The PoLR Thread

[Alea_iacta_est]

I wouldn't want to brand an entire type as "lazy", that's not only typism but confusion over cause and effect. I realize there are trends of course - types vs concrete traits - but that's not the same

Anyway.. this stability topic, the main problem with it is that you say PoLR's don't like a desire for stability in others, while the theory also says that PoLR types do not want uncertainty and thus they can often prefer stability. Much like MBTI SJ types. And then, if you consider that the theory says that PoLR's are actually the duals of Si PoLR's, this idea of yours about PoLR doesn't check out. If you can resolve that issue then by all means do so... I'm willing to hear you

PoLR's aren't afraid of instability, they express displeasure in conceptual instability, as in the presence of an extremely over-complicated system that is forcing the xSI to acknowledge it, where there is no grounding or anchor to save them from the sea of possibilities. PoLRs are actually relatively good at dealing with instability, considering they have , a function oriented toward physical instability and exactly what is happening before their eyes and the environment they perceive (which is why is considered instinctual and raw sometimes, as it allows the user to intuitively adapt to the situation before their eyes physically). What PoLR's don't like about instability is the presence of too many options, where their can't find something to latch onto to give them perspective of the situation (as they typically rely on the option that, in a way, feels right or lines in accordance with perceived reality or evidence). The reason why PoLR's and PoLR's typically get along is due to the natural un-valuing of both of those functions, to where the xIE's despise those who strive for stability in the physical environment and order for the sake of comfort (instead of efficiency) and the xSI's despise those who over-complicate situations without any direct physical evidence to do so. They find value in each other because they can strengthen the / axis, where physical data is the source of all theories so that reasonably provable implications can be found.

You can tell the difference between the Role Function and the Vulnerable Function based on how you receive criticism to it.

When the role function is criticized, it is perceived as a personal weakness that needs to be worked on and that the criticism is somewhat fair.
When the vulnerable function is criticized, it is perceived as ridiculous to call you out on and unfair, something that you wish could just go away on its own.

Furthermore, the Role function is typically going to be something you are painfully aware of to the point where it is a source of worry when entering situations where it may be necessarily used (which can be the case of the vulnerable function as well, but in a different light*)

The Vulnerable function is typically going to be something you aren't cognizant of and are extremely neglecting of, where the only places you'll expect it is when you know that the information or tasks will be presented to you.

*The Vulnerable function will typically be a source of worry when you know that the occasion or task you must do will call for it specifically, otherwise, this honor is usually left to the Role Function.

 

[yeghor]

uh who wrote these things?

The author's name is given at the top. But's that's not what you are asking is it?

 

[infinite]

PoLR's aren't afraid of instability, they express displeasure in conceptual instability, as in the presence of an extremely over-complicated system that is forcing the xSI to acknowledge it, where there is no grounding or anchor to save them from the sea of possibilities. PoLRs are actually relatively good at dealing with instability, considering they have , a function oriented toward physical instability and exactly what is happening before their eyes and the environment they perceive (which is why is considered instinctual and raw sometimes, as it allows the user to intuitively adapt to the situation before their eyes physically). What PoLR's don't like about instability is the presence of too many options, where their can't find something to latch onto to give them perspective of the situation (as they typically rely on the option that, in a way, feels right or lines in accordance with perceived reality or evidence). The reason why PoLR's and PoLR's typically get along is due to the natural un-valuing of both of those functions, to where the xIE's despise those who strive for stability in the physical environment and order for the sake of comfort (instead of efficiency) and the xSI's despise those who over-complicate situations without any direct physical evidence to do so. They find value in each other because they can strengthen the / axis, where physical data is the source of all theories so that reasonably provable implications can be found.

Hmm okay. I've heard about Ne PoLR examples before where it manifested in physical situations. E.g. the LSI planning out something, some complex thing to be executed where then they get upset by things as simple as a 5 minute delay due to an unforeseen circumstance.

You can tell the difference between the Role Function and the Vulnerable Function based on how you receive criticism to it.

When the role function is criticized, it is perceived as a personal weakness that needs to be worked on and that the criticism is somewhat fair.
When the vulnerable function is criticized, it is perceived as ridiculous to call you out on and unfair, something that you wish could just go away on its own.

Hmm it's the I wish could just go away on its own. I feel criticism about it is unfair, though the word "ridiculous" is a bit strong. If I could call it ridiculous, it would mean that I'm pretty confident in the evaluation. Well, sometimes I can do this through .

If related criticism means that I'm supposed to see the main point of something, well I do try and strive for seeing that and so in that sense the expectation is fair enough, it's just that I often don't agree with the criticism that I'm missing the main point of whatever someone said. Other than this, I don't see as something I should work on. I can do just fine with / thank-you

Furthermore, the Role function is typically going to be something you are painfully aware of to the point where it is a source of worry when entering situations where it may be necessarily used (which can be the case of the vulnerable function as well, but in a different light*)

Can you give me an example for in this context? What kind of situation would require that much?

The Vulnerable function is typically going to be something you aren't cognizant of and are extremely neglecting of, where the only places you'll expect it is when you know that the information or tasks will be presented to you.

Again, example in terms of ?

The author's name is given at the top. But's that's not what you are asking is it?

that's right lol

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Can you give me an example for in this context? What kind of situation would require that much?

Again, example in terms of ?

Role would probably manifest into the realization that you aren't good with seeing connections between things in the environment on an analogical or metaphorical basis; meaning that you should recognize (at least internally) that you aren't so good with people using metaphors or analogies to explain concepts (not the fun kinds like fingers:hand::toes:foot, but the insipid "Y'know, trains are basically iron horses that feed on coal instead of hay"), instead wanting to know just the facts of a situation so that you can figure it out for yourself through looking at what actually is and how it logically fits together (a resemblance of -). You might see this with decision-making and having a plethora of options to choose from without really having any objective data or facts to rest your decision upon, causing indecisiveness and ambiguity, which is desperately loathed, as information without a physical manifestation is too all-encompassing and unrealistic.

The Vulnerable function is simply the Role Function except with a complete disregard for its information until it is brought specifically to your attention (usually with criticism). Furthermore, it should seem completely baffling, how is anyone reasonable supposed to make anything out with this ambiguous mess of metaphors, analogies, and baseless speculation?

 

[yeghor]

that's right lol

It's not funny.

 

[infinite]

Role would probably manifest into the realization that you aren't good with seeing connections between things in the environment on an analogical or metaphorical basis; meaning that you should recognize (at least internally) that you aren't so good with people using metaphors or analogies to explain concepts (not the fun kinds like fingers:hand::toes:foot, but the insipid "Y'know, trains are basically iron horses that feed on coal instead of hay"), instead wanting to know just the facts of a situation so that you can figure it out for yourself through looking at what actually is and how it logically fits together (a resemblance of -). You might see this with decision-making and having a plethora of options to choose from without really having any objective data or facts to rest your decision upon, causing indecisiveness and ambiguity, which is desperately loathed, as information without a physical manifestation is too all-encompassing and unrealistic.

The Vulnerable function is simply the Role Function except with a complete disregard for its information until it is brought specifically to your attention (usually with criticism). Furthermore, it should seem completely baffling, how is anyone reasonable supposed to make anything out with this ambiguous mess of metaphors, analogies, and baseless speculation?

Well yes I realized this about me not being good with seeing such connections - and not even interested in it - when I started studying these cognitive function theories. I don't think I was aware before. I can recall some criticism that I had before figuring out these things but the criticism didn't make much sense back then. But, I could say the exact same about stuff. I did have a hard time understanding that these things (both and stuff) even exist in people in some form.

Have you got a good question to differentiate which of these two is more ignored (thus weaker, PoLR) in my case, then?

It's not funny.

Now why not

 

[yeghor]

Well yes I realized this about me not being good with seeing such connections - and not even interested in it - when I started studying these cognitive function theories. I don't think I was aware before. I can recall some criticism that I had before figuring out these things but the criticism didn't make much sense back then. But, I could say the exact same about stuff. I did have a hard time understanding that these things (both and stuff) even exist in people in some form.

Have you got a good question to differentiate which of these two is more ignored (thus weaker, PoLR) in my case, then?




Now why not

It's funny I was just in a bad mood. [emoji20]

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Well yes I realized this about me not being good with seeing such connections - and not even interested in it - when I started studying these cognitive function theories. I don't think I was aware before. I can recall some criticism that I had before figuring out these things but the criticism didn't make much sense back then. But, I could say the exact same about stuff. I did have a hard time understanding that these things (both and stuff) even exist in people in some form.

Have you got a good question to differentiate which of these two is more ignored (thus weaker, PoLR) in my case, then?

A good question? Probably not. You may have to analyze yourself for your Suggestive and/or Mobilizing to figure out your type if those two functions are hard to recognize in yourself or differentiate.

The only other thing I can really say is that the Role function will be characterized by its designation as a major weakness that you specifically need to work on and that the Vulnerable function will be characterized by its designation as something that can't be helped or worked on (it's inescapable).

 

[infinite]

It's funny I was just in a bad mood. [emoji20]

glad you are no longer in a bad one, then

A good question? Probably not. You may have to analyze yourself for your Suggestive and/or Mobilizing to figure out your type if those two functions are hard to recognize in yourself or differentiate.

I've got as far as recognizing them as weak and unvalued functions just fine. Further differentation is the issue.

The only other thing I can really say is that the Role function will be characterized by its designation as a major weakness that you specifically need to work on and that the Vulnerable function will be characterized by its designation as something that can't be helped or worked on (it's inescapable).

The thing is I just don't give a rat's ass about either or

I don't see how I'd be better at either one and I don't really care to try. With , if I was to try "Ne-ing", it truly feels like a block in my brain, making me disinterested. Sometimes I can get past the block a bit but it still leaves me disinterested and I don't like how it's going against . As for , I just simply don't get it. Basically, I just can't be consistent with but I can with . If I was to try "Fi-ing" without using , I just get confused.

I guess this is still unhelpful in determining the difference? Let me know if it was actually telling something.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

glad you are no longer in a bad one, then




I've got as far as recognizing them as weak and unvalued functions just fine. Further differentation is the issue.




The thing is I just don't give a rat's ass about either or

I don't see how I'd be better at either one and I don't really care to try. With , if I was to try "Ne-ing", it truly feels like a block in my brain, making me disinterested. Sometimes I can get past the block a bit but it still leaves me disinterested and I don't like how it's going against . As for , I just simply don't get it. Basically, I just can't be consistent with but I can with . If I was to try "Fi-ing" without using , I just get confused.

I guess this is still unhelpful in determining the difference? Let me know if it was actually telling something.

Well, you are owning while distancing yourself from . You also cannot use and at the same time, they are direct counter-perspectives, only one can be utilized at a time (so when someone hits your Vulnerable, you are distanced from your normal creative ).

However, you will rationalize weaknesses in the Vulnerable Function with the Demonstrative function and will mock the Vulnerable function's manifestation in the world around you with the Demonstrative function (which is an axis, which in this particular case would be / (V/D), or /).

 

[infinite]

Well, you are owning while distancing yourself from . You also cannot use and at the same time, they are direct counter-perspectives, only one can be utilized at a time (so when someone hits your Vulnerable, you are distanced from your normal creative ).

However, you will rationalize weaknesses in the Vulnerable Function with the Demonstrative function and will mock the Vulnerable function's manifestation in the world around you with the Demonstrative function (which is an axis, which in this particular case would be / (V/D), or /).

Hmm alright so you see me as SLE > LSI now? What do you see as "owning " in the stuff I wrote? The part where I said I can get past the block a bit?

I didn't mean to say that I was trying to use and at the same time. I just meant that some things I can analyse with instead of and if I were to try to do that using , I'd just be confused. I think that's the best word for it, yeah..

Have you got an example of PoLR rationalization through ? And the same for PoLR through ?

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Hmm alright so you see me as SLE > LSI now? What do you see as "owning " in the stuff I wrote? The part where I said I can get past the block a bit?

I didn't mean to say that I was trying to use and at the same time. I just meant that some things I can analyse with instead of and if I were to try to do that using , I'd just be confused. I think that's the best word for it, yeah..

Have you got an example of PoLR rationalization through ? And the same for PoLR through ?

Well for one, your statement concerning provided the perspective that you think you are capable of it to a limiting degree, but your statement concerning was more distanced, as if to say "I have no clue what this is over here" (suggesting that the concept is rather foreign to you).

I do not have any examples on hand for / on hand at this current time, though it can be reasonably deciphered by understanding the dynamics of the system.

I would conjecture that hitting in an ExTp (by criticizing their lack of integrity, their sense of self (in a feeling-identifying way), or a lack of honor) would cause the ExTp to respond with the rationalization through "It might be so, but look what I've accomplished by being that way" Te: tends to define the self through objective accomplishments), the point is, however, that the perspective is merely a rationalization, so the ExTp is merely using the perspective as a defense mechanism to fend off those who attack its , meaning they are less inclined to believe the arguments they make themselves through the function but are hoping that the external party will believe the rationalization.

Furthermore, Demonstrative would be used to deride , saying that a sense of moral integrity and honor is bad for business or efficiency, allowing the ExTp to rationally present his case as to why it believes is unnecessary and bad.

PoLR through Demonstrative is a bit easier, as it calls upon past experiences and the interpretation of the dynamics surrounding the present environment to deride . An example of this would be an outside perspective that is trying to plead for specific parallels and connections in events being rejected by an Demonstrative perspective involving the inclusion of personal experience with events that have been relatively simplistic and realistic in the past or the gambit of "I know what is going on here realistically, it's obvious if you just open your eyes and look at the facts and the realistic connections, you are over-complicating things more than they have to be".

In short, it would appear to be the putting down of unsupported connections and parallels through personal experience and the interpretation of direct observation of the present dynamics of the environment.

 

[infinite]

Well for one, your statement concerning provided the perspective that you think you are capable of it to a limiting degree, but your statement concerning was more distanced, as if to say "I have no clue what this is over here" (suggesting that the concept is rather foreign to you).

Yeah, well both are foreign to me but that's not a bad summary

As for the examples, thanks. I can actually do both.

PoLR through Demonstrative is a bit easier, as it calls upon past experiences and the interpretation of the dynamics surrounding the present environment to deride . An example of this would be an outside perspective that is trying to plead for specific parallels and connections in events being rejected by an Demonstrative perspective involving the inclusion of personal experience with events that have been relatively simplistic and realistic in the past or the gambit of "I know what is going on here realistically, it's obvious if you just open your eyes and look at the facts and the realistic connections, you are over-complicating things more than they have to be".

In short, it would appear to be the putting down of unsupported connections and parallels through personal experience and the interpretation of direct observation of the present dynamics of the environment.

Is this called only because of "dynamics"? I can easily do this sort of reasoning. Doesn't sound very specifically introverted, just S in general

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Yeah, well both are foreign to me but that's not a bad summary

As for the examples, thanks. I can actually do both.




Is this called only because of "dynamics"? I can easily do this sort of reasoning. Doesn't sound very specifically introverted, just S in general

You can do both primarily because each axis provides rationalization (Lead/Suggestive, Creative/Mobilizing, Demonstrative/Vulnerable, Ignoring/Role), the significance of Demonstrative/Vulnerable is its being unvalued and being between a strong 4d function and a weak 1d function.

S in general deals with physical characteristics of the environment, the E/I perspective, however, determines the specificalities. Extroverted Sensation deals with the static properties of the environment in an active manner (how you can create immediate change), noticing objective (static) facts about the environment. Introverted Sensation deals with the dynamic properties of the environment in a passive manner (how the environment impacts you), noticing the blurred aspects of reality (change occurring externally) and adjusting to meet the movement of the physical world.

 

[infinite]

S in general deals with physical characteristics of the environment, the E/I perspective, however, determines the specificalities. Extroverted Sensation deals with the static properties of the environment in an active manner (how you can create immediate change), noticing objective (static) facts about the environment. Introverted Sensation deals with the dynamic properties of the environment in a passive manner (how the environment impacts you), noticing the blurred aspects of reality (change occurring externally) and adjusting to meet the movement of the physical world.

That's fine yeah. (Well I'm not gonna ever understand Si from practice lol)

The part about "it's obvious if you just open your eyes and look at the facts" was what seemed S in general to me. I do this a lot.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

bumped

 

[strychnine]

Can someone hit my Ti PoLR so I can see what a PoLR hit is like? TY

 

[Opal Star]

Possible PoLR Functions:

Ne PoLR: I tend to have black-and-white and unchanging views on things. It can be very hard for me to change my mind.

Fi PoLR: I do not like it when my social abilities are criticized. It also hurts when my values are criticized.

Ni PoLR: It can be painful for me to talk about the past. I often tend to take longer than I should on tasks because of my perfectionism.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

It has been suggested that my polR function is likely Se and it's kind of fitting (though not in full in my opinion, though I can think of no better type atm rather than LII (ILI and SLI have both recently been suggested though and ILE in the past).

Se PolR
Essentially, my presence is fleeting and ghostly. Some people fill space and can move the room, I tend to melt into the background so much that people will loose track of where I am even when standing beside me and panic about it (I also have a bad habit of standing in people's background though). I don't like when pressure is applied to me and, frankly, am unable to do it without the usage of other people or done in a way that's very socially based. Of course I've tried before, but generally it's somewhat franticly done and not taken seriously. I also am basically always in a state of "dissociation" (not necessarily in the medical sense, but like I have no presence and also am never really mentally present in the real world, which I think also applies to Se polr). My biggest issue with Se polR is that it tends to be lazy and unmotivated and I... Really don't have that issue, so long as I have a vision.... When I don't have a vision though, I could definitely fit that haha.

Fe PolR
I don't think it's likely that I fit this category, but some would argue that I do. I am generally not a fan of expressing my own emotions, as this makes me feel out of control and it's been suggested by many that I become more expressive than I am. I'm often fairly direct and dry in the way I speak, with my expression style being erratic and concerning enough to put those who don't know my style deeply at ease (ie. I've gotten the nervous joking comments of appearing "intimidating" or "like a school shooter or serial killer" before; Of course they're jokes, but clearly ones meant to put themselves at ease). I have one way of interacting with people, and while I've constructed that to be evenly neutral across the board, it makes me come across as fairly boring and flat externally (in both my own and others opinion). Nonetheless, I go out of my way to mirror emotions and make myself palatable and actually enjoy being around those who are more expressive than myself (as it makes up for my inner static-ness), so I'm 90% sure I'm not this.

Fi polR
I've been told my Fi is horrendous for my type and I'd agree wholeheartedly. Fi is a relational function with strong preferences, a knowledge of how to connect or disconnect from others, a sense of identity and connection to the self. I have none of these things. I struggle to tell how others feel about me and often assume they think lowly of me or have the reverse issue where I think they could like me more than I like them. Generally I also don't like (or dislike) things. For a sp dom, my sense of boundaries are also pretty weird, oscillating between thick wall and non-existent shield. Me being an extrovert in any system sounds like comedy though.

 

[Norrsken]

Si PoLR for me is literally just overexerting myself, or really taking bad care of my health, and then having the audacity to be in shock when my system shuts down or my body picks the day for me to collapse. I under eat, and it seems stark when comparing to the moments where I overindulge in lots of calories for no reason. I don't remember the small details, so don't try to tell me something like buildings or the directions to go somewhere, because I will get lost and forget where the hell I am. I might be sitting or lying down, but don't let that fool you, because I am not relaxed, and my mind is still actively deciding what to do next or about something or someone.