User Tag List

First 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 237

Thread: The PoLR Thread

  1. #201
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    First off, you didn't read the entire line of expression. It is said they expressed enthusiasm physically and expressed emotions to others in an outward way. Extroverted Feeling is pouring feelings and emotions into the environment (usually aimed at achieving a goal of Pi, Si-Fe would be expressing emotions to make others comfortable and in a comfortable emotional atmosphere) while Introverted Feeling is keeping feelings and emotions in the self while exploring them and deeping them.



    Nope. That's Fe. Fi turns feelings toward physical expression (as in art, music, etc.) and abstract ideas (as is in the concept of love, the concept of despair, or even ideas in general, an attitude towards them). Fe is readily expressing emotions through body language and being highly open about your emotions and your realistic feeling towards stimuli. The difference is rather easy to tell, when winning a valuable award or reward, the Fe user will usually shout with joy and enthusiasm (pouring emotions outward), while the Fi user will usually feel good internally and remain pleasant and calm on the outside (except in cases where there is an Fi-Se mechanism, where perhaps physical expression will be shared, but not really with emotions, such as an angry xNTJ, who will bottle up emotions internally but end up having their internal emotions manifest into a physical compulsion to impose their will on the environment with, for example, punching something, while keeping their anger internalized*).


    Please do. I severely doubt your judgement.



    Oh, look at that, you took the bait. Dynamic-Static isn't a quality of the Jungian Functions. You don't know what you are talking about.

    Do you remember those shitty "Ah-ha" moment descriptions for Ni? Did you ever think that perhaps there was a reason behind them? It's not because they get the general idea of a concept, it is that they get the general idea of what is happening around them or what they are seeing.

    In Socionics, we have Static-Dynamic to explain these things.
    , is a static function, meaning that it provides the "Ah-ha" moment for static ideas. Like explaining to them how an engine works. You have to wait for it to all click as they look at it from several different angles mentally, and they just immediately understand how an engine works. They see all of the different parts of the engine in their mind, and they see how they each move to create the whole. This is a static construction. They see hypothetical properties of hypothetical things (Ne) and see how it might work in the dynamics of the environment (Si). This is Ne/Si axis

    , is a dynamic function, meaning that it provides the "Ah-ha" moment for dynamic situations and ideas. They will see physical properties of things in the immediate present (Se) and interpret it in the larger scale of things that is hypothetically happening around them (Ni). Seeing a dent on the right side of a car, for instance, can be derived to mean that the car was hit turning left, meaning that the fault was probably the driver's judgement abilities of the car's relative speed coming straight and his window to turn left. Furthermore, it can then be derived that if the person is sensible, then he will most likely be much more cautious when turning left on intersections. Ni weaves a perception for that which has a physical manifestation, explaining it, and explaining what that property will lead to. This is why Ni users are said to be able to grasp at patterns that others can't see (and why they are often denoted as natural strategists), because they are immersed in the immaterial, dynamic patterns that can give them an advantage of seeing what comes next. Thus, they are immersed in these patterns (), and piece those patterns together by physical details (static constants in the physical environment). This is / axis.

    Reducing static concepts and hypothetical immediate possibilities down to a single general idea is the doing of Ne.
    Reducing dynamic concepts and hypothetical circumstances down to a single general idea is the doing of Ni.

    This is another reason why xNxJ's are described as being patient, as they can intuitively sense the changing of the winds in the patterns. They know what to wait for, and if they are confident enough, they can act on them easily and strike not with force but with finesse. An example of this would probably be two INTJ's plotting the others' demise, such as the story-line between Walter White and Gus Fring in Breaking Bad, as they both are able to realize the other's plans on an incredible level and avoid danger while simultaneously knowing when to strike.



    It may look like dynamic turns of events, but unlike the INxJ casting their pattern sail, the ENxP's see the immediate potential of ideas, and instead of casting a sail, bring a boat with oars to paddle not where the patterns take them, but where they think they should go. This is why ENxP's always have a "let's" attitude toward ideas, as any kind of immediate potential to do something excites them. They want to act on anything with potential, and this is why they are entrepreneurs, they can see the relative worth of an idea as a constant, whereas the INxJ's can see the relative worth of an idea in the long run.



    Because type descriptions are written by people, and people are terrible judges of character, and are apt at being wrong. The "Descriptions" are based on what the writer thinks a sociotype acts like, preferring to make assumptions about a sociotype's lifestyle instead of sticking to the mechanical model, explaining how they work and not how they probably work. For instance, an LSI description says that LSI's should be hard-working diligent individuals because of how works (the need to be doing something). What they don't realize is that is the motivation to do what the sociotype wants to do, so the sociotype might be rather lazy when dealing with tasks they don't want to do in real life, thus leading them to disbelieve they are an LSI because of that very line. Model A is the system, the descriptions are excess bullshit that can be interpreted to mean anything.


    I didn't write them off because they don't fit with the j-p conversion (which they can be interpreted to actually fit with j-p conversion, because type descriptions are ambiguous in specificity). I wrote them off because type descriptions in general, suck.



    Socionics is a construction of Ti, the type descriptions are a product of the Model and interviews with people who supposedly fit the model at the time Socionics was created.

    *The silent angry types, when they are angry, they stop speaking, and immediately try to break something to demonstrate their anger in a creative (Se) fashion.
    Why did you put this on me again?

    I tell you to check it with others, you tell me back to do the same?

    Type descriptions has to come before the system, just like horoscope descriptions. The planet positions mechanics to explain those patterns must have beeb formed later on.

    you don't have a doubtful mind. That's not a Ni approach. You approach this whole disvussion from an angle of whp's better more knowledgable. You are not after knowlwdge but ending up victorious in a decision. You get in the defensive and start flailing your Ne as to how yoy are not wrong.

    Are you gonna ask for others' feedback as to socionics type descriptiıns' equivalents in MBTI system or arenyou expecting me to do that and will you barge in to congratulate me again if I do that?

    Cut the onus is on you crap and detach yourself feom infornation and start being more inquisitive and cooperative.

  2. #202
    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 did you put this on me again?

    I tell you to check it with others, you tell me back to do the same?

    Type descriptions has to come before the system, just like horoscope descriptions. The planet positions mechanics to explain those patterns must have beeb formed later on.

    you don't have a doubtful mind. That's not a Ni approach. You approach this whole disvussion from an angle of whp's better more knowledgable. You are not after knowlwdge but ending up victorious in a decision. You get in the defensive and start flailing your Ne as to how yoy are not wrong.

    Are you gonna ask for others' feedback as to socionics type descriptiıns' equivalents in MBTI system or arenyou expecting me to do that and will you barge in to congratulate me again if I do that?

    Cut the onus is on you crap and detach yourself feom infornation and start being more inquisitive and cooperative.
    None of this is even remotely coherent.

    you don't have a doubtful mind. That's not a Ni approach. You approach this whole disvussion from an angle of whp's better more knowledgable. You are not after knowlwdge but ending up victorious in a decision. You get in the defensive and start flailing your Ne as to how yoy are not wrong.
    Actually it rather is my Ni, as I am clutching to my woven perception of the entire system and how it fits perfectly and deriding the individual who has put together the puzzle wrong. I am not after knowledge in this conversation because you can't provide me with anything I don't already know, all you can provide me with is your absurd interpretation of the knowledge you present. I am also not in the defensive, as I am debasing your absurd claims, which would be on the theoretical offensive.

    Cut the onus is on you crap and detach yourself feom infornation and start being more inquisitive and cooperative.
    I do that with people who actually know what they are talking about. Also, nice projection, since you were the person to originally define the system based on your personal relation.

    Are you gonna ask for others' feedback as to socionics type descriptiıns' equivalents in MBTI system or arenyou expecting me to do that and will you barge in to congratulate me again if I do that?
    I'm not the one who needs to prove your interpretations. If you make a claim, you must provide the evidence for it, not me.

  3. #203
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    None of this is even remotely coherent.



    Actually it rather is my Ni, as I am clutching to my woven perception of the entire system and how it fits perfectly and deriding the individual who has put together the puzzle wrong. I am not after knowledge in this conversation because you can't provide me with anything I don't already know, all you can provide me with is your absurd interpretation of the knowledge you present. I am also not in the defensive, as I am debasing your absurd claims, which would be on the theoretical offensive.



    I do that with people who actually know what they are talking about. Also, nice projection, since you were the person to originally define the system based on your personal relation.



    I'm not the one who needs to prove your interpretations. If you make a claim, you must provide the evidence for it, not me.
    I don't think anybody in the forum cares as much as I do or you do about socionics.

  4. #204
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    I'm not the one who needs to prove your interpretations. If you make a claim, you must provide the evidence for it, not me.
    To explain (in as plain of terms as possible):

    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  5. #205
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chubber View Post
    Perhaps it will place it in context for @yeghor when he reads this.

    Socionics Model A



    edit:
    One has to keep in mind that the MBTI's 3rd function maps to the 6th and the 4th (MBTI) function maps to the 5th function in socionics. So the 4th function seen in socionics is not the 4th in MBTI.

    MBTI strong/weak/strong/weak. Socionics strong/weak/weak/strong.

    Socionics, 2 rings of functions, conscience (strong/weak), unconscience (weak/strong).
    Expanding on this:
    Ring 1 (conscience) (2 strong functions, 2 weak functions), Ring 2 (unconscience) (2 weak functions, 2 strong functions)

    I think this chart helps confirm INTj (LII) as my socionics type. I suppose there is a small possibility of being ENTp (ILE) in socionics since I also relate to Se as a role function in addition to Fi. Sometimes I feel like I should be better at the Se stuff and dislike being criticized on it. Also regarding the base and the creative function and how its described- it seems to be a mix of Ti and Ne. I think INTp (ILI) can be ruled out, even though I've previously considered it for myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post

    Based on my function order above here's how it compares to archetype and MBTI correlation:

    Lead Function -> Hero Archetype/Dominant Function (OK)
    Creative Function -> Parent Archetype/Auxiliary Function (OK)
    Role Function -> Daemon Archetype/Shadow Inferior Function (Shadow Tertiary-Trickster..what gets us in trouble?)
    Vulnerable Function -> Trickster Archetype/Shadow Tertiary Function (Inferior-Anima..what we crave for in opposite sex?)
    Suggestive Function -> Anima/Animus Archetype/Inferior Function (Tertiary-Child..when we are naughty?)
    Mobilizing Function -> Child Archetype/Tertiary Function (Shadow Inferior-Daemon..what haunts us?)
    Ignoring Function -> Antihero Archetype/Shadow Dominant Function (OK)
    Demonstrative -> Critical Parent Archetype/Shadow Auxiliary Function (OK)

    Where do those correlations between model A and archetypes and MBTI functions come from? Do they check out?

    Can you do the same for yourself and see how it fits?
    I'll do it for myself- assume I've correctly typed myself as INTj/LII

    Lead Function -> Hero Archetype/Dominant Function
    Ti, fits

    Creative Function -> Parent Archetype/Auxiliary Function
    Ne, fits

    Role Function -> Daemon Archetype/Shadow Inferior Function (Shadow Tertiary-Trickster..what gets us in trouble?)
    Fi, possibly fits. Fi has gotten me in trouble. So has Se.

    Vulnerable Function -> Trickster Archetype/Shadow Tertiary Function (Inferior-Anima..what we crave for in opposite sex?)
    Se, it's a weak function but it's not something I crave in the opposite sex.

    Suggestive Function -> Anima/Animus Archetype/Inferior Function (Tertiary-Child..when we are naughty?)
    Fe, have no idea what my 'naughty' function would be

    Mobilizing Function -> Child Archetype/Tertiary Function (Shadow Inferior-Daemon..what haunts us?)
    Si, can't say that Si haunts me. I would attribute that more to Fi or Ni

    Ignoring Function -> Antihero Archetype/Shadow Dominant Function
    Te, maybe. I often make the error of ignoring Te in favor of Ti

    Demonstrative -> Critical Parent Archetype/Shadow Auxiliary Function
    Ni, yes this works

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post

    Demonstrative Function - that which is more-so obvious than the ignoring function and what forms a major portion of your worldview, yet is cast aside as boring or dull when you are with others. This function is sort of like something you enjoy but don't want others to know that you actually somewhat enjoy, thus it often remains in your private life. It is typically going to be as strong as the Lead function or possibly stronger (it is also different in that where the Lead Function is your strongest Accepting function, your Demonstrative function is your strongest producing function, meaning that you will be able to use it somewhat better than those who have this function as their Creative Function, i.e. IEI's Fi might be stronger than IEE's Fi). You will also engage this function when bored, and use it as another means to express your Lead function through a different form.
    Interesting you bring this up about the demonstrative. I know for awhile I was wrestling between LII and ILI for my type. I think why I used to seriously consider ILI for my type is that I do have strong Ni. I'd consider it just as strong as my Ti. The difference lies in how the function is being used.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  6. #206
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Such Irony View Post
    I think this chart helps confirm INTj (LII) as my socionics type. I suppose there is a small possibility of being ENTp (ILE) in socionics since I also relate to Se as a role function in addition to Fi. Sometimes I feel like I should be better at the Se stuff and dislike being criticized on it. Also regarding the base and the creative function and how its described- it seems to be a mix of Ti and Ne. I think INTp (ILI) can be ruled out, even though I've previously considered it for myself.



    I'll do it for myself- assume I've correctly typed myself as INTj/LII

    Lead Function -> Hero Archetype/Dominant Function
    Ti, fits

    Creative Function -> Parent Archetype/Auxiliary Function
    Ne, fits

    Role Function -> Daemon Archetype/Shadow Inferior Function (Shadow Tertiary-Trickster..what gets us in trouble?)
    Fi, possibly fits. Fi has gotten me in trouble. So has Se.

    Vulnerable Function -> Trickster Archetype/Shadow Tertiary Function (Inferior-Anima..what we crave for in opposite sex?)
    Se, it's a weak function but it's not something I crave in the opposite sex.

    Suggestive Function -> Anima/Animus Archetype/Inferior Function (Tertiary-Child..when we are naughty?)
    Fe, have no idea what my 'naughty' function would be

    Mobilizing Function -> Child Archetype/Tertiary Function (Shadow Inferior-Daemon..what haunts us?)
    Si, can't say that Si haunts me. I would attribute that more to Fi or Ni

    Ignoring Function -> Antihero Archetype/Shadow Dominant Function
    Te, maybe. I often make the error of ignoring Te in favor of Ti

    Demonstrative -> Critical Parent Archetype/Shadow Auxiliary Function
    Ni, yes this works



    Interesting you bring this up about the demonstrative. I know for awhile I was wrestling between LII and ILI for my type. I think why I used to seriously consider ILI for my type is that I do have strong Ni. I'd consider it just as strong as my Ti. The difference lies in how the function is being used.
    which description do you identify with more?

    Socionics Description: The Best INTp/ILI Guide Ever Written

    Socionics Description: The Best INTJ Guide Ever Written

  7. #207
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Such Irony View Post
    I think this chart helps confirm INTj (LII) as my socionics type. I suppose there is a small possibility of being ENTp (ILE) in socionics since I also relate to Se as a role function in addition to Fi. Sometimes I feel like I should be better at the Se stuff and dislike being criticized on it. Also regarding the base and the creative function and how its described- it seems to be a mix of Ti and Ne. I think INTp (ILI) can be ruled out, even though I've previously considered it for myself.



    I'll do it for myself- assume I've correctly typed myself as INTj/LII

    Lead Function -> Hero Archetype/Dominant Function
    Ti, fits

    Creative Function -> Parent Archetype/Auxiliary Function
    Ne, fits

    Role Function -> Daemon Archetype/Shadow Inferior Function (Shadow Tertiary-Trickster..what gets us in trouble?)
    Fi, possibly fits. Fi has gotten me in trouble. So has Se.

    Vulnerable Function -> Trickster Archetype/Shadow Tertiary Function (Inferior-Anima..what we crave for in opposite sex?)
    Se, it's a weak function but it's not something I crave in the opposite sex.

    Suggestive Function -> Anima/Animus Archetype/Inferior Function (Tertiary-Child..when we are naughty?)
    Fe, have no idea what my 'naughty' function would be

    Mobilizing Function -> Child Archetype/Tertiary Function (Shadow Inferior-Daemon..what haunts us?)
    Si, can't say that Si haunts me. I would attribute that more to Fi or Ni

    Ignoring Function -> Antihero Archetype/Shadow Dominant Function
    Te, maybe. I often make the error of ignoring Te in favor of Ti

    Demonstrative -> Critical Parent Archetype/Shadow Auxiliary Function
    Ni, yes this works



    Interesting you bring this up about the demonstrative. I know for awhile I was wrestling between LII and ILI for my type. I think why I used to seriously consider ILI for my type is that I do have strong Ni. I'd consider it just as strong as my Ti. The difference lies in how the function is being used.
    It might be interesting to note that Mobilizing Si might be more symbolized in the LII as an overconfidence that he can take care of himself, as it regularly inflates to be a secondary way to relate the Lead perspective to others (or the world/environment, Mobilizing is a producing function), which also leads to an overconfidence in achieving day-to-day routine tasks or maintenance that keep stability around, such as cleaning a house or making sure that everything is well-stocked for some examples (but, again, this function is weak, so it is nowhere near the level of individuals with strong Si).

    The Demonstrative is an interesting function as well, as it forms the basis of Quasi-Identical relations, creating an estranged sense that your Quasi-Identical is actually performing better than you (because they use your Demonstrative function as their Lead and thus use it more seriously and with more confidence and focus). ILI should be paranoid (or speculative) that the LII is achieving a greater deal of success than him due to the fact that the LII seems much more logical, methodical in their thinking, and more rational/objective, while the LII should be paranoid (or speculative) that the ILI is achieving a greater deal of success than him due to the fact that the ILI is able to piece things together with great ease (in a situation sense, what is actually going on), derive meaning easily, and realize where current and past patterns lead to. Of course, the intertype relations aren't always going to be this straightforward, as there are several different factors not only inside the more advanced Socionics (such as DCNH subtype theory) but also outside the theory.

  8. #208
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Cause I cannot counter it and that makes me fearful. Aggressive body language, high speed etc. I do notice it though quite easily but just am unable to handle it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Yet you don't wish you could counter it? Or you don't wish that someone else would step-up for you?

    That isn't that many examples, everyone is afraid of people being overly aggressive and even high-speed situations where quick reflexes and physical wits are required (except for Se Egos).

    How does your fear of inferior Se manifest itself?
    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    I don't think either of these descriptions were written by bona-fide socionicists but that said I see alot of myself in both descriptions. I may not relate to every single word of it but on the whole they fit me more than it doesn't. Overall I relate to the INTj one a bit more.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  9. #209
    Senior Member yeghor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Such Irony View Post
    I don't think either of these descriptions were written by bona-fide socionicists but that said I see alot of myself in both descriptions. I may not relate to every single word of it but on the whole they fit me more than it doesn't. Overall I relate to the INTj one a bit more.
    How about this one?

    http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...r-written.html

  10. #210
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    ~8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Bringing this thread back, but with new stuff.
    hey, interesting new stuff :P


    The Vulnerable Function creates feelings of suspicion, loathing, and annoyance when it receives information specific to it, but due to the fact that the Vulnerable Function is a Producing function, it is a way of looking at the world in a critical light.

    In essence, the Vulnerable Function is what you think is wrong with the world, or why the world is bad, and works in tandem with the Accepting Role Function, which is self-critical, as Accepting functions view the self in a specific light, which in the Super-Ego block, is what is wrong with you, specifically, and why you are bad.
    Where is this from? I can't remember reading this before but I might've just forgotten. I recall stuff about producing/accepting but how is it linked to the dichotomy of self/world?

    As for the list, I'll copy/keep the ones here that I relate to:


    • ExTp's think the world is bad because people are too concerned with political correctness, politeness, and manners, that people are too sensitive and fragile, instead of being concerned with being insensitive and to-the-point. ( Creative > Vulnerable)
    • ISxj's think the world is bad because people are too concerned with possibilities, complex metaphors, and all sides of an issue instead of being concerned with what needs to be done at this very instant, what is realistic, and following the best side of an issue (the one with the most immediate compelling information).
    • IxFp's think the world is bad because people are too concerned with gathering knowledge and evidence, being objective and impartial, and because people rely on others' knowledge or second-hand knowledge instead of their own, instead of being concerned with fostering a group atmosphere, sharing emotions, and relating things to personal experience.


    This is actually in order of how strongly I relate to them. The IxFp one (Te) isn't really something that truly bothers me. I just sometimes find Te annoying in this way. Too dry, too cold/businesslike in a sense. I mean I can be cold and businesslike but I can also be okay with a bit of Fe going around, I don't ignore it. I don't have a problem with second-hand knowledge if it works. Obviously, simply taking some second-hand data and blindly trying to apply it to the situation without checking if it's logical at all isn't necessarily the best idea. Of course if I don't have time or just don't care - impatience or the issue is simply not really relevant - then I just do that anyway, applying it "blindly".

    Now as for the ExTp and the ISxj, interesting conundrum there haha. I'll talk about how I relate to each one. Can you give me your opinion/interpretation about how it all relates to me?

    So about the socionics Fi function. I know mine sucks so I relate to the PoLR just fine but I don't know if it's it the world being bad or me being bad. It feels like it's both! :P The way I see it, I do wish people wouldn't be so overly concerned with manners and politeness a lot of the time. The world would be so much better without that crap. I don't really often rant about people being too sensitive because I don't easily notice when someone's being too sensitive but yes it does get in the way, without me knowing what exactly got in the way. I don't really even get the idea of how some people would be so fragile. Over time, I've figured out that yes, some people are like that.. it's just inferred though, I really don't have a real concept of it. The whole thing is just unneeded pressure that I prefer to not notice, I'm much better off when I can ignore it. I'm much more myself ignoring all that crap. I used to not even notice at all these societal requirements. When I started noticing, that was no good. I'm re-learning how to ignore it all. Well I'm actually trying to make some basic rules about politeness but I fail to consistently keep even to those really basic rules. Sure these rules all make neat sense but I just can't keep to them. Lol. Idk why it's so hard but my attention is often just not there. When I fail to keep to these simple rules, I'm usually either paying attention to getting to a goal of mine or I'm expressing my own opinion about something. I don't have any attention left to take care of possible politeness issues. Sometimes I have a tiny little bit of cognitive attention left but then I just often feel that I couldn't care less yeah right :P Oh and I'm saying I'm better off ignoring because if I'm not careful I can see everything about the world and myself in the world in a negative light about these issues. Luckily that's just a temporary thing.. Does this count as self-criticism? I don't really verbalize criticism towards myself, it's just a really crappy negative feeling. Overall, I loathe issues that people seem to cause, resulting from my behaviours, and the negative feeling that I described.

    As for ISxJ PoLR. Yeah I pretty much just ignore the possibilities and I keep telling people that most analogies suck unless *entirely* logical. I relate to following the best side of an issue, love how you put it as "the one with the most immediate compelling information". Yes, that's pretty much it. The thing is, these things don't really bother me, I don't receive it as "special criticism" from other people. I mean I don't like criticism much by default but this kind of criticism isn't any worse than any other kind. Yes I've been criticized for missing the main point but I never care. Well I can get slightly pissed over being criticized and because of that I will feel antagonism readily but otherwise I believe that whoever says that to me, misses *my* point anyway. My point in those kinds of arguments is always about having something together properly in a logical way. I absolutely don't mind shooting down the seemingly random distractions that people claim are an important part of the whole point; to me, those things seem to be just used as illustration or something without fleshing out any actual logical connection. In the worst case, it's even illogical. So overall, I'm not really feeling serious negativity over the existence of this function or over people dealing with whatever possibilities. I would not want to try to cognitively overload myself with that crap as my brain is truly not mapped in a way to do so but I don't feel any pressure to try and do so anyway. I really just don't care most of the time. People who get distracted by possibilities don't bother me either as long as they don't get in my way. Well one exception from this indifference is when Ne-like thinking would be useful to make jokes, for example. I can explicitly - verbally - criticize myself, in private of course, for not always being able to do that. Overall, I loathe the cognitive function itself and sometimes I also hate temporary inability to make up random enough jokes. So sometimes the function could be useful, uh, sure...


    Btw I don't relate to the following one but doesn't this have a mix of a bit of MBTI in here?

    ENxj's think the world is bad because people are too concerned with being physically and even mentally comfortable, organizing the environment according to what is comfortable instead of what might be useful, and keeping things how they've always been, instead of following present trends to where they lead, taking risks on things that are not 100% certain, and adjusting for the future.
    I have never seen Si in socionics being associated with keeping things how they've always been and avoiding risks due to uncertainty. If anything, those people (hated by the ENxj) are much more associated with Ne PoLR and not Si. This is an MBTI contamination here. The rest of your list is pretty cool with the examples, I like them. But this... The ENxj's dual is actually a Ne PoLR type.


    Furthermore, each type's PoLR is specifically geared towards a specific avenue (denoted by the Role Function), which means that a type like the ILI finds suspicion in, loathes, and/or is annoyed by Fe things oriented in an Si way (Too concerned with people's emotions and making people "comfortable"), and a type like the SEE finds suspicion in, loathes, and/or is annoyed by Ti things in an Ne way (Too concerned with complex metaphors, analogies, abstractions embedded in unrealistic theories that can't be applied practically or aren't grounded in reality).

    To specify even further, here are the suspicions.
    OK I've kept the relevant parts again. Please evaluate together with previous descriptions.

    The ESxj here is only a superficial similarity so it's definitely last.

    • ExTp's are suspicious of moral values (internally derived), passion, and scruples. ("There is no way they could honestly believe that/follow that")
    • ISxj's are suspicious of ambiguity, metaphors/analogies, and what could hypothetically be (as, often, it is unfeasible). ("Why not just worry about what we could do now at this very instant?")
    • ESxj's are suspicious of future predictions, idealism, and interpretations of things. ("It's all just wishful thinking, it doesn't reflect reality")


    Heh yeah I'm very suspicious of the bullshit that's being taught to people in religions for example. The whole concept of god and all that BS lol. So yeah it doesn't really make sense to me that someone would honestly believe certain ideas. Example, I've always feelt pretty negative about how my sister "seems" to be struggling with her religion. I used quote marks as it might just be in all my mind and maybe she's actually better off believing all that crap but I tend to interpret little things about her in a way that makes me believe it's no good for her. It took me a whole decade to wake up to the insight one day that maybe it's all just in my mind lol. Projection?! Whatever, it's her own problem, she can decide what she wants to do with all that crap. I just feel terrible thinking about it because I probably unconsciously imagine myself in her place. She is very different from me though (probably Fi-lead type) so it's of course irrational assuming it would be the same for her it would be for me. Ok well I hope I managed to explain this well enough. Additionally, I love shooting down moral ideas and frameworks. I have the ultimate moral nihilism. Heh.

    Ambiguity? Uh no suspicion, I just go at it full force resolving it, clearing it up. Analogies I'm suspicious of, yes, I tend to refuse to deal with them unless it's all entirely logical and I freely explain this stance of mine to people. Yes, hypothetical possibilities are usually highly unlikely BS. And yeah, I wouldn't worry about them. Low probability means I can just ignore it, unless it's extremely important to avoid the possibility.

    As for future predictions, it depends on likelihood actually. Idealism can be okay.. depending. :P I certainly don't want wishful thinking though. I think overall I'm not really suspicious of these things so I should delete the ESxj from this list, I'm only keeping it for some extra datapoint..


    [*]ENxj's are suspicious of following the past, traditions (whether societal or individual), and taking it easy. ("Just because it has worked before doesn't mean it works good or can't work better.")
    Again seems like you mixed in too much MBTI Si... :/


    Further information:
    Lead Function - Why you are good.
    Creative Function - Why the world is good.
    I don't really understand this one. I can't link any function to "why I'm good". The world is good well because it exists.

    Role Function - Why you are flawed/bad.
    Vulnerable Function - Why the world is flawed/bad.
    Here I could be relating to Fi Role and Ne PoLR but I'm not sure. I think the world would be better off without the Fi too. I'm not really bad because of not having Fi, it's just a reaction to issues. I'm certainly not bad for not having Ne, though.

    Suggestive Function - What you need more of.
    Mobilizing Function -What the world needs more of.
    Idk, I could swap Ni/Fe around just fine, works either way. Depends on my interpretation. Can you give examples on these?

    Ignoring Function - What you find boring. (Still under thought-construction)
    Demonstrative Function - What the world has enough of/What the world finds boring./Why the world is boring (Still under thought-construction)
    Both Te and Si are boring for me so that's not really a good distinction IMO... I can't interpret the Demonstrative one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    A) The Lead Function - That which you are best at and are always (for the most part) absorbed in. You are typically going to be using this function for the majority of your life, though you may actually not be able to pin-point it exactly due to the fact that you are so good at using the Lead function that tasks and things related to it seem entirely natural and regular.
    Sure...


    The Creative Function - That which you relay others the work and perspective of your lead function. This is how you relate your lead function to others and what you use to engage the environment primarily. It is focused on the world rather than the self, and is usually seen as a means to an end (it isn't revered so much like the Lead, think of it like a tool). Therefore, your primary focus for engaging this function is merely using it as a medium through which to spread your findings and thinking from your Lead Function.
    Yeah I like to kill people with my Ti...

    Though, Se as well :P


    The Role Function - That which is your character flaw and downfall as a person. This function, when activated, siphons you off from your powerful Lead function through which you rely on and forces you to at least recognize it or face somewhat humiliating self-criticism. This function can be represented by the phrase "I am bad if I... [don't/fail to/neglect this]" (stolen from some Socion website I'll find later of the First 4 IM Elements of Model A). There is variation between how certain people deal with the Role Function however, which can range from compulsive attention to it when it arises to downright neglect. Any attempts to actually succeed at this function are short-lasted, as you will eventually return to your dominant perspective, deactivating this function.
    I can attempt attention to this in the case of Fi only because I really don't care about Ne.


    The Vulnerable Function - That which is loathed, abhorred, neglected, and completely ignored. Any criticism received to this area is taken with surprise and sting, as it is baffling that others even care or realize the implications of this function. This function is the way your Role Function relates to others and the world. This also usually represents the portion of society or humanity that you typically loathe (with regard to Role-Vulnerable mechanism, i.e. INFp's loathe Si in a Te way). Suspicions surround the information geared toward this function.
    I loathe Fi. A lot of suspicions too as detailed above. Criticism is taken with a lot of sting, yes. It's also very baffling, yes. But you were saying that the world is bad with this function, not the person himself/herself. So why is criticism taken so badly?

    I don't really loathe Ne (=possibility generating) in other people. I just don't care. Really baffling too, feels cognitively unpleasant, so I don't try to mess around with it too much. In one ear, out the other ear. Well sometimes it could be useful actually but I can't really call this shit up at will.


    The Suggestive Function - That which is desired, complementary, and welcomed. Where suspicions surround the information of the Vulnerable function, gullibility is a key feature of the Suggestive Function, as you tend to naturally be too trusting of its information, sense it complements the Dominant perspective and the fact that it is a relatively absent and weak function in a sociotype. In a phrase, this is "What you need more of" to succeed. (IxI's, for instance, need Se information and tasks to motivate them, meaning that the presence of any Se at all will generally be enough to motivate them to do something, though their own motivation is hard for them to produce on their own)
    Actually I'm not trusting of either Ni or Fe that terribly much. Sometimes, maybe, either Ni or Fe, doesn't seem to make a difference.


    The Mobilizing Function - That which "The World needs more of", that which is dear, lovable, and innocent (in a child-like sense). Unlike the Suggestive Function, which can't be produced on its own in the sociotype, this function inflates (just like the tertiary function) in the sociotype so that he or she may provide the world with that which he or she finds dear, lovable, and innocent. Unfortunately, you are typically going to be rather bad at it, and its inflation will make you look rather "pathetic" as Gainan refers to in what he calls the "Pathetic Hidden Agenda". Usually one assumes great confidence in this function despite being terrible at it (leading to Mobilizing-Lead confusion for mistyping). You specifically do not typically recognize that you are terrible at it though, but others will undoubtedly recognize your lack of ability in it along with your sense of superiority regarding this function. An example might be an ILE claiming that he is absurdly superior at comforting people, being a warm and kind person, being a "people-person" and other Fe-related traits, but actually being rather socially-awkward and tactless when it comes to dealing with emotions and people's feelings. This function is held dear, and it is thought that the world needs more of it.
    I figured out a long time ago that I'm probably crap at Fe but maybe I forget that when I'm feeling good enough. :/

    Are you sure that Ni when it's suggestive function cannot be produced at all? Not even with a lot of outside source usage? I would say I sometimes have some vague Ni stuff, I prefer to keep it to myself though. If I can make sense of it by Ti then I'm happy to share the understanding.


    Ignoring Function - that which is obvious, trite, and unnecessary. Typically, the only time you will see this function is in a "I can do that too" kind of way. When others use this IM Element, you instinctively tend to attempt to show them that you can do it just as well as they can, but don't typically care for it or use it often. Any information received through here is taken as "obvious and unnecessary", as you are adept in it but don't think it is the right way to deal with things (instead choosing to deal with things through the Lead Perspective).
    Fits Si or Te.


    Demonstrative Function - that which is more-so obvious than the ignoring function and what forms a major portion of your worldview, yet is cast aside as boring or dull when you are with others. This function is sort of like something you enjoy but don't want others to know that you actually somewhat enjoy, thus it often remains in your private life. It is typically going to be as strong as the Lead function or possibly stronger (it is also different in that where the Lead Function is your strongest Accepting function, your Demonstrative function is your strongest producing function, meaning that you will be able to use it somewhat better than those who have this function as their Creative Function, i.e. IEI's Fi might be stronger than IEE's Fi). You will also engage this function when bored, and use it as another means to express your Lead function through a different form.
    Uhhm that fits Te only, no way it fits Si. Te has a lot of influence, definitely.


    EDIT: The Suggestive function is something you want to get better at because you love its presence sub-consciously. The Vulnerable function is something you want to get better at because you don't want to be as bad as you are with it, so that others won't critique it.
    Uhmm, so one actually wants to try and get better at their PoLR? Not ignoring it completely after all? Not trying see the world as bad instead of self? Wow, so much conflicting information about this elusive PoLR ;P (I'm not just talking about you right now, a lot of these ideas on the PoLR have been floating around...)

    So I'll stop thinking about this topic right now. If you analyse this then do let me know if you see it as more SLE or more LSI. :P

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