavy, the amount of detail she gave was superfluous and headache inducing.

Sounds like something I would do.

[Codie]

In both SEEs and IEEs polr manifests basically as rationalization through categories instead of ones, so thats why they may seem to exhibit erratic/ illogical behaviour to egos.

[ambivalent existence]

Sounds like something I would do.

the IEE guy I know, he keeps saying things that shows he's very proud of Te use (I personally think it's somewhat inefficient Te, but it's usable), but when he's trying to understand a theory, he keeps mixing up definitions, and gets to rather weird conclusions this way. also I irritate him with Ti behaviour.

added: and yeah, his behaviour is illogical, but I don't mind, I'm ok with him

ps: he's ENFP in MBTI too

[golden]

Thinking of someone I know whom I type ENFp ... when I've spoken with her, she has gotten frustrated if I speak of any kind of analytical categorization, when I have criticized a book she recommended bc it was not professionally done and there was no proof of its claims (her argument was that it accorded with her experience), and when I used words she was not fully familiar with. Not sure if those are Ti polr things, but I thought they might be.

[anndelise]

Ti polr = Fi creative = Te hidden agenda = Fe demonstrative
A good description, imo, would include how all these work together. (i'm not saying the following is good, though)

Draws connections between things, people, events, and ideas based on the emotional/cognitive impact they carry; rather than how they might be abstractly or explicitely connected. For example, venn diagram type categorizations would likely be created based on how the items impact a person/being...such as attraction/repulsion, or intensity of reaction, rather than being based on explicit properties that the items might share/differ on. Would also likely have difficulty creating hierarchical categories, finding ones that deal with intensity or personal importance easier to handle.

Would likely interpret most categorizations which exclude emotional/cognitive impacts as being flawed or untrustworthy. But, may accept some theoretical e/c categories IF they reflect personal experiences (or personal stories of such shared by others). However, if experiences do not match the theory, or the theory overlooks experiences in its attempts to simplify itself, then the theoretical categorizations are dismissed as being unreflective of 'reality' (or unlikely to accurately reflect reality).

Would prefer to perceive what's going on and draw their own conclusions rather than be told to accept someone else's judgment/conclusion. If given nothing but the conclusion, will likely ask a variety of questions to aid themselves in grasping the incident...and enough to draw ther own conclusion.

Seeks to gain a variety of experiences, often jumping amongst some favored interests depending on mood of the moment. *If cannot gain personal experience, then will seek the stories of others' experiences as a way of adding data from which to draw from. Would also be willing to tell of personal experiences or discuss them with others... Both as a way of discovering more variety of things, but also to help add to the data from which others can draw from. More details included in these stories might add more data, as long as the details are related to emotional/cognitive impact of some kind, and/or relate to the listener's interests.

Would likely get bored or agitated if around too much 'ungrounded' theory. May need to ask others if they've interpreted something the same way, or if their own interpretation of it is accurate. Or may just flat out throw their hands in the air and say "Fuck It!", depending on how important they feel it is for themselves to understand it or not.

Are fairly likely to make 'logical' errors due to not following explicit rules of 'logic' or difficulty grasping how/why something might be logically erred. For example, may consider the history/relationships of the speaker as relevant, rather than limiting focus to what the speaker is saying. May do 'logical' errors such as poisoning the well, or red herrings.

This does not mean that they cannot learn about these, nor find ways to avoid doing these themselves. But are probably more likely than other types to fall for these kinds of tricks. This might lead them to presenting rather flawed arguments, and/or feeling frustrated at knowing the other person is playing some kind of game, but not sure what game, nor how to resolve/bypass it.

This weakness might also lead them to believing 'weird' ideas/assertions presented to them. Particularly if they trust the person, or if it references experiences they've had. They may not catch many of the 'logical' errors contained in the presentation, and thus accept its conclusions and/or categorizations. (Think of many of the New Age ideas.)

[Suz]

The one thing that immediately makes me suspect polr ( in -IEE's anyway ) are either huge walls of text, using lots of details and mentioning loads of other possibilites - when what they're saying could be summed up with 80% less writing. It's like some want to give ALLL the details in case they miss something. I don't really see their behaviour as "illogical" cause so is mine , but I apreciate logical structure and they seem to ignore it.

I was looking at an - IEE's work resume, and while seemingly impressive and very heavy, the amount of detail she gave was superfluous and headache inducing.

I've driven some people crazy with this very behavior... I guess they were Ti-seekers or Ti-doms.. I actually got yelled at by one supervisor for doing so. Meanwhile I'm like, why does he NOT want to know all this???

[anndelise]

One thing I've noticed is that if you tell them a general trend, even if you clearly state that it's general and doesn't always apply, they keep bringing up exceptions and seem to think the rule is useless if any exceptions exist

Wouldn't that be more of an Ni vs Ne thing?

Edited to add: maybe it would depend on whether one is referring to a dynamic cause-effect trend or a static rule/reason

Really, the rule/trend would be as useless as there are exceptions: the more exceptions that exist, the less useful the supposed rule/trend.

Edited to add again, lol (what I'd said was bothering me in the shower): it might be a trend/rule that XeFi types have an easier time adapting their perceptions to accommodate exceptions, than other types. SeFi more so based on personal experiences, less so based on others' stories. While NeFi based on both. ?Maybe?

[Raver]

What does Ti-PoLR (Point of Least Resistance) look like in real life? If anyone has any videos showing something along the lines of it manifesting, I'd be highly interested to see.

I already made this thread here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin.../36597-Ti-PoLR

[HandiAce]

Thinking of someone I know whom I type ENFp ... when I've spoken with her, she has gotten frustrated if I speak of any kind of analytical categorization, when I have criticized a book she recommended bc it was not professionally done and there was no proof of its claims (her argument was that it accorded with her experience), and when I used words she was not fully familiar with. Not sure if those are Ti polr things, but I thought they might be.

Interesting. I tend to trust people's reasoning so when people take cracks at other's reasoning even when the reasoning is sound from my perspective, it annoys me. Especially when there is no agreement.

[Beautiful sky]

Not being able to follow or appreciate other people's analysis of things.

[Slacker]

Not being able to follow or appreciate other people's analysis of things.

Yeah, I can think of a lot of reasons other than Ti PoLR than that, mainly that the analysis is sucky beyond measure.

[Suz]

They are both subjective and they both try to fill in holes where information is incomplete. I remember my sister asking my LSI brother-in-law who was the president of the US at a certain time, which is a fact, but since he didn't really know, he didn't say "I don't know" instead he assumed, and was wrong.

I HATE this sort of thing...misinformation... I've found that Ti-HAs are the WORST about doing this. I'm like hey if you dont know, just say you dont know and i'll go look it up or ask someone else, why give me bad info??

Then, when I am asked something and i dont know the answer, such people look down upon me for saying "i dont know", but how else will i find out, i mean i wont learn if i keep going around pretending like i know everything...

[Galen]

One thing I've noticed is that if you tell them a general trend, even if you clearly state that it's general and doesn't always apply, they keep bringing up exceptions and seem to think the rule is useless if any exceptions exist

I find myself doing this unless it's stated by the person saying that it doesn't always apply to every situation.

The one thing that immediately makes me suspect polr ( in -IEE's anyway ) are either huge walls of text, using lots of details and mentioning loads of other possibilites - when what they're saying could be summed up with 80% less writing. It's like some want to give ALLL the details in case they miss something. I don't really see their behaviour as "illogical" cause so is mine , but I apreciate logical structure and they seem to ignore it.

I don't think that I ignore logical structure as much as I can't follow logic that's never actually stated. What I find with types is that there's a seeming enveloping of connections embedded within whatever statement is made, and that the statement as it exists by itself isn't as important as the things hidden within it, or "implied" if you will. There's an implicit sense of something underneath the immediate surface of what's presented, whereas I'm much more wont to see the statement as a thing in and of itself and take it as it is.

This shouldn't be to say that I expect or appreciate massive walls of text in order to get every tiny detail down (anybody else remember n1cole?). I feel myself to have the mental capacity to connect the dots myself given what I've learned so far in life.

[Park]

The one thing that immediately makes me suspect polr ( in -IEE's anyway ) are either huge walls of text, using lots of details and mentioning loads of other possibilites - when what they're saying could be summed up with 80% less writing. It's like some want to give ALLL the details in case they miss something. I don't really see their behaviour as "illogical" cause so is mine , but I apreciate logical structure and they seem to ignore it.

I was looking at an - IEE's work resume, and while seemingly impressive and very heavy, the amount of detail she gave was superfluous and headache inducing.

No, that's how ESFj's present information. They can't discern what is relevant and what irrelevant information, so they spew it all onto their Ti-IJ dual to give it structure and help make sense out of it.

[Park]

What I find with types is that there's a seeming enveloping of connections embedded within whatever statement is made, and that the statement as it exists by itself isn't as important as the things hidden within it, or "implied" if you will. There's an implicit sense of something underneath the immediate surface of what's presented, whereas I'm much more wont to see the statement as a thing in and of itself and take it as it is.

I think the same analogy can be drawn for Fi types, as seen from a Ti POV. Fe valuers will tend to ignore any "implied" Fi meanings/messages, until things like subjective feelings, interpersonal dynamics, and ethical principles are clearly expressed and out in the open.

[Radio]

One thing I've noticed is that if you tell them a general trend, even if you clearly state that it's general and doesn't always apply, they keep bringing up exceptions and seem to think the rule is useless if any exceptions exist

The person I know who does this the most is SEE, and it's in term of legal doctrine. I guess it's more like she has difficulty working out when a rule should apply and when it shouldn't, and therefore brings up lots of situations where it shouldn't apply for various reasons and holds them up as examples of how the rule fails, even though it's not failing, just not applicable. Maybe it's a problem with being bad at categorisation. Another SEE I know also does this with scientific principles.

Yeah.

There might be some overlap with Ne/Si, but I think this is predominantly an Fi theme, having an aversion towards rules-of-thumb and axioms (think type-related stereotypes).

[ambivalent existence]

I think the same analogy can be drawn for Fi types, as seen from a Ti POV. Fe valuers will tend to ignore any "implied" Fi meanings/messages, until things like subjective feelings, interpersonal dynamics, and ethical principles are clearly expressed and out in the open.

I think you are right, I tend to ignore all that stuff. I can understand some of that stuff from a Ti viewpoint, but it's just somehow something I can't truly feel myself "inside", distant.

also, when such Fi things are being implied, I can sometimes get half-consciously aware if it's something which I should take into account, but I'm unsure to act on it even if it gets conscious to me that something's probably up. somehow it's too indefinite and easily drops out of consciousness or something.

some nice EII's have managed to make some of these things more understood for me on some level, yet I'm unsure to use that knowledge in a Fi way. even if I actually try, I can "feel" some obstacle internally that prevents me from really doing so and I'll just fall back on Ti then.

guess this is how a PoLR looks like then..interesting to imagine Ti-PoLR this way

[Suz]

No, that's how ESFj's present information. They can't discern what is relevant and what irrelevant information, so they spew it all onto their Ti-IJ dual to give it structure and help make sense out of it.

How does everyone feel about this hypothesis? I've been meeting some SLIs that are just lazy losers lately, so i'm starting to think maybe I really am ESE...

[Slacker]

I spew excess information, maybe in the way of tangents more than anything else. But hmm maybe just irrelevant information too.

[ashlesha]

How does everyone feel about this hypothesis? I've been meeting some SLIs that are just lazy losers lately, so i'm starting to think maybe I really am ESE...

in my view with eses its every little detail and with iees its whatever comes to mind maybe missing some details.

in your case you know I've liked ese for you for awhile.

[Suz]

in my view with eses its every little detail and with iees its whatever comes to mind maybe missing some details.

in your case you know I've liked ese for you for awhile.

Well actually hmmm i do relate more to "whatever comes to mind maybe missing some details". Who knows... i'm not discounting the fact that maybe the guys i thought were my duals might actually have been LIIs. But I guess as long as i know what i'm looking for, i dont really need a socionic type to define that for me. I guess that's what socionics is all about anyway, attempting to describe the choices we would make naturally regardless of definition.


Oh i had to look up your username history... yeah i know how you feel about me. and I think you know how I feel about you.

[Red Villain]

Those people on your news-feed who constantly assure us they hate/do not fit into labels/boxes.

[aixelsyd]

What's been said: unnecessary details, dislike of being labeled and labeling, difficulty in wording things in a way that appears logically correct and not sounding stupid, following intricate detailed thinking of a systematic nature, making and sticking to impartial decisions that are rule-based.