# PoLR Descriptions



## FlaviaGemina

Rex Magnus said:


> "Hello, I find you attractive. Do you want to copulate?".


Actually, this would make life a lot easier. Nowadays there are all those debates about rape and consent. According to those debates, all the signals that were traditionally considered as consent aren't good enough anymore.

E.g. let's say two people are making out without speaking. Traditionally, that would seem like consent, wouldn't it ? But nope, because "arousal does not constitute consent."

Another example is this: I read a sex tip in a women's magazine that said the woman should wait for the man to be asleep. While he is asleep she should ... erhem, tickle him, if you get my drift. Then, when he is ready, she should jump onto him and when he wakes up, it will be the most amazing sex in the world because he will have been dreaming of his ideal woman and the he will associate the real woman with the dream girl. Erhem? RAPE!!!!!!

Also, what about the man giving the girl chocolates and flowers? If a person does that to a child, that's pedophile grooming. But if a man does that to a woman, that's not considered grooming at all.

==> "Do you wish to copulate?" is no more pervy than any of those indirect approaches and it leaves little room for legal ambiguity. There is only a limited set of answers:
a) Yes.
b) Yes, but not with you.
c) No.


----------



## The Exception

I'm Se PoLR all the way. There was a time I considered Fe PoLR as a possibility but once I got to understand socionics better, I realized that I seek Fe in my dual and probably confused PoLR for a function that's just very weak in myself.


----------



## Ksara

Rex Magnus said:


> Imagine a scenario where a guy goes to a girl in a bar and says, "Hello, I find you attractive. Do you want to copulate?".


No need to imagine, I did have this happen to me lol.

It did not play out like the video however. I appreciated his straight forwardness. I knew exactly what he wanted, and that it did not match up with what I wanted. No games, no confusion, and no time lost.


----------



## Pyroscope

I relate a lot to the Ti descriptions, but isn't that more or less the same as being insecure about one's intelligence?

Te, I recognise that I don't have those skills, but it doesn't bother me. I see that attitude as useful, but one I'd prefer someone else take the reins with.

Don't relate to Fi or Fe at all, just more evidence that I'm most likely an ethical type xD

Si, I thought strong Si users disliked being uncomfortable? I have always had issues with having to feel uncomfortable, all too often I resent my body for some persistent feeling that I would prefer to ignore. Is the difference between strong and weak Si users simply their ability to dispel this discomfort?

Se, I'm not sure if I fully understand it? What is meant here by "going against one's will" or "achieving certain goals"? For me, goals seem aligned with principles, otherwise why would I have the goal? I can agree with disliking witholding when I feel run-down or otherwise vulnerable and not in top condition. I don't think I like putting pressure on people, I prefer people to want to do things themselves than have to convince them.

Ni, I do panic when I'm conscious of time, though that seems to be an association built up from not managing to do things in time in the past because I convinced myself I didn't understand and gave up :| I generally feel like I'm rubbish at estimating how long things take and struggle with being aware of how much time has passed. Is this from weak Ni? (Almost certain I'm not ESE or LSE though)

Ne, I feel this depends on the severity of the situation. I'm perfectly happy to make guesses about what's going to happen, but if I'm supposed to be preventing a negative outcome then I'm less happy. On the other hand, I get bored with repetitive situations and I do tend to extrapolate what feel like abstract "truths" from experiences.


----------



## To_august

Pyroscope said:


> Se, I'm not sure if I fully understand it? What is meant here by "going against one's will" or "achieving certain goals"? For me, goals seem aligned with principles, otherwise why would I have the goal?


This must be unclear wording of the original that lead to the same blurriness in translation.
Expanding on both statements: they imply reluctance to step outside of comfort zone in order to achieve one's goal; unwillingness to sacrifice principles and pursue something at all hazards.

Personal principles and objective goals do not have to be aligned (probably I don't see them as aligned because I'm logical ego, lol). 
Think of a person who likes to work in a comfortable environment. At some point they get a chance to receive a promotion they really wanted and waited for, but if they pursue this promotion they will have to work in an uncomfortable or unsafe conditions. In theory higher Se would be like: "Screw comfort. I want this job". This is it, going against the principles of having a comfortable working place for the sake of the goal.


----------



## Ardielley

I relate MOST to Se PoLR, but I also relate to Ti, Te, and even Fe PoLR.


----------



## Pyroscope

To_august said:


> This must be unclear wording of the original that lead to the same blurriness in translation.
> Expanding on both statements: they imply reluctance to step outside of comfort zone in order to achieve one's goal; unwillingness to sacrifice principles and pursue something at all hazards.
> 
> Personal principles and objective goals do not have to be aligned (probably I don't see them as aligned because I'm logical ego, lol).
> Think of a person who likes to work in a comfortable environment. At some point they get a chance to receive a promotion they really wanted and waited for, but if they pursue this promotion they will have to work in an uncomfortable or unsafe conditions. In theory higher Se would be like: "Screw comfort. I want this job". This is it, going against the principles of having a comfortable working place for the sake of the goal.


I'm thinking that the fact this way of thinking baffles me is probably indicative that I don't have much Se 

I think I understand what you're getting at though. A higher Se person would be more interested in jumping into a new environment or attaining new experiences without pausing to think whether they could maintain this change or if it accorded with some general way in which they wanted to live?

If that's the case then I definitely can't relate. I'm a little obsessive with wanting an environment or goals I chase after to be sustainable, or in other words, in order to pursue something I want to know that the process of doing that thing or making that change is going to be enjoyable.

Still, I wonder what it is that motivates them to want the job in the first place if they're not considering how it will be or what opportunities will come from it. I guess my way of thinking probably shows that I de-value Se?


----------



## Valtire

I don't think these descriptions are very good because many of them are too vague, which causes people to equate with multiple PoLRs.


----------



## To_august

Pyroscope said:


> I think I understand what you're getting at though. A higher Se person would be more interested in jumping into a new environment or attaining new experiences without pausing to think whether they could maintain this change or if it accorded with some general way in which they wanted to live?
> 
> If that's the case then I definitely can't relate. I'm a little obsessive with wanting an environment or goals I chase after to be sustainable, or in other words, in order to pursue something I want to know that the process of doing that thing or making that change is going to be enjoyable.


Yes, this is possible interpretation. I also meant it in a Se-force-of-will way, like Socionics mostly interpret it. In contrast to Si valuers, who tend to be reluctant towards sacrificing personal comfort, Se is more actively engages with the external environment, forcing one's way through. Person may enjoy comfortable environment and so on, but tend to be more pushy and forceful, neglecting personal needs, simply because they don't put much emphasis on this side of their life.

I think that not only Se can be like that though. Te for example can come off in a similar way - put personal agenda aside to accomplish their goals, but that's another question.



> Still, I wonder what it is that motivates them to want the job in the first place if they're not considering how it will be or what opportunities will come from it. I guess my way of thinking probably shows that I de-value Se?


As much as Se likes to jump into new environments, it doesn't necessarily should do it blindly without thinking. I think they do it exactly because they see more interesting opportunities for themselves in the new in comparison to what they have at the moment. 
There can be different motivators. Money is not the least of them 

I'm not going to jump into conclusions on the basis of a couple posts I saw and I'm usually hesitant to type others not being entirely sure of my own type. You're possibly introverted judging ego and Ne-Si valuing.

It's also always worth to look into quadras and see were you belong.


----------



## Recede

None of these descriptions really fit me, but I wonder if a strong aversion to anything communal might indicate Fe PoLR. I always thought it was just my social blindspot.


----------



## Kintsugi

Ti PoLR sucks when you post on a forum with a large majority of xNTp types.


----------



## Harizu

I relate to the Si PoLR and a bit to the Ni one.


----------



## Valtire

Kintsugi said:


> Ti PoLR sucks when you post on a forum with a large majority of xNTp types.


ENTp and INTp? Does your dual often hit your PoLR? I would have thought the abundance of LSIs (the INTJ section is full of them) would be the biggest problem for you.


----------



## Kintsugi

Fried Eggz said:


> ENTp and INTp? Does your dual often hit your PoLR? I would have thought the abundance of LSIs (the INTJ section is full of them) would be the biggest problem for you.


Well, my bf is my dual, and, in my experience, he doesn't "hit my PoLR" in the way a Ti-dominant might. I don't really visit the INTJ section enough to comment on whether or not it is full of LSIs. *shrugs*


----------



## Chesire Tower

Silveresque said:


> None of these descriptions really fit me, but I wonder if a strong aversion to anything communal might indicate Fe PoLR. I always thought it was just my social blindspot.


No, I'm a Fe aux and I'm not comfortable in groups either. I don't think that really has anything to do with Fe. I think that Fe is about understanding and being sensitive to other people's emotions, which I am good at - unlike groups or anything communal.


----------



## Sharkcorn

Perfect match. People always want to know what I REALLY think, but they will never truly know :tongue:


----------



## Valtire

Kintsugi said:


> Well, my bf is my dual, and, in my experience, he doesn't "hit my PoLR" in the way a Ti-dominant might. I don't really visit the INTJ section enough to comment on whether or not it is full of LSIs. *shrugs*


Then why did you say xNTp? xNTps are Ne-Ti and Ni-Te.



Sharkcorn said:


> Perfect match. People always want to know what I REALLY think, but they will never truly know :tongue:


But do you know? I'm pretty sure the defining characteristic of Role/Vulnerable Fi is not being aware of your own feelings without externally observing yourself. E.G. "I'm behaving bitterly, I must be feeling that way."


----------



## Sharkcorn

Fried Eggz said:


> But do you know? I'm pretty sure the defining characteristic of Role/Vulnerable Fi is not being aware of your own feelings without externally observing yourself. E.G. "I'm behaving bitterly, I must be feeling that way."


Usually I don't. I have trained it with help of medication, because I have panic disorder. Recognizing the causes of anxiety helps with panic attacks. It is still an issue though.


----------



## Ninjaws

@To_august
I've marked the ones that pop out to me in blue.

IEE and SEE (Ti PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them to admit:
- That they do not understand something;
- That their words do not match with the facts;
- That they are incapable of explaining something clearly;
- That there are inconsistencies in their worldviews, theories, concepts;
- That they are not able to consolidate data in order to bring it to a common structure;
- That they have nothing to say on the subject matter in question.

SEI and IEI (Te PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them to admit:
- That they do not have the necessary knowledge and skills;
- They do not know that in fact they are not able to display an active business attitude;
- They do not understand the rules of management, principles of operation;
- They do not understand the fitness of things, i.e. how external events are connected with things happening around them;
- They do not know how to optimize, calculate efficiency.

ILE and SLE (Fi PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them:
- To openly express their attitude to other people or to something in general at all;
- To describe their relationships, to give an ethical evaluation concerning events;
- To be diplomatic, indulgent, good-natured and sympathetic;
- To say honestly what they really think and feel.

ILI and SLI (Fe PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them:
- To express their emotions;
- To explain intricacies of relationships that exist between people within certain group;
- To create a positive atmosphere, to get along with the right people, to make oneself agreeable;
- To conform to social expectations.

LIE and EIE (Si PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them:
- To feel physical discomfort, especially when they are sick;
- To admit that they look unhealthy, caught a cold, etc .;
- To describe their sensations from eating, to appreciate taste, smell etc.;
- To be soft, gentle and affectionate.

LII and EII (Se PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them:
- To go against their will or contrary to their principles;
- To show strength, to put pressure on somebody, while realizing that they can't do it at the moment;
- To achieve certain goal going against their principles and wishes;
- Not to give any sign that they are hurt, tired or feel uncomfortable.

ESE and LSE (Ni PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them:
- To become stuck in their memories, patiently wait for the more favorable circumstances;
- To put up with the fact that they are running out of time, or they are under time pressure;
- To recognize that they are short of time;
- To recognize that they are self-contradictory and need to achieve a calmer inner state.

LSI and ESI (Ne PoLR) experience severe discomfort in a situation that forces them:
- To be in a completely unexpected and unpredictable situations;
- To draw conclusions about the possible outcome of the event, without the prior knowledge and experience with similar situations;
- To summarize previous experience and create something entirely new on its basis;
- To adopt unconventional and multivariate, open-ended decisions.


----------



## Recede

Chesire Tower said:


> No, I'm a Fe aux and I'm not comfortable in groups either. I don't think that really has anything to do with Fe. I think that Fe is about understanding and being sensitive to other people's emotions, which I am good at - unlike groups or anything communal.


That's not what I meant. I'm not necessarily uncomfortable in groups, I just strongly dislike the idea of some sort of communal feeling, like "We're all in this together!" Aside from that, too much happy feels can be annoying too, especially if everyone in a group is supposed to act happy. I'm not sure, but I think some people actually feel happy just by being in a group where everyone else is happy, and having shared group experiences where they feel some sort of unity. It is very foreign to me. 

These images make me cringe, and I'm hiding them behind spoilers so I don't have to look at them. 


* *

























This type of thing is mentioned in Sociotype's Fe description:



> Extroverted ethics is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics. Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, *and build a sense of community and emotional unity.*
> 
> *Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people.* They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.


I disagree with your definition of Fe. I think what you described is just empathy, and you don't even have to be an Ethical type to be strong in that. I'm a very understanding and empathetic person, but I don't really have much of an Ethical focus overall. 

Fe is about the constant flow or exchange (dynamic) of feelings in interaction between self and others, self and objects, others and objects, etc. It is about how people or objects are interacting at an emotional level. So communication isn't just an impersonal exchange of information (Te), but conveys some sort of attitude influencing the external relationship. Is the person communicating in a pleasant and friendly way? A reserved way? A hateful way? The internal attitudes unique to the individual (Fi) are not the center of focus, what is focused on is the interaction itself.


----------



## myst91

Ixim said:


> I'll bold those I agree with. It must be said that I don't necessarily agree with what these are linked to. On that, I'll put a further comment.
> 
> I don't know towards which config does this even correlate lol...


SEI, actually, or ESI.

Not correlating with that bullshit IEE profile of yours, for sure.


----------



## Ixim

myst91 said:


> SEI, actually, or ESI.
> 
> Not correlating with that bullshit IEE profile of yours, for sure.


Yeah, I'd have more problems with...eh. I really don't see Se as Socio does see it. If you ask me, forcing others, being pushy, commanding etc are all trademarks of ESTJ. Let's see, EJ, SJ, ST, TJ, ET...all checks out sure! Or if I had to pick a function / IE, I'd say that it has most to do with Te-being willing to push your own logic onto others and enforce structures and procedures. Yeah, it's definitely reminiscent of Te.

...but I don't know. I just don't. And I frankly don't care tbh. This business is too constraining to me. I really don't like having a type-I like being me rather than "blah blah blah". Philosophy is also stupid.


----------



## myst91

Ixim said:


> Yeah, I'd have more problems with...eh. I really don't see Se as Socio does see it. If you ask me, forcing others, being pushy, commanding etc are all trademarks of ESTJ. Let's see, EJ, SJ, ST, TJ, ET...all checks out sure! Or if I had to pick a function / IE, I'd say that it has most to do with Te-being willing to push your own logic onto others and enforce structures and procedures. Yeah, it's definitely reminiscent of Te.
> 
> ...but I don't know. I just don't. And I frankly don't care tbh. This business is too constraining to me. I really don't like having a type-I like being me rather than "blah blah blah". Philosophy is also stupid.


I do think the pushiness stuff is Se with logic rather than Se on its own or Se with feeling. 

Why do you have IEE in the profile, I mean, why this type in particular?


----------



## Ixim

myst91 said:


> I do think the pushiness stuff is Se with logic rather than Se on its own or Se with feeling.
> 
> Why do you have IEE in the profile, I mean, why this type in particular?


Yeah, that's my beef. Aushra was clearly biased. Se just aids the decision making, it can't really be "forceful". Because in order for it to be forceful, it needs to make decisions. And perceptive / irratio functions just collect data so...?

Because it is my first. Nothing better than that :tongue:


----------



## willowglass

jennalee said:


> I'm glad another EII can relate.
> Watching the last scenes of the notebook made me uncomfortable, so it must have been cringe worthy to read  If I remember correct, she cheats on her husband and the film makes it seem romantic :/ I have the same reaction to all romance novels.


 The Notebook didn't bother me as bad at first (I admit, I cried the first time ), and the end was awfully cheesy...but for me, it's like Titanic. It's just gotten to the point where it's annoying to me. I almost think A Walk to Rember is worse. But the Notebook book was 10X worse mushy-wise, I think. After I read the book, I was just done with Nicholas Sparks, period. I wouldn't have read it to begin with, but I was on vacation with my in-laws, had just finished Wicked, and my ESE mother-in-law had a whole bunch of romance books (because that's her thing), and it looked like the best option to me out of many. I hate starting a book and not finishing it, even if it's crap. It will bother me forever. I even remember every video game I never finished.

I don't think they were married yet in the notebook, but I agree with you, I didn't think it's right. But you are talking about the Notebook, right? Outlander was like that, (they turned the series into a successful TV show evidently, haven't seen it, but the protagonist was already married when she married someone else) and the author, I believe, so tactfully inserted things in the book to make it seem like the adultery was ok...I was kind of disturbed the whole time...


> aw haha. I can't do that even towards an individual. Even with personal opinions - If someone asks me a question and I find too sentimental I would just go all deadpan and say something like "uh Idk...I would rather not say". I agree with this though. It makes me question the honesty of some people. But I do get along with expressive people (or extroverted people) quite well, because they initiate conversation and communication tends to be less awkward, despite the fact that the person is the opposite compared to myself (under the logic of ITR they would be an alpha SF but I am not certain).


Yeah, I understand. I was like that a lot more when I was younger. I'm still like that towards most people, except my mom, DH, and kids..but with most people, yes.

My biggest problem with mushiness, personally, is I've always had a problem with people hanging on me. When I was in HS, I'd have a few friends (or my cousin) that would really get in 
my personal space, and I'd be like, 'Personal space, personal space...you're in my personal space!' Once my DH and I had friends over we were trying to hook up, and I was sitting on one side of the couch and he was on the other, and they commented on it. I didn't even notice it, but they did, and it seems like we were suppose to be gushy and hanging all over each other for them to think we cared about each other or something. It bothers me when people think like that. It's like some people need shown these external signs, or they assume something's not there. It's not something I really think about-like it doesn't matter if people are hanging on each other or not to me. Whatever the have there, it's there or it's not, regardless if they are hanging on each other or not..

This whole thing reminds me,  , my SLI dad has a hard time saying I love you or if someone says I love you to him. He says it really quiet under his breath and practically runs away every time. lol. I try to say it real quick and nonchalant to him so it won't bother him, because I think he does need to hear it once in a while, but I know how awkward he gets about it  I know he really likes it when I tell him I love him, though, as awkward as it might be for the both of us.

My mom and her side of the family was really big on telling each other that they love each other. I'm pretty comfortable telling my mother how I feel about her. I know some family's aren't like that. I heard on the radio once this woman saying her family never said they loved each other, her mother had never in her life told her that she loved her, and it bothered her when she was older, when she had a family of her own. I always wondered what that would be like. I heard it several years ago, but it's always stuck with me for some reason. 

I agree about introverts/extroverts. I don't usually initiate conversations with people, either. I usually wait around for someone to include me. I think two introverts would have a harder time communicating than two extroverts. I know it can and has been awkward in the past when I'm with another introverted person. It's really quiet and I feel like I'm boring or something....


----------



## willowglass

myst91 said:


> Don't you think that's an extreme example? So no it's not relevant when evaluating these statements for yourself.


Maybe a little extreme lol...I was just being sarcastic, trying to make a point about how these things can be ambiguous by relating in extreme situations, and had to exaggerate a little to achieve that. I can sometimes let myself get lost in ambiguity...Sorry


----------



## Wisteria

myst91 said:


> What in Socionics Fi isn't relatable and can you sum up how the Jungian Fi works for you?


It is hard to explain. I relate to the Jungian description (translation) more than Fi leading in socionics because it seems to emphasize that feeling is intensive rather than extensive, which is more relatable compared to the focus on evaluating people and the distance of relationships. I don't feel like I use Fe at all, like socionics suggests in the EII type. I relate somewhat to the description of Fi leading, but more so with Jung, perhaps because it has much more depth.


----------



## Wisteria

goldberry3 said:


> The Notebook didn't bother me as bad at first (I admit, I cried the first time ), and the end was awfully cheesy...but for me, it's like Titanic. It's just gotten to the point where it's annoying to me. I almost think A Walk to Rember is worse. But the Notebook book was 10X worse mushy-wise, I think. After I read the book, I was just done with Nicholas Sparks, period. I wouldn't have read it to begin with, but I was on vacation with my in-laws, had just finished Wicked, and my ESE mother-in-law had a whole bunch of romance books (because that's her thing), and it looked like the best option to me out of many. I hate starting a book and not finishing it, even if it's crap. It will bother me forever. I even remember every video game I never finished.
> 
> I don't think they were married yet in the notebook, but I agree with you, I didn't think it's right. But you are talking about the Notebook, right? Outlander was like that, (they turned the series into a successful TV show evidently, haven't seen it, but the protagonist was already married when she married someone else) and the author, I believe, so tactfully inserted things in the book to make it seem like the adultery was ok...I was kind of disturbed the whole time...


I can't remember if they got married. But yes I mean the notebook film. I have never heard of Outlander. It is okay if the character never actually wanted to marry the person, but it is bothersome when people cheat on someone in movies and books sometimes, although it is only done to engage people in the drama. My mom likes romance fiction as well! The main reason I watch romantic films is because she chooses them. 



> Yeah, I understand. I was like that a lot more when I was younger. I'm still like that towards most people, except my mom, DH, and kids..but with most people, yes.
> 
> My biggest problem with mushiness, personally, is I've always had a problem with people hanging on me. When I was in HS, I'd have a few friends (or my cousin) that would really get in
> my personal space, and I'd be like, 'Personal space, personal space...you're in my personal space!' Once my DH and I had friends over we were trying to hook up, and I was sitting on one side of the couch and he was on the other, and they commented on it. I didn't even notice it, but they did, and it seems like we were suppose to be gushy and hanging all over each other for them to think we cared about each other or something. It bothers me when people think like that. It's like some people need shown these external signs, or they assume something's not there. It's not something I really think about-like it doesn't matter if people are hanging on each other or not to me. Whatever the have there, it's there or it's not, regardless if they are hanging on each other or not..


I can relate to problems with personal space a lot. I suppose people get concerned or nosy about peoples relationships. Sometimes I question the closeness of two people when they walk far apart from each other or something like that, but would never vocally point this out to someone, that is kind of awkward. 



> This whole thing reminds me,  , my SLI dad has a hard time saying I love you or if someone says I love you to him. He says it really quiet under his breath and practically runs away every time. lol. I try to say it real quick and nonchalant to him so it won't bother him, because I think he does need to hear it once in a while, but I know how awkward he gets about it  I know he really likes it when I tell him I love him, though, as awkward as it might be for the both of us.
> 
> My mom and her side of the family was really big on telling each other that they love each other. I'm pretty comfortable telling my mother how I feel about her. I know some family's aren't like that. I heard on the radio once this woman saying her family never said they loved each other, her mother had never in her life told her that she loved her, and it bothered her when she was older, when she had a family of her own. I always wondered what that would be like. I heard it several years ago, but it's always stuck with me for some reason.


That is quite funny  Your parents have the same sociotypes as mine (I think, I can't tell if my mom is LSE or ESE). Except not my in-law, both my parents. My family is like that person, but it doesn't bother me, and I think it is quite normal. It might seem strange to you because it is different from your family. There is a lot of teasing, joking and nick name calling in my family. The subject of affection is completely ignored, although we talk about interests and give each other advice often. The environment is usually kept quite fun and relaxed. It's more of an Fe behavior I think. I feel it is too non-personal at times though, so I envy a family like yours, in a way


----------



## Valtire

jennalee said:


> I don't feel like I use Fe at all, like socionics suggests in the EII type.


It's subconscious in an Fi ego. Do you think you would you be good at it if you tried?


----------



## Entropic

To be honest, I don't experience myself using Ti either but you don't notice when you use the id functions. If you notice it's in the mental ring.


----------



## Wisteria

Fried Eggz said:


> It's subconscious in an Fi ego. Do you think you would you be good at it if you tried?


That explains what the jungian description meant by "his/her subconscious". I actually wondered if I use Fe and just don't realize it. Maybe that is the reason that question is hard to answer. I can't see myself changing /creating an atmosphere in a group, and I don't tend to be very expressive in that situation either. I don't think that Fe is a preference. But in my thread I got good feedback in the fe block which could more sense for id.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse

I relate to both Fi and Si very well. It's almost impossible for me to explain personal feelings without it looking like I'm being persecuted. And when I end up getting a cold, I turn into the biggest bitch ever hahaha.

Surprisingly I rarely ever have problems with Se. "Power" for its own sake doesn't interest me at all but if I'm able to force myself to do whatever I need to do, whether I like it or not. Role functions are stronger than suggestive ones because of the 2D-1D factor.


----------



## Coburn

SLE one fits well. Nine of the others work for me.


----------



## myst91

Ixim said:


> Yeah, that's my beef. Aushra was clearly biased. Se just aids the decision making, it can't really be "forceful". Because in order for it to be forceful, it needs to make decisions. And perceptive / irratio functions just collect data so...?
> 
> Because it is my first. Nothing better than that :tongue:


Any function/IE makes its decisions, actually. Se decides you are seeing red and not yellow, for example.

This data collection idea sounds suspiciously influenced by MBTI.

It would be cool if you put in some disclaimer about that IEE typing to not mislead newcomers.


----------



## myst91

goldberry3 said:


> Maybe a little extreme lol...I was just being sarcastic, trying to make a point about how these things can be ambiguous by relating in extreme situations, and had to exaggerate a little to achieve that. I can sometimes let myself get lost in ambiguity...Sorry


You do realize it defeats the point especially as you didn't exaggerate the other ones like that...?




jennalee said:


> It is hard to explain. I relate to the Jungian description (translation) more than Fi leading in socionics because it seems to emphasize that feeling is intensive rather than extensive, which is more relatable compared to the focus on evaluating people and the distance of relationships. I don't feel like I use Fe at all, like socionics suggests in the EII type. I relate somewhat to the description of Fi leading, but more so with Jung, perhaps because it has much more depth.


Jung does have a deeper and more detailed description for Fi than that short summary, yes.


----------



## myst91

Entropic said:


> To be honest, I don't experience myself using Ti either but you don't notice when you use the id functions. If you notice it's in the mental ring.


No, it's more like, if you only notice the result after the fact then it's Id or perhaps Vital in general.


----------



## Prada

The one I relate to the most is Ti PoLR BUT I feel uncomfortable in those situations, admitting them is not uncomfortable at all. Example: it makes me frustrated when I'm unable to explain something properly but I can admit it easily.


----------



## Ixim

myst91 said:


> Any function/IE makes its decisions, actually. Se decides you are seeing red and not yellow, for example.
> 
> This data collection idea sounds suspiciously influenced by MBTI.
> 
> It would be cool if you put in some disclaimer about that IEE typing to not mislead newcomers.


Mislead the newcomers? I don't even think about that. Let them worry about themselves.

Besides, I like misleading.


----------



## willowglass

myst91 said:


> You do realize it defeats the point especially as you didn't exaggerate the other ones like that...?


No and yes. I mean, I considered that for a fleeting moment, and I see what you are saying, but it didn't seem that important to me. I didn't care enough about the point I was trying to make to try and make it consistent. Honestly, I was doing it for my own amusement more than anything. The thing I exaggerated, an exaggerated situation popped into my head easily as I read it, while I would have had to of thought more about the others to come up with something, and if I had cared enough about the point I was trying to make, I could have exaggerated them all. But I'm just not that tied down to it. It just doesn't matter that much to me...

Does it really bother you that much?  I will never understand Ti base very well, but I guess if I can relate it to Fi base, I can somewhat understand how you might be frustrated, so I can't argue with you about that. Besides, you're kind of right, anyway...


----------



## myst91

Ixim said:


> Mislead the newcomers? I don't even think about that. Let them worry about themselves.
> 
> Besides, I like misleading.


Have fun then.




goldberry3 said:


> No and yes. I mean, I considered that for a fleeting moment, and I see what you are saying, but it didn't seem that important to me. I didn't care enough about the point I was trying to make to try and make it consistent. Honestly, I was doing it for my own amusement more than anything. The thing I exaggerated, an exaggerated situation popped into my head easily as I read it, while I would have had to of thought more about the others to come up with something, and if I had cared enough about the point I was trying to make, I could have exaggerated them all. But I'm just not that tied down to it. It just doesn't matter that much to me...
> 
> Does it really bother you that much?  I will never understand Ti base very well, but I guess if I can relate it to Fi base, I can somewhat understand how you might be frustrated, so I can't argue with you about that. Besides, you're kind of right, anyway...


It didn't bother me that terribly as it's a small thing overall. But now I'm curious, what would you see as "completely unexpected and unpredictable situations" in the context of usual life? By usual life I mean it would apply to the average person just fine.

Oh and I'm the same with Fi, I don't understand it perfectly


----------



## Valtire

soop said:


> This just confused me more. Maybe it's the way it's phrased but I dont understand the difference between PolR Fi vs Fe.


Probably a bit simpler to put it this way:
Fe PoLR do not like being told how and when to express themselves, how to behave or how to feel. They just do what they want to, when they want to. E.G. trying to make a Fe PoLR feel comfortable is just going to cause problems.

Fi PoLR find it very difficult being asked about what they're personally drawn to or repulsed by. Like how psychologically close they are to other people or their likes and dislikes.


----------



## soop

Valtire said:


> Probably a bit simpler to put it this way:
> Fe PoLR do not like being told how and when to express themselves, how to behave or how to feel. They just do what they want to, when they want to. E.G. trying to make a Fe PoLR feel comfortable is just going to cause problems.
> 
> Fi PoLR find it very difficult being asked about what they're personally drawn to or repulsed by. Like how psychologically close they are to other people or their likes and dislikes.


Well that doesn't make it any easier but it certainly makes it clearer, thanks. It's a little trippy how the functions in this system are different than in mbti theory. Makes me wish I never learned the mbti theory ones.


----------



## Lunacik

Haha. I relate to none of these. I am an evolved mortal.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Fe and Se make the most sense, probably Fe by a hair because the last part of Se doesn't seem to fit much. I'm not totally sure about the Fe's explaining intricate parts of relationships either - like I feel I'm pretty good at understanding this, but the explaining is where I fail and the explaining is what's in the checklist.


----------

