# Examples Of Ne PoLR?



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> No one gets embarrassed by something they consider worthless. The PoLR is a thoroughly devalued and underestimated function.


That is very disputable. The PoLR is a combination of "I fucking suck at this" and "this is fucking useless". You can hate and underestimate something, and still be embarrassed when forced to produce content with it, because while you hate it, you're still bad at it.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I question your judgement.
> 
> 
> Nope. I told an ILE that he'd be good at something. He doubted me. I was right.
> ...


Remember that Ne is the IE oriented towards predicting the potential of things without having concrete evidence or relevant prior experience with the object, and it does this by downplaying what the observer considers to be changeable traits. As you mentioned, you don't need to use Ne to predict some things. If you have a friend who has always been good at working with people, you don't need to be ILE to predict that they would do well as a receptionist.

An IEE I knew once used to talk about how she could see the "potential" in everybody she met, and when she evaluated the potential of others she went far beyond "analogous judgment". Going back to the example of the socially gifted friend, she might say "I see the potential for you to go a long ways and to become a successful politician or the President". These claims of hers always annoyed me a bit as I found her predictions to be a bit silly and unfounded, because while I could see where she was coming from when she made them, I would look at the same person and say "yeah, but that guy will never become the President because he lacks the ambition to even try". She generally would downplay things like lack of ambition, because she saw those as things she could change by "helping" the person "develop their potential". She'd look at him, decide between what she saw as his permanent gifts (ability to handle himself in social situations) and his changeable traits (lack of ambition), and decide his potential based on the former alone, because in her eyes the latter could be changed with a bit of work.

That description may be slightly biased towards Gamma SF over Beta ST, especially when it says "The individual... prefers to give them clear commands and assignments and judge their intentions and potential by whether or not they fulfill these demands." Beta ST tends to suss out where people "fit" based on their internal framework of logic, and frequently this involves developing an understanding of the other person's abilities. It does however describe how Gamma SF deals with others. The most immediate example from my personal experience is an SEE I know who, despite being confident in her presentation, once confided in me that she is always a bit worried that people will take advantage of her because she's not good at understanding their intentions. When she met someone, she'd follow that description to a T. She'd test them by demanding that they do things for her, and she'd develop an understanding of their intentions after seeing if they completed the task. If they didn't, she'd look at why they didn't and judge their intentions from that.

When it comes to the potential of events to develop in unexpected ways, Ne superego tends to get annoyed. They develop an understanding of how things work based on information that they have, and if things don't go that way their most common expression is "how was I supposed to know that would happen?". If they're put in a situation where those kind of predictions are commonplace, where there's little to no information available, they tend to get very annoyed and complain a lot. In contrast IEE and ILE tend to love situations like those, as they enjoy the thrill of waiting for opportunities to develop.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> Remember that Ne is the IE oriented towards predicting the potential of things without having concrete evidence or relevant prior experience with the object, and it does this by downplaying what the observer considers to be changeable traits. As you mentioned, you don't need to use Ne to predict some things. If you have a friend who has always been good at working with people, you don't need to be ILE to predict that they would do well as a receptionist.
> 
> An IEE I knew once used to talk about how she could see the "potential" in everybody she met, and when she evaluated the potential of others she went far beyond "analogous judgment". Going back to the example of the socially gifted friend, she might say "I see the potential for you to go a long ways and to become a successful politician or the President". These claims of hers always annoyed me a bit as I found her predictions to be a bit silly and unfounded, because while I could see where she was coming from when she made them, I would look at the same person and say "yeah, but that guy will never become the President because he lacks the ambition to even try". She generally would downplay things like lack of ambition, because she saw those as things she could change by "helping" the person "develop their potential". She'd look at him, decide between what she saw as his permanent gifts (ability to handle himself in social situations) and his changeable traits (lack of ambition), and decide his potential based on the former alone, because in her eyes the latter could be changed with a bit of work.
> 
> ...


Wouldn't that example of your friend be Potential (Ne) over Probability (Ni)? Guy could be president, but most likely won't be.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wouldn't that example of your friend be Potential (Ne) over Probability (Ni)? Guy could be president, but most likely won't be.


That's what I argued when I mentioned the difference in opinion between the IEE and myself.

Essentially, Ne sorts between what it considers permanent characteristics of people (potential) and changeable characteristics. They'd look at a person who is socially gifted but unambitious, and they'd see the social talent as permanent potential while the lack of ambition is a changeable characteristic. Because it focuses on potential, people who use it like to help people "develop" their potential by helping them with the changeable characteristics that are inhibiting their permanent abilities. The stereotypical teacher that inspires children to live up to their potential is a Delta NF.

Ni isn't interested in potential, but in likely outcome, so it doesn't downplay the supposedly changeable characteristics. Lack of ambition is instead seen as something that will cause that person to underachieve, so people that value this IE tend to act more strategically, reacting to the most probable future by arranging people and things in the way that the individual considers best.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> That's what I argued when I mentioned the difference in opinion between the IEE and myself.
> 
> Essentially, Ne sorts between what it considers permanent characteristics of people (potential) and changeable characteristics. They'd look at a person who is socially gifted but unambitious, and they'd see the social talent as permanent potential while the lack of ambition is a changeable characteristic. Because it focuses on potential, people who use it like to help people "develop" their potential by helping them with the changeable characteristics that are inhibiting their permanent abilities. The stereotypical teacher that inspires children to live up to their potential is a Delta NF.
> 
> Ni isn't interested in potential, but in likely outcome, so it doesn't downplay the supposedly changeable characteristics. Lack of ambition is instead seen as something that will cause that person to underachieve, so people that value this IE tend to act more strategically, reacting to the most probable future by arranging people and things in the way that the individual considers best.


Yeah, I gotcha. Was just trying to offer you a short version for the future; i.e., potentiality/possibility vs probability/likelihood.

Very last sentence is strategist/tactician, correct?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Zamyatin said:


> Remember that Ne is the IE oriented towards predicting the potential of things without having concrete evidence or relevant prior experience with the object, and it does this by downplaying what the observer considers to be changeable traits. As you mentioned, you don't need to use Ne to predict some things. If you have a friend who has always been good at working with people, you don't need to be ILE to predict that they would do well as a receptionist.


That was my point entirely. I have seen so many people conclude that Ne PoLRs can't understand ANY form of potential because of these descriptions, but it's not remotely true. I would never say I struggle with potential, because I have no difficulties using Ti for comparison and extrapolation.

I have also seen people conclude that Ne PoLRs can't even comprehend that ambiguity exists because of these descriptions, rather than the truth that Ne-PoLRs struggle to 'fill in' areas of ambiguity.



Zamyatin said:


> An IEE I knew once used to talk about how she could see the "potential" in everybody she met, and when she evaluated the potential of others she went far beyond "analogous judgment". Going back to the example of the socially gifted friend, she might say "I see the potential for you to go a long ways and to become a successful politician or the President". These claims of hers always annoyed me a bit as I found her predictions to be a bit silly and unfounded, because while I could see where she was coming from when she made them, I would look at the same person and say "yeah, but that guy will never become the President because he lacks the ambition to even try". She generally would downplay things like lack of ambition, because she saw those as things she could change by "helping" the person "develop their potential". She'd look at him, decide between what she saw as his permanent gifts (ability to handle himself in social situations) and his changeable traits (lack of ambition), and decide his potential based on the former alone, because in her eyes the latter could be changed with a bit of work.


I can still do this with comparisons and extrapolation, but I wouldn't have any reason to.



Zamyatin said:


> The most immediate example from my personal experience is an SEE I know who, despite being confident in her presentation, once confided in me that she is always a bit worried that people will take advantage of her because she's not good at understanding their intentions. When she met someone, she'd follow that description to a T. She'd test them by demanding that they do things for her, and she'd develop an understanding of their intentions after seeing if they completed the task. If they didn't, she'd look at why they didn't and judge their intentions from that.


Yeah, I do this.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Very last sentence is strategist/tactician, correct?


Not really. Ni valuing means people react to the likely future, regardless of where the are on that reinin. Ni tacticians just arrange things in anticipation of the future to ensure that things happen according to a criteria they like (e.g. efficiency).


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I can still do this with comparisons and extrapolation, but I wouldn't have any reason to.


Well, almost everybody learns to substitute IEs they're good at for ones they're not. Fe PoLRs still have to learn to socialize, which they do through experience and by understanding social norms through other IEs (intellectually understanding social expectations, etc).


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> Not really. Ni valuing means people react to the likely future, regardless of where the are on that reinin. Ni tacticians just arrange things in anticipation of the future to ensure that things happen according to a criteria they like (e.g. efficiency).


Well, I meant that you referred to Ni valued users being more strategic than non-valued users, vs this example where you clarify that you meant strategic with a specific usage.


----------



## ObservantFool (Apr 1, 2015)

For myself, I won't have much to say in a conversation that is concerned with the future of humanity or something on a societal/universal scale, because to me, there seems to be too many unpredictable factors to tell if some "what if" scenario will actually happen (and I don't have the patience to tackle the idea in depth to figure out how likely it is), or I just don't care and it feels like a waste of time discussing it (not that it is, but I'd rather take action and align myself with my goals in an immediate way). I also suffer from perpetual "writer's block"; I have a drive to create things, but it feels like I'm constantly out of fuel. It takes a lot out of me to come up with inventive ideas or to be witty.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> General irritation and inability at all things abstract and not explicit.


That seems a bit vague, though. Like couldn't that just be weak intuition in general, rather than specific to Ne PoLR?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Geveerda said:


> I also suffer from perpetual "writer's block"; I have a drive to create things, but it feels like I'm constantly out of fuel.


YES! I had to struggle with that for years! It took so much practise to learn a way around it. We have a definitive Ne PoLR subject!



Zamyatin said:


> Well, almost everybody learns to substitute IEs they're good at for ones they're not. Fe PoLRs still have to learn to socialize, which they do through experience and by understanding social norms through other IEs (intellectually understanding social expectations, etc).


Yes, but again, back to my point; the ILI descriptions don't say you're incapable of socialising. The LSI descriptions DO say that we're incapable of evaluating potential. In reality, we can both cater for our shortcomings quite easily.



Geveerda said:


> For myself, I won't have much to say in a conversation that is concerned with the future of humanity or something on a societal/universal scale


That sounds very much like Ni blocked with Fe, rather than Ne.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Distortions said:


> That seems a bit vague, though. Like couldn't that just be weak intuition in general, rather than specific to Ne PoLR?


Probably lol. I was actually intoxicated and just felt like posting something lol.

A better example is the questionnaires. They're left very open-ended, and one must grasp the essence of the questions to be able to answer them "correctly." Kind of a "well what does this question mean?"


----------

