User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 237

Thread: The PoLR Thread

  1. #171
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    "In simple terminology"

    Suggestive: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the lead (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously
    Anima/Animus: Valued in opposite or attracted-to-sex, Positive influence to the dominant (with negative overtones when ego clinging), Desirable unconsciously

    Of course, you will refute this because you can't come to terms with the fact that you are wrong.

    My turn:

    Objective Evidence for Vulnerable = Inferior. Now. No personal relation. Give me mechanics and impartial knowledge.
    Jung says anima animus is what we crave in opposite sex but;

    Who says suggestive function is valued in opposite sex? Where does this information come from?

    Another question is whether the things that you are citing are based on objective data or subjective interpretation?

    What evidence did Jung have when he conceptualized archetypes?

    This is what I understand:

    Jung -> Functions and archetypes a> MBTI
    b> Socionics
    c> Beebe

    Are all three models the same? Which one is the most accurate? Are they compatible?

  2. #172
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Jung says anima animus is what we crave in opposite sex but;

    Who says suggestive function is valued in opposite sex? Where does this information come from?
    EVERYWHERE. Duality in Socionics, Opposite Sexual Preference for both the Antihero Complex and the Anima/Animus Complex based on Beebe's analysis of Jung's work, and Jung himself stated that the inferior is a type's Anima/Animus, that which must be come to terms with and realized as a true desire/part of you.

    They are based off of objective data. You can tell because I'm not personally relating to these constructs and am citing specific evidence (such as the Anima/Animus information from Eric B's analysis of the Beebe's Model). You, on the other hand, can't seem to base anything off of any objective data.

    And now we are going to question the evidence that Jung had? You have nothing.

    Jung's Archetypes -> Beebe Model, Jungian Cognitive Functions, and MBTI
    Jung's Archetypes -> Socionics

    Most Accurate -> Socionics + Beebe's Model
    Somewhat Accurate -> Jungian Anarchic System
    Not Accurate whatsoever -> MBTI.

    Compatibility:
    Socionics Model A = Beebe's Model
    Jungian Anarchic System's Cognitive Functions = Socionics IM Elements
    MBTI =/= Socinoics
    Jungian Anarchic System under Beebe's Model = Socionics.

    Now, please, EVIDENCE for Vulnerable = Inferior.

  3. #173
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    EVERYWHERE. Duality in Socionics, Opposite Sexual Preference for both the Antihero Complex and the Anima/Animus Complex based on Beebe's analysis of Jung's work, and Jung himself stated that the inferior is a type's Anima/Animus, that which must be come to terms with and realized as a true desire/part of you.
    Show me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    They are based off of objective data. You can tell because I'm not personally relating to these constructs and am citing specific evidence (such as the Anima/Animus information from Eric B's analysis of the Beebe's Model). You, on the other hand, can't seem to base anything off of any objective data.
    How are they based on objective data? What kind of sample group did Eric B use in his analysis? Or are you just citing someone else's subjective interpretation of the archetypes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    And now we are going to question the evidence that Jung had? You have nothing.
    I am trying to understand how you define objective data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Jung's Archetypes -> Beebe Model, Jungian Cognitive Functions, and MBTI
    Jung's Archetypes -> Socionics

    Most Accurate -> Socionics + Beebe's Model
    Somewhat Accurate -> Jungian Anarchic System
    Not Accurate whatsoever -> MBTI.
    How did you ascertain this?

    Now, please, EVIDENCE for Vulnerable = Inferior.
    I have only 1 person in my sampling group. He says that his inferior function is Se in MBTI and he craves it in the opposite sex, therefore his inferior function = anima animus. He also tests as INFj in socionics, whose Vulnerable function = Se. Therefore Vulnerable function = inferior function.

    You call this subjective data. What I wonder is how all these model developers checked the accuracy of their model and why you regard their analysis to be based on objective data.

    You can increase the sampling group by 1 by analyzing what you crave in the opposite sex and what you loathe in the same sex and by checking whether they are the same and which function it corresponds to in INTp (Which you type yourself as in socionics.)

  4. #174
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    I have only 1 person in my sampling group. He says that his inferior function is Se in MBTI and he craves it in the opposite sex, therefore his inferior function = anima animus. He also tests as INFj in socionics, whose Vulnerable function = Se. Therefore Vulnerable function = inferior function.
    That isn't credible evidence. Personal experience or relation is NOT evidence, because you don't realize that you can be wrong. In fact, this is the very epitome of Te PoLR, and the only true reasons I can see for you holding on to INFj is that you truly believe you value impartial evidence (which obviously isn't the case) and that you "test" as it, which is another form of personal experience (I personally test as INFj, therefore I must be one, not I might be an INFj because I tested as one). The only good reason I can see you clinging to it is that you desperately want to be proven right that INFJ = INFj, and the only way you can do that is by claiming that you are some magical anomaly, which isn't evidence, and which is a logical fallacy. (specifically under the tree of Anecdotal Evidence, a favorite among Te PoLR's.)

    Show me IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE or information that justifies it, and I will bow, otherwise, you are wrong, and I am right, as I have provided perfect evidence for my case that Suggestive = Inferior (that you can't comprehend apparently because its not in "simple-enough terms")*.

    *A.K.A, It doesn't line up with what I feel it should be or my own personal experience. (or Te PoLR)

    I can also prove you aren't Te Suggestive.

  5. #175
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    That isn't credible evidence. Personal experience or relation is NOT evidence, because you don't realize that you can be wrong. In fact, this is the very epitome of Te PoLR, and the only true reasons I can see for you holding on to INFj is that you truly believe you value impartial evidence (which obviously isn't the case) and that you "test" as it, which is another form of personal experience (I personally test as INFj, therefore I must be one, not I might be an INFj because I tested as one). The only good reason I can see you clinging to it is that you desperately want to be proven right that INFJ = INFj, and the only way you can do that is by claiming that you are some magical anomaly, which isn't evidence, and which is a logical fallacy. (specifically under the tree of Anecdotal Evidence, a favorite among Te PoLR's.)

    Show me IMPARTIAL EVIDENCE or information that justifies it, and I will bow, otherwise, you are wrong, and I am right, as I have provided perfect evidence for my case that Suggestive = Inferior (that you can't comprehend apparently because its not in "simple-enough terms")*.

    *A.K.A, It doesn't line up with what I feel it should be or my own personal experience. (or Te PoLR)
    I am trying to condense this down to simple terms and you keep expanding it, which is bogging me down.

    You didn't provide evidence that suggestive = inferior. You just cited someone else's interpretation about anima animus and then made your own subejctive interpretation as to how that connects to vulnerable function and inferior.

    We have jung's own interpretation of anima = A

    We have socionics definition of suggestive function = B

    We have the term inferior = C

    By C, I mean the inferior (4th) function in MBTI. Clarify if you mean something else.

    In simple terms, show (by external quotes or other means) that A = B = C.

    *****

    ANIMA

    INxJ's might feel inferior with current tangible experience.

    How we project it onto others:

    INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize SP's as reckless
    This is talking about Se for INxJs. I don't think there's any doubt about Se being anima arhcetype for INxJs, therefore Anima = Inferior function (in MBTI I guess)

    This is not about my type being INxJ. This is coming from Eric's page (which is another subjective interpretation) yet I can confirm the validity of Se being my anima and affecting me in the way Jung conceptualized it.

    If we move on to socionics, we are faced with the dilemma as to which type INxJs correspond to in socionics. If we can ascertain that, we can easily find which function in socionics Se corresponds to.

    Based on type descriptions, I can confidently say that INxJ = INxj. You say it is rather INxp and disregard type descriptions.

    So the deadlock is at the conversion. Why do you assert that INxJ = INxp? How can we confirm whether the conversion holds true?

  6. #176
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    You didn't provide evidence that suggestive = inferior. You just cited someone else's interpretation about anima animus and then made your own subejctive interpretation as to how that connects to vulnerable function and inferior.
    Someone else who is three times more credible than both of us combined. Not only that, but my major source of evidence from that description was Beren's quotation, which is about 15 times more credible than his. This evidence is a just analysis of the model, and if you don't think so, you should have a little chat with him. @Eric B

    The only evidence it would seem you have for your case is that my evidence is somehow flawed, when your own evidence that you butchered was of even less credible subjective reasoning (whereas mine was reasonable interpretations of evidence gathered on the case of the information). You don't apparently trust the work of people who have actually studied and learned the system, instead preferring your own little relation to things you barely understand, and this, right here, is the absolutely epitome of Te PoLR, and the fact that you don't see it makes me realize how terrible you are at typology systems.

    The Burden of Proof is on you. I have provided evidence against your claim, when I should have asked you to begin with to provide evidence for your own claim (that Vulnerable = Inferior), so you can't just selectively shoot it down because you don't think its how you personally relate or you can somehow magically claim that the evidence provided is subjective so you can hold on to your completely illogical stance.

    So, Why is the Vulnerable the Inferior, and Why is INxj the INxJ (and it better have reasonable associations, and not just "this description kind of seems like this")?

  7. #177
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Someone else who is three times more credible than both of us combined. Not only that, but my major source of evidence from that description was Beren's quotation, which is about 15 times more credible than his. This evidence is a just analysis of the model, and if you don't think so, you should have a little chat with him. @Eric B

    The only evidence it would seem you have for your case is that my evidence is somehow flawed, when your own evidence that you butchered was of even less credible subjective reasoning (whereas mine was reasonable interpretations of evidence gathered on the case of the information). You don't apparently trust the work of people who have actually studied and learned the system, instead preferring your own little relation to things you barely understand, and this, right here, is the absolutely epitome of Te PoLR, and the fact that you don't see it makes me realize how terrible you are at typology systems.

    The Burden of Proof is on you. I have provided evidence against your claim, when I should have asked you to begin with to provide evidence for your own claim (that Vulnerable = Inferior), so you can't just selectively shoot it down because you don't think its how you personally relate or you can somehow magically claim that the evidence provided is subjective so you can hold on to your completely illogical stance.

    So, Why is the Vulnerable the Inferior, and Why is INxj the INxJ (and it better have reasonable associations, and not just "this description kind of seems like this")?
    Why is he 3 times more credible? Why is Beren 15 times more credible?

    Beren's quotation?

    My proof is in the descriptions yet you disregard them. How else can one make a comparison between the types in the two system, that I don't know. Function order-wise, the models are not compatible. They are compatible description-wise.

    So I cannot understand how people assert j-p conversion between the two systems. There must be a common language for conversion between the two systems and if that's not type descriptions, then that must be the functions. To make the functions compatible, one has to assign different order to socionics functions, which is what you did using Beebe's model I guess. You also changed Beebe's function order in the process I guess. To sum it up, you correlated MBTI function order and Beebe archetypes with socionics function order, on assumption that j-p conversion holds true.

    By arbitrarily assigning correlation between MBTI function order and socionics function order, one creates a false correlation on assumption that j-p converison holds true. But where's the external evidence that j-p conversion holds true? What's that based on? Where's the evidence for that? And how can it be verified?

  8. #178
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Why is he 3 times more credible? Why is Beren 15 times more credible?

    Beren's quotation?

    My proof is in the descriptions yet you disregard them. How else can one make a comparison between the types in the two system, that I don't know. Function order-wise, the models are not compatible. They are compatible description-wise.

    So I cannot understand how people assert j-p conversion between the two systems. There must be a common language for conversion between the two systems and if that's not type descriptions, then that must be the functions. To make the functions compatible, one has to assign different order to socionics functions, which is what you did using Beebe's model I guess. You also changed Beebe's function order in the process I guess. To sum it up, you correlated MBTI function order and Beebe archetypes with socionics function order, on assumption that j-p conversion holds true.

    By arbitrarily assigning correlation between MBTI function order and socionics function order, one creates a false correlation on assumption that j-p converison holds true. But where's the external evidence that j-p conversion holds true? What's that based on? Where's the evidence for that? And how can it be verified?
    One, because Eric B has studied psychology for a long time, and two because Beren had a doctorate in psychology and studied it intensively.

    Your proof being in the descriptions forces you to come to the assumption that personal relation is the best way to find a correlation, when it is not. Instead of linking two systems by how you identify in each one, you must link two systems by how they identify with each other. You don't get to be an infallible piece of evidence where anything you relate to goes, as that can be wrong easily. You do not get to say the Anima is the Vulnerable function because you think you have Se Anima and Se Vulnerable, you have to find the precise mechanics of why the Vulnerable Function is the Anima in both systems independent of how you feel about or relate to it.

    If we were to eliminate your subjective bias relations, then we are left with:
    Anima: Weak, Valued, Unconscious (influence), Attraction to this information.
    Suggestive: Weak, Valued, Unconscious influence, Attraction to this information.
    Vulnerable: Weak, Unvalued, Consciously realized, Ignorant and Disregard of this information.

    And the comparison is easy, but you insist that the only way to find a correlation is by personal relation into two separate systems, which is wrong.

    So, your argument against the j/p switch is that the function order isn't perfect? That the functions are still the same functions just put in different places somehow makes the two systems entirely different?

    Lead - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
    Dominant - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Self-oriented (or Accepting)

    Creative - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Producing
    Auxiliary - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Other-oriented (or Producing)

    Role - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
    Demon - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged (though described to be in the shadow complexes and thus a manifestation of the Freudian unconscious*), Self-Oriented

    Vulnerable - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Producing
    Trickster - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged*, Other-Oriented

    Suggestive - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
    Inferior - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

    Mobilizing - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Producing
    Tertiary - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence (though more conscious command than Inferior), Other-Oriented

    Ignoring - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
    Antihero - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

    Demonstrative - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Producing
    Critical Parent - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Other-Oriented

    Look, they even share common properties.

  9. #179
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    One, because Eric B has studied psychology for a long time, and two because Beren's had a doctorate in psychology and studied it intensively.

    Your proof being in the descriptions forces you to come to the assumption that personal relation is the best way to find a correlation, when it is not. Instead of linking two systems by how you identify in each one, you must link two systems by how they identify with each other. You don't get to be an infallible piece of evidence where anything you relate to goes, as that can be wrong easily. You do not get to say the Anima is the Vulnerable function because you think you have Se Anima and Se Vulnerable, you have to find the precise mechanics of why the Vulnerable Function is the Anima in both systems independent of how you feel about or relate to it.

    If we were to eliminate your subjective bias relations, then we are left with:
    Anima: Weak, Valued, Unconscious (influence), Attraction to this information.
    Suggestive: Weak, Valued, Unconscious influence, Attraction to this information.
    Vulnerable: Weak, Unvalued, Consciously realized, Ignorant and Disregard of this information.

    And the comparison is easy, but you insist that the only way to find a correlation is by personal relation into two separate systems, which is wrong.

    So, your argument against the j/p switch is that the function order isn't perfect? That the functions are still the same functions just put in different places somehow makes the two systems entirely different?

    Lead - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
    Dominant - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Self-oriented (or Accepting)

    Creative - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Producing
    Auxiliary - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Other-oriented (or Producing)

    Role - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
    Demon - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged (though described to be in the shadow complexes and thus a manifestation of the Freudian unconscious*), Self-Oriented

    Vulnerable - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Producing
    Trickster - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged*, Other-Oriented

    Suggestive - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
    Inferior - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

    Mobilizing - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Producing
    Tertiary - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence (though more conscious command than Inferior), Other-Oriented

    Ignoring - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
    Antihero - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented

    Demonstrative - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Producing
    Critical Parent - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Other-Oriented

    Look, they even share common properties.
    I don't know where you get the traits for Beebe's model to compare it to socionics model. However, check the table here:

    NC Research Triangle Chapter

    My understanding is that Lead - Hero, Creative - Good Parent, Role - Child, Vulnerable - Anima, Suggestive - Trickster (this is clearly the trickster, even the names match), Mobilizing - Demon, Ignoring - Antihero, Demonstrative - Critical Parent.

    By conscious use I think the model means normal functions and unconscious the shadow functions. So suggestive, Mobilizing, Ignoring and Demonstrative form the shadow self. These are Te, Si, Ne and Fi for INFJ and they make INFJ's shadow ENFP.

    And how about the function order for MBTI? Cause you also related socionics functions and Beebe's archetypes to MBTI function order. What did you use to do that? Didn't you use MBTI function order for that?

    Here's the thing:

    Function 1 – leading, program, primary, base, or dominant function. This is the strongest conscious function, and the most utilized function of the psyche. A person's outlook and role in life is largely determined by the nature of this function. One is generally very confident in the use of this function, and may defend it when challenged. According to Bukalov, this is 4D function (Ex, No, Si, Ti).

    Ni

    Function 2 – creative or secondary function, is second in influence only to the dominant function. It assists the dominant function in achieving its essence. One is generally less confident with the use of this function than with his dominant function. As a result, the creative function is sometimes less instrumental when a person is challenged or threatened, or when dealing with new and complex tasks and data. According to Bukalov, this function is 3D (Ex, No, Si), or time invariant, because it produces something new which may never exist before.

    Fe

    Function 3 – role function, is a weak but conscious function. One generally tries to be at least adequate in areas where use of the role function is necessary. Moreover, one generally uses it in situations of social adaptation (e.g. introducing themselves to an unknown person). However, generally one has very little control or confidence over the role function, and criticism is painfully acknowledged with respect to it. Tactful assistance is required from someone else's strong function to overcome the problems associated with the role function. According to Bukalov, this function is 2D (Ex, No), or situation invariant, because it cannot adapt to the unusual situation beyond social norms.

    Ti

    Function 4 – the vulnerable function, or place of least resistance, is a weak and conscious function, in addition to being the weakest function of the psyche. One painfully perceives his complete inability to use this function, and reacts negatively to its imposition upon him. Tactful assistance is required from someone else's strong function (preferably the Function 8) to overcome the problems associated with this function. According to Bukalov, this function is single dimensional, i.e. only personal experience is collected here, and it cannot be adapted even to the social norms.

    Se

    Function 5 – suggestive function, is a weak and unconscious function which is largely lacked. One requires assistance from somebody confident in this function in order to overcome the difficulties it presents. When left to ones own devices, the suggestive function goes unnoticed. According to Bukalov, this function is single dimensional, too, and one must be careful not to become subject of manipulation because of misuse of this function. Discussing aspects of this function makes person happy and trustful. (That's why it's called suggestive.)

    Te

    Function 6 – mobilizing function. This is a weak and unconscious function which one often understands poorly. Nonetheless, this function has a strong influence over one's actions. Individuals requires assistance from someone who uses it confidently in order to understand it. Often an individual is only aware that they are totally unaware of how to use this function. At the same time, it's 2D function, so it's capable of collecting a number of easy receipts for daily needs. Being successful in aspects of this function makes one happy and motivated. (That's why it's called mobilizing.)

    Si

    Function 7 – observant, or ignoring, or restricting function, the function of personal knowledge. This is a strong (3D according to Bukalov) but unconscious function. One generally has a good grasp of this function, but attempts to limit its use considerably. Individuals will disregard this function when an argument calls for restraint or when it will be difficult to indulge in its essence. At the same time one uses this function to restrict somebody's intervention to their privacy or territory, or other unsolicited interaction.

    Ne

    Function 8 – demonstrative or background function. This function is so deeply rooted into the psyche that one is usually not consciously aware of its existence or utilization. It is as strong as the leading function (4D according to Bukalov) and it tends to act silently to protect the weakest point of the dual person (see below). It can sound in situations of extreme irritation when the restricting function fails to break the unsolicited influence.

    Fi

    These are my personal functions for socionics functions. That makes me EII, INFj in socionics. And I am telling you, I am INFJ in MBTI. And the type descriptions in both systems do overlap.

    The j-p conversion thing is incorrect.

  10. #180
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    @yeghor What the absolute fuck is telling you that the Vulnerable function is the Inferior function? Is it literally the name? Because that is the only thing in common with it.

    4. Vulnerable function

    The vulnerable function is also called the Point or Place of Least Resistance (PoLR) or sensitive function. The element in this function creates a feeling of frustration and inadequacy. A person does not understand the importance of this element entirely, and it can easily lead to painful consequences if not adequately considered.

    However, to directly engage this function creates feelings of insecurity and distress. One reason why the vulnerable function is so difficult to engage is because three other conscious functions come before it, making this one the most difficult to comprehend. Often an alternative approach may be found from the view of the mobilizing function. Because of the psychological disincentives to using the vulnerable function, people usually try to ignore information related to it, and in extreme cases do so even in situations where it is most relevant. Even with a theoretical understanding of how this element works, it is difficult to turn it into practical norms of behavior. One can "develop" the vulnerable function by recognizing that it is actually important in certain real-life circumstances. Even if the subject recognizes this, he will still usually try to avoid taking responsibility for it himself, or develop a minimalist or non-traditional approach (possibly using other functions) that is enough to satisfy one's own needs. The presence of a dual usually dissolves any concern there might be about how to approach matters of the vulnerable function.

    Some examples:

    A type with PoLR Fe (ILI and SLI) does not see the point of activities revolving around excessive displays of emotion or behavior that does not reach a concrete or tangible outcome. They would rather keep conversations serious and to the point, for he/she is overwhelmed by such emotional expression, making it quite difficult to express themselves. In social interactions they will make a serious effort to reduce their level of emotive expressiveness such as being too joyful or sad, believing that showing these signs will make them vulnerable to be influenced by others. They don't hold quite a high standard for how people as a group feel about something (even if outnumbered by many when making a personal decision), and instead value situations where they can speak their own subjective opinions and feelings freely. (Does this sound like Fucking Fe inferior and valued?)

    A type with PoLR Ne (LSI and ESI) has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits, and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future. When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities. (Does this sound like Ne Inferior/valued?)

    A type with PoLR (EIE and LIE) has little patience for sitting back and focusing on how they can physically better themselves in the moment, especially if they are involved in what they view as a very important matter. They would much rather try to act on their long-term priorities instead of their physical comfort, resulting in problems such as an inability to be aware or care about present realities, failure to realize the physical or mental strains they are placing on themselves, and being generally unable to relax and take the focus off of their long-term pursuits. (Does this sound like Si inferior/valued?)

    A type with PoLR (SEI and IEI) tends to reject facts given from a source which they are personally unfamiliar with, firmly believing they can make their own decisions that are solely based on their own perspective and reasoning about it. They will tend to become defensive when questioned about their rationale or efficiency, pointing out that there is no such thing as objective "fact". Also, these types experience a significant level of stress in tending to day-to-day must do's and responsibilities in life (like routine maintenance or working productively), manifesting itself as a general laziness or hyper-diligence. (Oh, look, it's you. This doesn't sound like a valued inferior either, I'm afraid)
    Why would the inferior, something which is only negative in the smaller sense and positive in the larger view of the self, be branded as something that is the anathema of the type? Why does type theory tell you to get into touch with your less conscious functions, then, if it correlated with a function that is meant to never be understood, trusted, or revered?

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] The haiku thread...
    By anii in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 01-22-2017, 11:03 PM
  2. The Beer Thread
    By Noel in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 309
    Last Post: 02-03-2010, 12:07 PM
  3. The GHOST thread
    By swordpath in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 08:47 AM
  4. The Hundredth Thread
    By Rajah in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 12:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO