# What is PoLR?



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

I understand it stands for Point of Least Resistance. I've seen a lot of talk about it but not really any explanations (or just general explanations rather than ones that have led me to understand what it's really about). 

Secondly, how does one work out what one's PoLR is? I've presumed it's one of the functions in Model A, but which one?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

It's the part your own psyche that you ignore. Whenever situations that do require the use of that particular IE, you just happen to forget to use it, because it's the least conscious part of your information metabolism.

It's different from the role function, because with the role function you at least pretend to give a shit about it. Until things require that IE and thus you begin to become somewhat overactive toward that function. It's kind of like the superego. The thing that you feel you should do, but don't really want to do.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

To answer the first inquiry, I've seen a couple of different interpretations for the PoLR. 

The common interpretation is that we suck at picking up info related to the PoLR and hate to be criticized for this. It's like, "I _know_ I'm bad at this. Now shut up and leave me alone." Unvalued and painful, basically.

An alternate interpretation is that it's not necessarily a painful function; we just don't give a crap about that particular IE and don't see why anyone would, really.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

St Vual said:


> It's the part your own psyche that you ignore. Whenever situations that do require the use of that particular IE, you just happen to forget to use it, because it's the least conscious part of your information metabolism.
> 
> It's different from the role function, because with the role function you at least pretend to give a shit about it. Until things require that IE and thus you begin to become somewhat overactive toward that function. It's kind of like the superego. The thing that you feel you should do, but don't really want to do.


I thought the function you ignore was the "ignoring" function ? Regardless I just thought it was the function you're basically the worst at and enjoy using the least.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Here's a contrast between the Vulnerable and Ignoring functions, for the second interpretation I offered.



WS Wiki said:


> Vulnerable function
> Also known as the point of least resistance or polr, sensitive function, fourth function. Corresponds to the super-ego block.
> 
> The vulnerable function is the least valued function in the psyche. The vulnerable function represents an aspect of reality that is ignored, either willfully or out of sheer ignorance. It is best conceptualized as the life focus that makes you ask "Why on earth would anyone care about that?" The expression of the vulnerable function can range from blissful ignorance of the use or emphasis of this function, to a very contentious rejection of this program of life values.
> ...





WS Wiki said:


> Ignoring function
> 
> Also known as the limiting function, observing function, seventh function. Corresponds to the id block.
> 
> ...


I'm not certain how the difference would play out IRL (particularly "conscious" rejection vs "unconscious" rejection), so I'll tag @_aestrivex_, as he's the one who wrote the above.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

In practice the ignoring and vulnerable functions are both largely ignored/unattended


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Could you give an example of what the PoLR might look like? For example, if I am indeed ESE then my vulnerable function is Ni. What would be an example of me not valuing Ni or just not being very good at it?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> Could you give an example of what the PoLR might look like? For example, if I am indeed ESE then my vulnerable function is Ni. What would be an example of me not valuing Ni or just not being very good at it?


If you want to see how a Te type is rubbing an Fe type the wrong way and vice versa, then look no further than this:

Te PoLR reaction: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/146491-bored-take-3-a.html#post3727737
Fe PoLR reaction: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/146491-bored-take-3-a.html#post3727751

More Te PoLR reaction: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...re-time-lets-talk-about-me-2.html#post3734030

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...re-time-lets-talk-about-me-2.html#post3734064

I am just surprisingly good at this...

Basically, when people express themselves through an element that is your PoLR, you might become annoyed, frustrated, upset and so on, especially if that information is directed at you specifically. If you are also expected to express yourself through the PoLR, it can result in strong disagrements and violent refusal, since critique in this area is considered the most sensitive.

Some descriptions of the PoLR:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Polr#Vulnerable_function

The PoLR is a part of superego block so this also applies:
*SUPER-EGO BLOCK*

​The second row of Model A (functions 3 and 4) is called the *Super-Ego block. The individual's free and spontaneous use of the Ego block functions implies limitations on the use of these functions, which are a kind of rejected alternative to the Ego block. Each type tends to believe that his own Super-Ego functions are meant to be used only for the purposes established by the Ego functions; that is, their application is limited to serving the Ego block's interests. When a person's own interests are not sufficiently developed and people around him pressure him to be more competent with his Super-Ego functions, distress and disappointment result. The psyche is not able to channel energy through the Super-Ego functions long enough to achieve lasting results, which leads to disappointment, guilt, and even neuroses if the individual believes that the development of these functions is the measure of his worth as a person.

The Super-Ego functions are the source of much self-consciousness. When among strangers or critical onlookers, people tend to suddenly become aware of the possible inadequacy of their Super-Ego functions and often respond in one of two ways: demonstratively act through these functions to create an illusion of confidence, or demonstratively state their complete incompetency or rejection of these areas.

The Super-Ego functions are in the mental ring and thus describe things that the individual tries to mentally formulate for himself. However, in contrast to the Ego block functions, the Super-Ego functions almost always keep their conclusions to themselves. Any information which is shared in these areas is meant for abstract discussion, rather than actual advice or criticism.

These functions are prone to inflexibility and tend to reject new information unless it comes from first-hand experience or sources that they already respect. These functions have great difficulty producing confident and creative responses in unfamiliar situations.

People rarely appreciate direct commentary and analysis of their Super-Ego function behavior except by highly trusted friends. Otherwise, they tend to automatically suspect ill will towards them. Criticism of these aspects of a person's life can produce long-lasting animosity. The person may either vehemently defend himself (too vehemently given the nature of the criticism) or close up and ruminate about the situation for days.

Outright praise, on the other hand, produces an unexpected self-esteem boost.


*


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

In the case of you, you're good at sensing and you value Si/Ne. So you're very good and comfortable using Si because you both value it, and are apt at using it. 

With Ni it's kind of your worst function because you neither enjoy using it, or are skilled at it.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

@_LeaT_ using me as an example when my type hasn't even been agreed upon (wherein my thread 2/4 reliable people think I'm some sort of Te-creative)? I'd try to furnish your examples with something less misleading. Further using Pavane when your behavior was in question.

Anyway, for a good example of Te-PoLR, it is best to go to a sociotypes forum in which they give examples without referencing members whose types are ambiguous. The person I referred to here has done an out and out quadra-shift after stating her visual identification lined up "perfectly" with EII only a month prior.:laughing:

@bombsaway if you want real information, please stay away from certain individuals on this site
Te PoLR != inability to state things factually
Fe PoLR != tactlessness/crassness.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> Could you give an example of what the PoLR might look like? For example, if I am indeed ESE then my vulnerable function is Ni. What would be an example of me not valuing Ni or just not being very good at it?


ESE - WSWiki


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

So I'm trying to work out the difference between the Role function and the Vulnerable function. At the moment I'm understanding it as this:

The Role function is something that you're not particularly good at but see the importance of. You make an effort here occasionally but not for very long and feel guilty about not being very good at it. So someone with Fe here might make sporadic attempts at using Fe but ultimately not be as good as someone who has Fe in their Ego block and when they are told they aren't very good they get self conscious because they know that.
On the other hand, the PoLR is something you aren't good at but don't see any point in. You don't make the effort because why should you? If someone calls you out on it you get defensive rather than have conscious feelings of being inferior. The person with Fe PoLR, for example, wouldn't feel self conscious about their lack of Fe but would probably just be rude / tactless in response because they aren't recognising their error. It's like when a teacher sets you homework and one is too difficult so you don't do it and make up excuses about it when your teacher confronts you (role function) vs. when you just see the homework as a waste of time and you don't even bother attempting and get annoyed when confronted at why you didn't do it. 

Is this a correct analysis?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> If someone calls you out on it you get defensive rather than have conscious feelings of being inferior.


In my view, if someone calls you out on the vulnerable function, you probably don't at first understand why you are being called out (or, in some cases, that you are being called out). It is only later that you might realize what is going on (and a variety of responses are possible at this point -- including defensiveness, apologeticness, apathy).

That is, the vulnerable function is truly a blind spot, not a sore spot. Eliminate any aspect of "defensiveness" from how it is described. There is no such thing as a "PoLR hit"; it doesn't really make sense at all.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> In my view, if someone calls you out on the vulnerable function, you probably don't at first understand why you are being called out (or, in some cases, that you are being called out). It is only later that you might realize what is going on (and a variety of responses are possible at this point -- including defensiveness, apologeticness, apathy).
> 
> That is, the vulnerable function is truly a blind spot, not a sore spot. Eliminate any aspect of "defensiveness" from how it is described. There is no such thing as a "PoLR hit"; it doesn't really make sense at all.


 Recently I've been trying to figure out whether I'd be ESE or SEI. At this stage I'm confident I use Fe + Si, I'm just not sure which is my base / creative. E/I has always been a blurry line for me and typical descriptions don't shed any light on which one I'd be. In terms of PoLR, Ni makes more sense because I don't really see it as an issue. It's a bad habit maybe or something I just ignore. I'd say Te would be a sore spot rather than a blind spot, which would suggest ESE. 

The trouble is, I relate a hell of a lot more to the IP temperament and the EJ one. Do you put any investment in temperament descriptions? If so, is it possible I am Te PoLR but misunderstanding somewhere? I'm not so much looking for your opinion on my type but an opinion on a reliable way for me to find my type now that I've narrowed it down to two very similar ones.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> Recently I've been trying to figure out whether I'd be ESE or SEI. At this stage I'm confident I use Fe + Si, I'm just not sure which is my base / creative. E/I has always been a blurry line for me and typical descriptions don't shed any light on which one I'd be. In terms of PoLR, Ni makes more sense because I don't really see it as an issue. It's a bad habit maybe or something I just ignore. I'd say Te would be a sore spot rather than a blind spot, which would suggest ESE.


the role function may be a sore spot in a way -- but it is nowhere near as sore as the super-id. About those elements, one is defensive because they are indeed important. Having Ni be a blind spot and Te be a sore spot (at face value), is consistent with IEE.



> Do you put any investment in temperament descriptions?


Temperament is a direct extension of the base function. SEIs are IP temperament because having a Si as a base function implies having a relaxed attitude towards the exigencies of the world.

Do i put stock in the descriptions themselves? No, probably not. Do I put stock in the concept? Not exactly but the question doesn't make sense.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> the role function may be a sore spot in a way -- but it is nowhere near as sore as the super-id. About those elements, one is defensive because they are indeed important. Having Ni be a blind spot and Te be a sore spot (at face value), is consistent with IEE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except being an Ne dom seems completely off. I can't really say which is more of a sore spot between Ne and Te but I noticeably suck at both. ESE / Fe-SEI make most sense with this is mind. 

Basically the IP description fits best. I'm not that animated and my flat mate, who seems to perfectly fit the EJ description, is continuously complaining about my lack of activity.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@_bombsaway_ did you ever look into Gulenko's cognition styles? They can help to clarify what type you are. I would suggest to look into vortical-synergetic and dialectical-algorithmic (you seem DA over VS though).

Also, you might look into subtypes and how the inert/contact subtypes function in terms of metabolism. That might help to clear things up too.

Last but not least, the creative is the function we use when we engage and interact with the world. You might want to see if you predominantly seem to engage the world with Fe or Si. Engaging with Fe would be to focus on Fe subjects, focus on maintaining social harmony and atmosphere etc., but engaging with Si would be focused on helping people with Si tasks or discussing Si-related subjects as simple examples.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> @_bombsaway_ did you ever look into Gulenko's cognition styles? They can help to clarify what type you are. I would suggest to look into vortical-synergetic and dialectical-algorithmic (you seem DA over VS though).
> 
> Also, you might look into subtypes and how the inert/contact subtypes function in terms of metabolism. That might help to clear things up too.
> 
> Last but not least, the creative is the function we use when we engage and interact with the world. You might want to see if you predominantly seem to engage the world with Fe or Si. Engaging with Fe would be to focus on Fe subjects, focus on maintaining social harmony and atmosphere etc., but engaging with Si would be focused on helping people with Si tasks or discussing Si-related subjects as simple examples.


 Starting with the simplest part of your post - the last part - I think Fe creative sounds more like me. I don't really help people with Si tasks and that's been one of the things I've related to least about ESE descriptions. 

The cognition types, however, have confused me. Itried to work from the dichotomies upwards into the cognition styles since the general description of the styles didn't resonate with me. I figured if I worked out whether I was positivist / negativist etc it would then inform me of whether I'd be DA or VS. I _think _I'm positivist and result orientated, which would be VS. I can't say confidently, though, and the general descriptions were way to abstract for me to recognise myself in either of the cognitive styles.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@_bombsaway_ I find that temperament isn't always obvious. I resisted being Fi-base for a while because I didn't identify with IJ descriptions (IP sounded better), but it's pretty obvious to me now.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> @_bombsaway_ I find that temperament isn't always obvious. I resisted being Fi-base for a while because I didn't identify with IJ descriptions (IP sounded better), but it's pretty obvious to me now.


I had the opposite problem. I thought IJ sounded better than IP although in retrospect IP does fit well. It was just that at the time, IJ seemed to too.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> Starting with the simplest part of your post - the last part - I think Fe creative sounds more like me. I don't really help people with Si tasks and that's been one of the things I've related to least about ESE descriptions.
> 
> The cognition types, however, have confused me. Itried to work from the dichotomies upwards into the cognition styles since the general description of the styles didn't resonate with me. I figured if I worked out whether I was positivist / negativist etc it would then inform me of whether I'd be DA or VS. I _think _I'm positivist and result orientated, which would be VS. I can't say confidently, though, and the general descriptions were way to abstract for me to recognise myself in either of the cognitive styles.


Why do you think you are positivist and results-oriented over negativist and process-oriented?


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Why do you think you are positivist and results-oriented over negativist and process-oriented?


For reference, I was predominantly using this source.
On Result > Process:
I don't tend to multi-task but that's not from a lack of ability to do so. It's just not as efficient, I suppose. If I were to stop half way though a task I could pick it up again later. I tend to get distracted quite easily though and quite impatient. Whilst writing an essay, if I am struggling to write out one idea I'll probably just leave it and start the next topic until I'm ready to return. Or sometimes I find if I take a break and think about it (or even take a nap and not think about it for a while) it tends to come to me. I see myself as 'outside' the process and the more involved I get the harder it is for me to focus on the direction of my work so I'll come out of it and approach it later with a fresh look. Another example given, not on that site but somewhere when I was reading earlier, was about skipping parts in books or not feeling like spoilers ruin things for you. This makes sense with me as I am currently up to date on Game of Thrones spoilers on my favourite characters without feeling like that's affected my viewing of the show. 

On positivist > negativist:
This one was tricky. I think there's a difference with how I talk to other people and how I talk to myself. In terms of work, I often switch between the two depending on what suits me best. I'm guessing this means I don't quite get the difference between being positivist and negativist. If someone asked me to critique their work I'd down play anything bad. I would pick out the positives and unless there was a giant flaw that couldn't be ignored, I wouldn't say anything bad. That's predominantly because I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings, though. I'm a bit more brutal with myself and often look at what I haven't done. As I mentioned in FreeBeer's thread the other day, however, that might be depressive tendencies having an influence on my perception of myself. When working, my line of thought tends to start off as, "look at all the things you haven't done. You need to do x,y and z by tonight" and then later on I'll probably be more like, "Well I've done x and started y... I haven't hit my target but that's good enough." The last example they give on that article is how one might approach a big change like moving away. I've done this twice in the last few years and have had different reactions to both. I'll try and explain how I felt about each move here because I'm not sure whether they point to negativist or positivist. The first time I wasn't very happy at the school I attended and was extremely happy to leave and get to meet new people and study new subjects. I wasn't very happy with my friends and was bored of the location and change was a positive thing. The second time was when I moved to University where, although I was happy to go, I didn't really want to leave my friends that much since I had really fit in with that group as opposed to the people I was with at the first school. I lived in quite a big city as well and I'd taken it for granted up until this point but as soon as I was moving away I realised how much I liked it and was very focused on that instead of on wanting to leave. Actually, now that I think of it, I might be more negativist because when travelling between my Uni town and my home town I'm always sad to leave whichever one I'm currently staying in. Leaving Uni means leaving friends, societies, freedom etc and leaving home means leaving the town, family, home cooked meals and my old friends.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> For reference, I was predominantly using this source.
> On Result > Process:
> I don't tend to multi-task but that's not from a lack of ability to do so. It's just not as efficient, I suppose. If I were to stop half way though a task I could pick it up again later. I tend to get distracted quite easily though and quite impatient. Whilst writing an essay, if I am struggling to write out one idea I'll probably just leave it and start the next topic until I'm ready to return. Or sometimes I find if I take a break and think about it (or even take a nap and not think about it for a while) it tends to come to me. I see myself as 'outside' the process and the more involved I get the harder it is for me to focus on the direction of my work so I'll come out of it and approach it later with a fresh look. Another example given, not on that site but somewhere when I was reading earlier, was about skipping parts in books or not feeling like spoilers ruin things for you. This makes sense with me as I am currently up to date on Game of Thrones spoilers on my favourite characters without feeling like that's affected my viewing of the show.


Ok, so overall, you're more concerned about the end-product than the procecss of getting there? What you wrote to me seems more process- than results-oriented to me, but I could be wrong. The idea I'm getting from you is that you know there's a start and a finish, but the goal is to get to the finish, correct? 

Wikisocion has this also about Process and Result:

*Process types*



Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.
More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end.
"Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."
*Result types*



Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
Focus on the beginning and the end of processes.
More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
"Of course we followed the correct procedure, since we got the right answer."

What you wrote seems to fit process better than result to me, unless I misunderstood you. The way I interpret results-oriented types is that they do many things at the same time, have many projects running etc., because they know they will get to the end anyway. What matters is that they finish the project itself so they can start a new project, rather than _how _to finish the project. You understand the distinction I'm making here?

I don't think taking breaks etc. means you're a results-oriented type because I think everyone can do that. I can for example take breaks too to collect my thoughts, gather energy etc. but I'm clearly a process type. This is because what matters to me is the process. I have this start and this finish, but the work for me is how to get there. Result types don't care about the process, how you finish a product. They care about the end-product itself, that you finished the project. 




> On positivist > negativist:
> This one was tricky. I think there's a difference with how I talk to other people and how I talk to myself. In terms of work, I often switch between the two depending on what suits me best. I'm guessing this means I don't quite get the difference between being positivist and negativist. If someone asked me to critique their work I'd down play anything bad. I would pick out the positives and unless there was a giant flaw that couldn't be ignored, I wouldn't say anything bad. That's predominantly because I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings, though. I'm a bit more brutal with myself and often look at what I haven't done. As I mentioned in FreeBeer's thread the other day, however, that might be depressive tendencies having an influence on my perception of myself. When working, my line of thought tends to start off as, "look at all the things you haven't done. You need to do x,y and z by tonight" and then later on I'll probably be more like, "Well I've done x and started y... I haven't hit my target but that's good enough." The last example they give on that article is how one might approach a big change like moving away. I've done this twice in the last few years and have had different reactions to both. I'll try and explain how I felt about each move here because I'm not sure whether they point to negativist or positivist. The first time I wasn't very happy at the school I attended and was extremely happy to leave and get to meet new people and study new subjects. I wasn't very happy with my friends and was bored of the location and change was a positive thing. The second time was when I moved to University where, although I was happy to go, I didn't really want to leave my friends that much since I had really fit in with that group as opposed to the people I was with at the first school. I lived in quite a big city as well and I'd taken it for granted up until this point but as soon as I was moving away I realised how much I liked it and was very focused on that instead of on wanting to leave. Actually, now that I think of it, I might be more negativist because when travelling between my Uni town and my home town I'm always sad to leave whichever one I'm currently staying in. Leaving Uni means leaving friends, societies, freedom etc and leaving home means leaving the town, family, home cooked meals and my old friends.


Hm, this overall still seems like negativist thinking. You categorize by defining what something is not. A cat is not a dog because it is not a dog. The way I understand positivist thinking as per Gulenko's description, is that they look for similarities rather than differences. A cat and dog are both animals. Do you understand the difference?

So it's not so much whether you are optimistic or not, I misunderstood this aspect of the positivist/negativist dichotomy too, but whether your cognition is more likely to define things according to how different or how similar they are. 

With that in mind, would you say you are more likely to look at things in terms of difference or in terms of similiarity?


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Ok, so overall, you're more concerned about the end-product than the procecss of getting there? What you wrote to me seems more process- than results-oriented to me, but I could be wrong. The idea I'm getting from you is that you know there's a start and a finish, but the goal is to get to the finish, correct?
> 
> Wikisocion has this also about Process and Result:
> 
> ...


This explanation makes more sense. The trouble with the explanations I was reading was the examples were quite vague and I could apply most of the examples to my situation, as in the case of taking breaks. The suggestion seemed to be that process types could not leave in the middle of something whereas when I take a break it's usually out of frustration and I leave an idea, paragraph or even a sentence half finished. If I have no trouble with the essay, however, I do things from beginning to end. My study of socionics thus far has been trying to put stages in a logical order (i.e. learn cognitive functions first, then model A, then Quadras then... etc) so I guess that's definitely process type from what you've explained.



> Hm, this overall still seems like negativist thinking. You categorize by defining what something is not. A cat is not a dog because it is not a dog. The way I understand positivist thinking as per Gulenko's description, is that they look for similarities rather than differences. A cat and dog are both animals. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> So it's not so much whether you are optimistic or not, I misunderstood this aspect of the positivist/negativist dichotomy too, but whether your cognition is more likely to define things according to how different or how similar they are.
> 
> With that in mind, would you say you are more likely to look at things in terms of difference or in terms of similiarity?


I was trying to get at the fact I tend to notice what's missing rather than the fact that I'm pessimistic. The last question is hard because it isn't something I've thought about prior to this and now anything I think about now is influenced by this. I can't think of how I'd compare a cat or a dog without this influencing my answer. I think I'd lean towards differences and negativist thinking. When I look over my past comparisons. I can't be sure until I catch myself in the act of negative comparison, though, but this one seems to fit better.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Also, @*Kanerou *and @LeaT, could you explain how you worked out you were in the wrong temperament? I'm guessing it's something to with functions rather than temperament descriptions but could you go over what about IP/J you initially identified with but later realised was more IJ/P? 

The trouble with the EJ / IP temperament is that they're complete opposites so there shouldn't be much confusion.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

I came into Socionics as an ENFP and pretty quickly settled in as an IEE. It was between IEE and IEI at first, and was that way for a while after; I couldn't imagine being a rational type, and the rational descriptions didn't fit. Concerning temperaments, I'm generally very lazy, with fluctuating energy levels (mostly of a low baseline with fidgety moments). Past that, I'd have to go dig up the descriptions I went off of, and I'm too tired to care about doing that at the moment. Anyway, point being, it was between EP and IP at first.

I was eventually typed EII by a rather prominent socionist within the English-speaking community (Rick DeLong, who used to offer socionics consultations. He's since retired from socionics and doesn't consider it particularly accurate anymore). He didn't place much emphasis on temperament, choosing instead to focus on the IEs, and he said something to this effect when I mentioned not identifying with IJ. Other people with similar information (I had some videos Rick asked me to make on specific topics) had typed me IEI. I spent a fair amount of time waffling back and forth between the two, part of which was due to depending more on others' reasoning instead of strengthening my own. At some point, I came around to a tentative EII verdict; I've since questioned that typing, but I'm very comfortable as an Fi-base type. I don't worry about whether I fit someone's idea of an IJ.

Edit: So to answer this:



> could you go over what about IP/J you initially identified with but later realised was more IJ/P?


I don't think in those terms, so I can't answer that particular question.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@bombsaway You do seem negativist to me. For example this sentence that you wrote:


> The trouble with the EJ / IP temperament is that they're complete opposites so there shouldn't be much confusion.


It operates on that the assumption that you define them by their differences rather than their similarities. You even write yourself that they are complete opposites. A positivist type would be more concerned about trying to find how they are similar. I can for example imagine a VS type saying, "It's so difficult to figure out my type because IP and EJ are both temperaments so how do I know which one I fit?"

A negativist would of course say, you know which one is what because you look at how different they are. IP and EJ are of course completely opposite to each other! One leads by judgement, one leads by perception, one is extroverted, one is introverted and so forth. That's not how positivists work though, especially not the VS types. To retort this, they might say, "But you sometimes judge and you sometimes perceive; how do I know if I'm EJ or IP if I do both? You cannot operate only by judging or perceiving." 

This is why I find VS cognition so infuriating to reason with. :laughing: It's like they take everything I say and twists it inside out. You don't really get anywhere with them because they just swirl and swirl. There's no real conclusion. They can even say things they don't believe in themselves because they just want to "try" if it seems rational as a conclusion.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Thank you both for your help. Certain points have been hard to work out by myself - particularly the dichotomies since I can't compare me to anyone to know whether I'm particularly one thing over the other so the help there has been incredibly useful. I think all points we've discussed seem to lead to me being SEI rather than ESE so I'll go with that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

As for myself, I entered socionics with the assumption that I was an MBTI INTP because that's what I typed on the MBTI test at the time, so I thought it was correct since I identified with the descriptions and I didn't qestion this much further than that.

I heard that most INTPs tend to either be LIIs or ILIs in socionics, so I immediately narrowed it down to LII and ILI respectively. I asked for type help, as I was too much of a newb to type myself at the time. After receiving a lot of input I felt like I didn't get anywhere, and I felt like neither LII and ILI fit me well.

I began looking at the Model A but only briefly, but what I really liked was Reinin. I think the reason why that was is because it fits my cognition style very well. Reinin as a system is clearly negativist and seems to be more DA-like than HP. Anyway, I began researching Reinin. While I was doing this, other things happened in my life where I got deeply involved with an LIE. Not romantically, but we had an intense friendship. While this happened I also became more aware of Fi. 

This led to a lot of confusion, probably not helped because I have a very strong 4 wing on my 5 core with a 4w5 fix, so I began identifying myself with Fi as a base/dominant function. I became convinced that the reason why I clicked so well with this LIE was because we were duals or semi-duals, because I tended to score EII on Reinin. 

I knew that I was Fi-Te in both MBTI and socionics after I became aware of Fi, and I was certain that I wasn't an ESI because I'm clearly an intuitive type. Plus, on Reinin I tended to get EII so it just made sense at the time. Unless you know where to look, what you will see in my forum posts in terms of reasoning process are Te and Fi respectively, not Ni, so I didn't just confuse myself but I also confused my friends. They too only saw the Te-Fi, not the underlying process that resulted in Te-Fi. Now that I know I'm an Ni type I can see the Ni in my reasoning very well, but I didn't before. I managed to convince some people that I was Te dominant because Te is such a dominant feature in my reasoning process.

I didn't really look into temperaments as I thought none of them made much sense at the time (they sounded like the Russian version of the J/P letters in the MBTI to me, and since I'm skeptical of J/P, I became skeptical of the temperaments in a similar manner), but I rationalized that Fi base made sense, just like I rationalized that I was an MBTI INFP. I typed as INFP/EII for several months thereafter, not really questioning my type anymore. It made a lot of sense at the time given what I knew about myself and what I knew about the system(s).

However, over time I became increasingly aware that something wasn't quite right with my typing. I started to question that I really was an inferior Te type because I seemed so much more logical and rational than other IxFPs which really was beyond that of intelligence and IQ levels, and my Te never seemed to have that archaic and inferior appearance theirs tended to have. I did relate a lot of IxFPs but I also started to note a cognitive dissonance. I tried to rationalize that the reason why my Te seems so advanced and easy to use as a function perspective is because I'm an enneatype 5 who has a natural inclination towards logical rationalization. 

There were other things I began realizing about myself as well. One of them was that I started to notice that when I plan ahead, I do not do so with Si but with Ni. The step-by-step approach I create seems to not be based on previous experiences of what I know, but how to reach the goal the fastest and the most efficient way. When I'm performing step 1 in real life, I'm already at step 8 in my mind. This didn't seem congruent with how I understood SiTe cognition. There's a great scene that actually describes this very well in the movie The Avangers, where Tony Stark has to repair the ship engine, but suffice to say, it's very future-oriented. It's about anticipating or making plans for action to achieve results.






When I saw that clip for the first time the other day, I went pretty much holy moly, that's exactly how I think when I'm problem-solving too! This isn't so strange of course, since I'd say that Tony Stark is depicted as a pretty stereotype LIE-Te in the latest depictions of Iron-Man. Anyway, it's interesting to see how your own cognition can be depicted so clearly in a film like that. It was pretty unexpected. 

Then there were other small things that just kept building up as well that seemed to point towards me being a mistype but I won't go over all of them here. But anyway, I started to seriously consider that I'm a mistype, and it became pretty easy to narrow down what type I'd be if I was. I knew for a fact that I favor Fi-Te, am an introvert and I am intuitive. This could only point towards gamma NT, and specifically ILI. 

As I was looking more into the possibility of ILI, I had an insight where I realized I was an Ni dominant. This came as I was researching and looking more into Gulenko's cognitive styles and I was trying to understand how it worked. 

Re-reading the article and the temperaments again, I began to strongly identify with the IP temperament and I could see some merit in that that I didn't see before. It just made so much sense in typical Ni fashion.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> This explanation makes more sense. The trouble with the explanations I was reading was the examples were quite vague and I could apply most of the examples to my situation, as in the case of taking breaks.


Yeah I relate to that issue  I can work in both result and process "modes". The latter though is a bit "draining". With some tasks, I try to work in a process oriented fashion to make sure I don't miss anything. E.g. when I was studying at university, I went from start to end in order on the material that I was studying to make sure I covered everything. In a lot of other tasks I'm in result "mode" and that's just fine, not draining or whatever the feeling I get is.

As for negativist/positivist modes, I don't switch this easily there. I don't even know if I ever switch to positivist mode. (Not saying "never", supposedly you go both ways on reinin traits, just you tend to do one option significantly more than the other)

As for the original question on PoLR, for me it's just something that I don't have any idea about. It doesn't feel sore or whatever. The theory supposedly says that the best you can do is approach the PoLR related topics with creative function instead and that does make sense to me. I definitely work much better in that way. Otoh, forcing use of PoLR function is not so neutral anymore as it really quickly drains me.

I see it was mentioned in the thread how you might suddenly realise later that you've missed something (relating to PoLR). I do recall some examples in my life about that 

A note... interestingly enough, Ne as role function feels annoying to me more easily than PoLR (Fi). Is that in line with the theory?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> A note... interestingly enough, Ne as role function feels annoying to me more easily than PoLR (Fi). Is that in line with the theory?


Nope.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

ESE - WSWiki

Read that, and you'll see how Ni polr comes up.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

AliceBelly said:


> Could you give an example of what the PoLR might look like? For example, if I am indeed ESE then my vulnerable function is Ni. What would be an example of me not valuing Ni or just not being very good at it?


You just copied and pasted something I said earlier in the thread? Why do that?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> Could you give an example of what the PoLR might look like? For example, if I am indeed ESE then my vulnerable function is Ni. What would be an example of me not valuing Ni or just not being very good at it?


You can find discussions on various PoLR functions here: Socionics - the16types.info - The hidden agenda



bombsaway said:


> The Role function is something that you're not particularly good at but see the importance of. You make an effort here occasionally but not for very long and feel guilty about not being very good at it. So someone with Fe here might make sporadic attempts at using Fe but ultimately not be as good as someone who has Fe in their Ego block and when they are told they aren't very good they get self conscious because they know that.


Which particular feelings you experience depends on the personal emotional constitution. It can be feeling of shame, boredom, dismissiveness, frustration, and so on. When I encouter SLIs and SEIs whose dominant function is my PoLR I'm liable to think: "why is this person focusing so much on unimportant issues? They take up information in such a literal way. Their approach is so limited and seems wrong!" I don't feel any shame in having weak Si.



> On the other hand, the PoLR is something you aren't good at but don't see any point in. You don't make the effort because why should you?


It's not that you don't see any point in your PoLR. It's that your PoLR directly counters the functioning of your creative function i.e. ESEs have Ni-PoLR because they are Si-creative. They couldn't be "caregivers" if they valued Ni. 

Your conflictor and supervisor both have a "bull-in-china-shop" effect on your ideas and projects because their dominant function opposes your creative function. You can think of PoLR as symbolizing this conflict i.e. dominant Ni of ILIs and IEIs opposes creative Si of ESEs creating Ni-PoLR.



> If someone calls you out on it you get defensive rather than have conscious feelings of being inferior.


Actually those of creative function subtypes will actively defend against being called out on their PoLR (i.e. ESE-Sis will defend themselves against Ni). Dominant function subtypes will usually just try to avoid it.

I think PoLR function is admired from a distance -- you see your supervisor being successful at things that don't come easy for you and require extensive expenditure of energy and efforts, while to your supervisor these things come naturally and immediately. You may not value their dominant (your PoLR) but you cannot deny that it has merit.



> The person with Fe PoLR, for example, wouldn't feel self conscious about their lack of Fe but would probably just be rude / tactless in response because they aren't recognising their error.


Sounds about right. You don't recognize the specific way that you are until you learn socionics. People with Fi/Fe PoLRs often don't recongnize that they are insensitive until someone draws their attention to this.



> It's like when a teacher sets you homework and one is too difficult so you don't do it and make up excuses about it when your teacher confronts you (role function) vs. when you just see the homework as a waste of time and you don't even bother attempting and get annoyed when confronted at why you didn't do it.


It's more like you see teacher's aim as ultimately wrong and in addition can't understand it's wording very well.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> Recently I've been trying to figure out whether I'd be ESE or SEI. At this stage I'm confident I use Fe + Si, I'm just not sure which is my base / creative. E/I has always been a blurry line for me and typical descriptions don't shed any light on which one I'd be. In terms of PoLR, Ni makes more sense because I don't really see it as an issue. It's a bad habit maybe or something I just ignore. I'd say Te would be a sore spot rather than a blind spot, which would suggest ESE.
> 
> The trouble is, I relate a hell of a lot more to the IP temperament and the EJ one. Do you put any investment in temperament descriptions? If so, is it possible I am Te PoLR but misunderstanding somewhere? I'm not so much looking for your opinion on my type but an opinion on a reliable way for me to find my type now that I've narrowed it down to two very similar ones.


You can try looking into your intertype relationships. These are very different between SEI and ESE.
For example ESEs are supervised by IEIs while SEIs are supervised by LSEs. You can read the profiles of these types, watch some videos of real life examples, and think about which type is likely to be your supervisor. Then do the same thing with benefit relations (LSI-EII for SEI and SLE-IEE for ESE).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> People with Fi/Fe PoLRs often don't recongnize that they are insensitive until someone draws their attention to this.


The bane of my existence. That's why I linked some of those interactions because it perfectly exemplifies this. Someone thinks I'm an asshole (especially from an Fe POV, Fi types don't really seem to mind or think I'm an asshole and if they do they just Fi scold me and life moves on), I either deny, ignore or argue that I'm not, I'm just being rational and it just spirals out of control. Either the person who thought I was an asshole keeps bickering and I leave because they keep pushing my PoLR and I won't have that or they become so upset because I was apparently *so* insensitive and I simply am left scratching my head what I did wrong. 

Usually I am left scratching my head unless they really tell me how much I fucking suck at Fe. I might or might not get defensive about that.

On the other hand, those with Ti/Te PoLR don't realize they are illogical either so it evens out :laughing: I am not sure what's worse to me in others, N or T PoLR. I think I am willing to forgive weak thinking if the intuition is all right though. I might.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> When I encouter SLIs and SEIs whose dominant function is my PoLR I'm liable to think: "why is this person focusing so much on unimportant issues? They take up information in such a literal way. Their approach is so limited and seems wrong!" I don't feel any shame in having weak Si.


You're EIE/LIE, @_cyamitide_? For some reason I thought you were IEI.




Kamishi said:


> Someone thinks I'm an asshole (especially from an Fe POV, Fi types don't really seem to mind or think I'm an asshole and if they do they just Fi scold me and life moves on), I either deny, ignore or argue that I'm not, I'm just being rational and it just spirals out of control. Either the person who thought I was an asshole keeps bickering and I leave because they keep pushing my PoLR and I won't have that or they become so upset because I was apparently *so* insensitive and I simply am left scratching my head what I did wrong.




IME with ILIs I tend to be less critical and more... directive. Like, I have this ILI friend who is often socially awkward and I'll tell him to sit down or something and not get why he wants to keep standing next to empty chairs while everyone else is sitting. Being creative-subtype probably figures in to why I'm like this (sometimes I think I'm letting people off easy compared to what a Fe-subtype would do... people have no idea). The only time I catch myself reacting to Fe-PoLR negatively is when I get sour because an ILI/SLI keeps trying to bait me into carrying the conversation by myself, when they get passive-aggressive after I've been nice to them, or, in the case of my ILI-Te best friend, when he's mean to our cat, lol. I think the response you described is more true of an SEI's reaction to ILI, probably.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Cantarella said:


> You're EIE/LIE, @cyamitide? For some reason I thought you were IEI.


So did I.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Cantarella said:


> IME with ILIs I tend to be less critical and more... directive. Like, I have this ILI friend who is often socially awkward and I'll tell him to sit down or something and not get why he wants to keep standing next to empty chairs while everyone else is sitting. Being creative-subtype probably figures in to why I'm like this (sometimes I think I'm letting people off easy compared to what a Fe-subtype would do... people have no idea). The only time I catch myself reacting to Fe-PoLR negatively is when I get sour because an ILI/SLI keeps trying to bait me into carrying the conversation by myself, when they get passive-aggressive after I've been nice to them, or, in the case of my ILI-Te best friend, when he's mean to our cat, lol. I think the response you described is more true of an SEI's reaction to ILI, probably.


cyamitide types as IEI as far as I know. 

And maybe it is, I don't know. It seems to occur with Fe contact types in general, SEI or IEI, at least on this forum. Not sure how I think it applies IRL. I don't tend to see a lot of people outside my friendship circle and there is one beta NF who sometimes hangs out with us and I tend to avoid her when I know she's going too, so.

She's very strong on the Fe and likes to structure and organize our friendship group to fit her better and I just go yuck. Last time it happened she had us play these social games that to me were utterly pointless since there was no goal or logic behind them e.g. pretend you're an animal and make a sound and then take rounds in a group so if you make the sound of someone else's animal, that person has to respond. 

I think that was definitely one of the worst social experiences I've had in a long time without question so never again, thank you.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

Kamishi said:


> cyamitide types as IEI as far as I know.
> 
> And maybe it is, I don't know. It seems to occur with Fe contact types in general, SEI or IEI, at least on this forum. Not sure how I think it applies IRL. I don't tend to see a lot of people outside my friendship circle and there is one beta NF who sometimes hangs out with us and I tend to avoid her when I know she's going too, so.


In my experience contact-Fe would be right, especially if they are Fe-subtype. I'm committed to a male IEI-Ni and friends with another male IEI-Ni and two female IEI-Fes, and though the guys sometimes bitch about somebody's ethics, the girls will go on what seems like a pointless crusade to me to get someone to admit they're an asshole. Fe-base types tend to just take people as they are (until they decide they really hate someone and it's time to destroy them, which happens sometimes...). Since Fe is a contact function for them it's more sporadic and has more to prove.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I understood POLR as part of the Super-ego functions, and it never occurred to me that people thought that this was a "blind spot" - as part of the mental ring I understood it very much to be known, but disliked. Compare to Role which is just sort of like oh, I have to do this now? POLR is more like I don't want to do this at all.
> 
> It occupies that part of the mental area which we are able to understand when it is being done, and we know what it is, but we are not comfortable about when to do it and how to do it.
> 
> I would describe POLR as being a sport you know how to play but are just bad at ... like me I know how to play football (soccer) but am indeterminably crap at it, and sometimes on occasion im forced, or pressured to play it, and I feel people looking at me and urging me, and I feel under intense pressure, and intimidation: won't they take no for an answer? I have to play this game? alright... and I embarrass myself, I mess up, the ball goes askew, and people are looking at me and I think they are laughing, perhaps they are not but if I were them I would be - I leave the field in disgrace, exhausted and embarrassed, and must go off to do some activity that I enjoy and am good at like drinking or reading.


Cool description. Can you put this in context of Fi PoLR please?




cyamitide said:


> Something like that. It's not that intuitive types don't check what they think against reality -- it's that they tend to think and speak in very generalized terms. To sensing types this seems overly vague and hypothetical. Take yourself, for example, you often request specific examples of whatever theoretical generalization somebody else posts here.


Yeah anything that's hard to see how to apply or even how to directly relate it to reality will seem overly vague. I don't necessarily need application but must at least anchor it with reality. Otherwise even if it's some really cool construct, it's ultimately mental masturbation :/

Again let me stress that I'm not at all against theoretical stuff by default. Mathematics for me is lovely stuff and there is no problem in relating it and applying it to the world when needed.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Cool description. Can you put this in context of Fi PoLR please?


I remember when you told me you weren't very inclined to make like-dislike judgements about things and people and shied away from that as being reminiscent of Fi PoLR, but you didn't give much more of an explanation as to why it is so it was difficult to place. 

Another thing I'm curious about is how subtype may affect PoLR. I've seen some ideas floating around but nothing concrete. I have yet to observe any personal patterns as well. I was thinking before that my sensitivity to Fe was because of Te subtype since if one values Te more, the one must devalue Fe more, right?, but I have to throw that idea out of the window since I changed subtype. Though perhaps one could make an opposite claim where more valued Fi that would come with Ni subtype might reject Fe more. 

Another thing I notice when it comes to the PoLR is that if you gather a bunch of people sharing PoLR and you ask what they think of the PoLR, they will all go on long rants on how much they dislike the PoLR, especially when observed in other people. It's actually rather interesting and weird at the same time how people can so passionately share such a strong dislike towards a specific behavior in other people. Like most of my ILI friends have all voiced concerns like this versus Fe pretty much, and if you were to just briefly mention anything that could hint or indicate Fe behavior, people just seem to naturally associate and start ranting about the PoLR.


> Yeah anything that's hard to see how to apply or even how to directly relate it to reality will seem overly vague. I don't necessarily need application but must at least anchor it with reality. Otherwise even if it's some really cool construct, it's ultimately mental masturbation :/


lol, mental masturbation. Do you experience any different between alpha and gamma NTs in this regard? Because I tend to experience alphas as doing this to a large degree, often lacking a real point with their thinking.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I remember when you told me you weren't very inclined to make like-dislike judgements about things and people and shied away from that as being reminiscent of Fi PoLR, but you didn't give much more of an explanation as to why it is so it was difficult to place.


Well "like-dislike" in that sense that I would pay attention to internal feelings and make judgements based on that. I just don't really do that... that kind of focus on myself feels foreign to me. Yes I associated that with Fi PoLR. If I like something I think I do that more in the Fe way.

Was this explanation helping any for you?

Btw I don't know if that fits role Fi too. (In which case I could seriously consider Ne PoLR after all)




> Another thing I'm curious about is how subtype may affect PoLR. I've seen some ideas floating around but nothing concrete. I have yet to observe any personal patterns as well. I was thinking before that my sensitivity to Fe was because of Te subtype since if one values Te more, the one must devalue Fe more, right?, but I have to throw that idea out of the window since I changed subtype. Though perhaps one could make an opposite claim where more valued Fi that would come with Ni subtype might reject Fe more.


That's exactly why I don't even try to figure that one out  You can argue both ways.




> Another thing I notice when it comes to the PoLR is that if you gather a bunch of people sharing PoLR and you ask what they think of the PoLR, they will all go on long rants on how much they dislike the PoLR, especially when observed in other people. It's actually rather interesting and weird at the same time how people can so passionately share such a strong dislike towards a specific behavior in other people. Like most of my ILI friends have all voiced concerns like this versus Fe pretty much, and if you were to just briefly mention anything that could hint or indicate Fe behavior, people just seem to naturally associate and start ranting about the PoLR.


Haha yeah. Well I don't care if someone's Fi or not if they leave me alone with it 




> lol, mental masturbation. Do you experience any different between alpha and gamma NTs in this regard?


I haven't asked myself that question yet.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Well "like-dislike" in that sense that I would pay attention to internal feelings and make judgements based on that. I just don't really do that... that kind of focus on myself feels foreign to me. Yes I associated that with Fi PoLR. If I like something I think I do that more in the Fe way.
> 
> Was this explanation helping any for you?
> 
> Btw I don't know if that fits role Fi too. (In which case I could seriously consider Ne PoLR after all)


I suppose between PoLR and role would be to determine what you dislike more, honestly. I don't like Si cognition either, but between Fe and Si I clearly dislike Fe more. And how do Fe types like something?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I was thinking before that my sensitivity to Fe was because of Te subtype since if one values Te more, the one must devalue Fe more, right?


probably because of your grandmother

I'm sensitive (used to be a lot worse) to Se because of my Dad, who could possibly be an SEE.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I suppose between PoLR and role would be to determine what you dislike more, honestly. I don't like Si cognition either, but between Fe and Si I clearly dislike Fe more. And how do Fe types like something?


It's actually hard to say which one I dislike more in a cognitive sense, Ne or Fi. Fi I just don't really get and Ne fucks with my brain.  Ok, seriously though, I can get tired of divergent Ne stuff very quickly. But I can like the way ILE's or LII's explain a few things. Maybe it's just the Ti there, those explanations by them that I prefer tend to be focused.

Fe vs liking something: socionics descriptions tend to use the word passion for that and I think that works.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

role function implies a limitation and use of which takes energy to use and normally a person doesn't push energy into it. therefor it is a non-existent function. its best to think of things in this realm as non existent.

the PoLR function is sort of like an "inside-out" function. it works backwards unlike the other functions which are pushed outward with the exception of the demonstrative function. this backwards element makes you have the opposite effect of someone with this as their leading function. it drains the energy away that functions use in the environment. People using their leading function can find this frustrating especially if person using said PoLR function has others around with it as their demonstrative function or ignoring function. also creating a vacuum or a stance of non-existence.

PoLR and demonstrative equals a vacuum to the other functions in the environment.
Role and ignoring creates a non existence stance to the information not literally sucking it out of the environment but seeing it as nonexistent.

the Role and Ignoring are less harmful to those with leading information thats similar because it still lets it exsist it just doesn't affect the individuals whereas the PoLR and demonstrative can literally absorb that information right out of the atmosphere.

hope this helps.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

GreenCoyote said:


> role function implies a limitation and use of which takes energy to use and normally a person doesn't push energy into it. therefor it is a non-existent function. its best to think of things in this realm as non existent.


Well ok that interpretation fits Ne more than Fi, in my case... Not that it makes too much sense because otherwise role function is usually defined as something you actually do try to pay attention to, at times. But yeah sure it does take energy to try and use it. 

Where does this interpretation come from?




> the PoLR function is sort of like an "inside-out" function. it works backwards unlike the other functions which are pushed outward with the exception of the demonstrative function.


Could you elaborate on this? What do you mean by it working backwards vs other functions being outward? Also... what energy would functions use in the environment? This is all really very abstracted away.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Cool description. Can you put this in context of Fi PoLR please?


 Sure. Fi is about relational ethics. In a nutshell, identifying what are the relationships between people and why, and how you are going to set your own relationship rules. For Fi leading type, their interpersonal relations are decided by the way in which people react to their personal ethics. This forms the archetype of the person who gets pissed off about something completely unexpectedly, holds a grudge against you forever and never talks to you again.

For you and I, with Fi in our POLR (I might start calling this Polear or something more cute) we're not just bad at this kind of thing, we're actually outright upset by it: the problem is that the organisation of all the other mental rings means that we _need_ to do this kind of behaviour from time to time. I don't know about you, but myself:
- I either treat everybody the same, or I heap privileges on them depending on our interpersonal relations. There's no "graduating" stages of how I treat someone: it's either business or it's best friend. And this behaviour is reasonably consistent. This suggests an immature ability to adjust personal relationships depending on circumstances (look Im even being nice to Fi, see how much Ne that cost?)

- I don't get involved in other people's emotional state (unless I really care for them) - and I don't expect them to be interested in mine either. It's always a shock when people are like "We're worrying about you" - what? Why worry about me for? 

- Similarly, it's difficult to read, or care about others emotional state unless they make some kind of concrete statement about it. For me, if people are like "I feel sad," "I feel shit," my response is "Oh, why?" rather than some kind of warming Fi hugfest. 

To come to the analogy I made about football, expressing, understanding and discussing emotion makes me feel really awkward, honestly. Sometimes I have to do it, but it's not my natural state at all. And I don't like to put it on other people. Another thing I can't do is verbalise how I feel. I can act it out possibly even kinaesthetically or physically (when Im emotional, you know it because I am MOBILE, because that's how I express emotion - it's like boiling point because if I do this thing subtly, people will pick up on the emotional weakness: if I go all-out then they will be focused on how expansive I'm being, rather than how poorly my emotions are phrased. That could be an Se defensive manoeuvre, not sure.) but definitely just talking about it makes me feel very uneasy.

LETS compare this to Fe, briefly, because they can be confusing. Fi is about interpersonal relationships, how you value other people and how you express that value. Fe is about how you value groups and how you express that value. The difference is that in an SLE, we're both bad at them - but the Fi is devalued and the Fe valued. We like people who can raise group atmosphere - we don't like people who are constantly making ethical judgments and internal warmth the basis of the strength, and the founding characteristic, of their interpersonal relationships. 

It's like "being friends with someone for the sake of having warm relations with them would be nice" - I think that for SLE this is much too "pointless" type of behaviour to be appreciated. On the other hand "generating large-group feeling" has some kind of binding, productive, expansive, whatever - it has some benefit, and it's also fun, so... 

sorry, I ranted.



itsme45 said:


> Could you elaborate on this? What do you mean by it working backwards vs other functions being outward? Also... what energy would functions use in the environment? This is all really very abstracted away.


 I think he means tendency to repression rather than expression. PolR and Demonstrative are both the 2nd function of the repressed (mental and non mental) superego and and id, so I would suggest that they are the functions we like to stamp on, rather than to see expressed or to actually express ourselves: that's my guess.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> probably because of your grandmother
> 
> I'm sensitive (used to be a lot worse) to Se because of my Dad, who could possibly be an SEE.


Yes, she does play a role of course, over-exposing me and creating very strong associations to Fe. I do think it's unfair put all the blame on her though. She's just being herself, unfortunately for me.

The oddest point of all when it comes to ILI-ESE intertype is that the ESE often tries to move against the ILI in that they will attempt to bridge whatever gap I create as a divide in order to maintain my own space. They notice I emotionally pull away which just reinforces their attempts to make me open up more. It's very frustrating.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

this is my own interpretation. I just wanted to throw it out there. you don't have to follow it. 

the negative functions absorb flow.
for example. I am a Fe dom and I am hanging around an ILI. the ILI's emotionless expression negates activity of my Fe since it depends on the reaction of others emotions towards my behavior. My leading function will still be turned on and very active. its my lead function afterall but the other type will absorb it and not feel its affect. it is also perceived as negative energy so the absorption causes pain. enough people with Fe PoLR in the atmosphere will negate the Fe dom no matter if the ILI doesn't also press the Fe dom PoLR. Enough PoLR activity can negate the person with that as their leading function.


----------



## GreenCoyote (Nov 2, 2009)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, she does play a role of course, over-exposing me and creating very strong associations to Fe. I do think it's unfair put all the blame on her though. She's just being herself, unfortunately for me.
> 
> The oddest point of all when it comes to ILI-ESE intertype is that the ESE often tries to move against the ILI in that they will attempt to bridge whatever gap I create as a divide in order to maintain my own space. They notice I emotionally pull away which just reinforces their attempts to make me open up more. It's very frustrating.


With my mom(ESE) and my aunt(ILI)...

My mom will try to enliven the mood of the atmosphere, not necessarily getting people to laugh but getting them to be comfortable. she moves from person to person and talks to each of them at different times throughout the party. she is social and all about connecting. the disconnect from my aunt is frustrating for her but at the same time I believe thats my aunts business and I think my mom believes that too. every once in a while my aunt will say a statement like, "I'm not gonna do that." in relation to my Dad(LII) plans on politics and plans for stuff. I am sure this advice in direction helps my aunts husband(SEE) choose which path to follow. for some reason, (maybe cause they are brothers) my dad and uncle get along fine and my mom and aunt even joke occasionally about not liking each other mainly cause I brought it up to their attention with personality typing


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Sure. Fi is about relational ethics. In a nutshell, identifying what are the relationships between people and why, and how you are going to set your own relationship rules. For Fi leading type, their interpersonal relations are decided by the way in which people react to their personal ethics. This forms the archetype of the person who gets pissed off about something completely unexpectedly, holds a grudge against you forever and never talks to you again.


Haha I think that's a really stupid archetype. At least I don't often see this happen in this black/white way (not that this is a bad thing).




> For you and I, with Fi in our POLR (I might start calling this Polear or something more cute)


Yeah we need a cute name here 




> we're not just bad at this kind of thing, we're actually outright upset by it: the problem is that the organisation of all the other mental rings means that we _need_ to do this kind of behaviour from time to time.


I'm actually not sure if I'm upset by Fi directly. I once read an interpretation how PoLR hit is actually a HA hit and it made some sense to me. I mean, situations where I can get upset over some F thing, I'm probably expecting Fe input instead of Fi. And expecting my HA to be accepted.




> I don't know about you, but myself:
> - I either treat everybody the same, or I heap privileges on them depending on our interpersonal relations. There's no "graduating" stages of how I treat someone: it's either business or it's best friend. And this behaviour is reasonably consistent. This suggests an immature ability to adjust personal relationships depending on circumstances (look Im even being nice to Fi, see how much Ne that cost?)


Yeah, I treat everybody the same. Otoh, I'm glad if it's easy for you to jump to the other extreme end of the scale, really not as easy for me. But yes definitely an immature ability in adjusting relationships.

Lol poor overtaxed Ne.




> - I don't get involved in other people's emotional state (unless I really care for them) - and I don't expect them to be interested in mine either. It's always a shock when people are like "We're worrying about you" - what? Why worry about me for?


How do you get directly involved in their states when you really care for them? I don't see myself doing that directly :/ More indirect really. Example, if there's serious trouble with a family member or a supposedly close friend then I will get upset through the practical aspect of the issue. I can get really upset but not in that direct way you mention it.

I do relate to your shock about finding out that people may worry about you 




> - Similarly, it's difficult to read, or care about others emotional state unless they make some kind of concrete statement about it. For me, if people are like "I feel sad," "I feel shit," my response is "Oh, why?" rather than some kind of warming Fi hugfest.


Yeah I ask why.  But isn't warming hugfest Fe > Fi? Ok, crappy stereotypes. I really thought it's more Fe though. I suck at that too but I can still do that better than directly feeling for the person. I mean, I can act in some way easier by giving a hug, smile, say nice words than just feeling it directly.

Btw I can read others' emotional state by facial expression and behaviour but a simple concrete statement often just kind of goes past me if it's just simply a statement "I feel sad" and nothing more than that. I mean, if it's stated in a dry or subdued way. Probably notice it more with added Fe ornaments lol. I will realise that it's a statement that has emotional weight.




> To come to the analogy I made about football, expressing, understanding and discussing emotion makes me feel really awkward, honestly. Sometimes I have to do it, but it's not my natural state at all.


Yeah I get that & relate to it. I don't think anyone can make me do it though... when do you feel like you "have to" do it?




> And I don't like to put it on other people. Another thing I can't do is verbalise how I feel. I can act it out possibly even kinaesthetically or physically (when Im emotional, you know it because I am MOBILE, because that's how I express emotion - it's like boiling point because if I do this thing subtly, people will pick up on the emotional weakness: if I go all-out then they will be focused on how expansive I'm being, rather than how poorly my emotions are phrased. That could be an Se defensive manoeuvre, not sure.) but definitely just talking about it makes me feel very uneasy.


Yes uneasy talking about it.

Hmmm, interesting about expression of emotion.  Do you mean you e.g. get angry and just show that in an active fashion, acting it out?

I don't really plan my emotional expression in this way tbh... not in any way at all lol.




> LETS compare this to Fe, briefly, because they can be confusing. Fi is about interpersonal relationships, how you value other people and how you express that value. Fe is about how you value groups and how you express that value. The difference is that in an SLE, we're both bad at them - but the Fi is devalued and the Fe valued. We like people who can raise group atmosphere - we don't like people who are constantly making ethical judgments and internal warmth the basis of the strength, and the founding characteristic, of their interpersonal relationships.
> 
> It's like "being friends with someone for the sake of having warm relations with them would be nice" - I think that for SLE this is much too "pointless" type of behaviour to be appreciated. On the other hand "generating large-group feeling" has some kind of binding, productive, expansive, whatever - it has some benefit, and it's also fun, so...


Oh yeah, I like that comparison. I'm totally with you on the Fi parts here. Just got stuck on one little point, what do you mean by group feeling being binding? :/ No way nah... I either find it fun or not... nothing to do with commitment for me thank-you. Also, productive benefits? What did you mean there?




> sorry, I ranted.


Hey no worries, it's nice to see how you relate to Fi PoLR. Hope you also don't mind. 




> I think he means tendency to repression rather than expression. PolR and Demonstrative are both the 2nd function of the repressed (mental and non mental) superego and and id, so I would suggest that they are the functions we like to stamp on, rather than to see expressed or to actually express ourselves: that's my guess.


Ahah, "stamp on" is a good way to put it 

I'm not sure I see Demonstrative in that way but PoLR yes fine.




GreenCoyote said:


> this is my own interpretation. I just wanted to throw it out there. you don't have to follow it.
> 
> the negative functions absorb flow.
> for example. I am a Fe dom and I am hanging around an ILI. the ILI's emotionless expression negates activity of my Fe since it depends on the reaction of others emotions towards my behavior. My leading function will still be turned on and very active. its my lead function afterall but the other type will absorb it and not feel its affect. it is also perceived as negative energy so the absorption causes pain. enough people with Fe PoLR in the atmosphere will negate the Fe dom no matter if the ILI doesn't also press the Fe dom PoLR. Enough PoLR activity can negate the person with that as their leading function.


Yeah. I actually realised later how you may have meant the negative energy stuff as I thought of some examples from my life where I could've been doing that with Fi totally inadvertently.  There's sometimes stuff that's said by people who I think are ExI's and then I say some comment to that out loud that's totally incompatible with the way of thinking that's been just expressed before I said my commentary. And I realise that maybe a full day later. Ugh. -.- So anyway that's how I absorb the information negatively. (I'm sure it could also be detected in behaviour but I don't know about that yet.)


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

Kanerou said:


> To answer the first inquiry, I've seen a couple of different interpretations for the PoLR.
> 
> The common interpretation is that we suck at picking up info related to the PoLR and hate to be criticized for this. It's like, "I _know_ I'm bad at this. Now shut up and leave me alone." Unvalued and painful, basically.
> 
> An alternate interpretation is that it's not necessarily a painful function; we just don't give a crap about that particular IE and don't see why anyone would, really.


Now i realise why iam so hurt. My PoLR is Se and my friends criticise me and be pushy to use it.


----------

