• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

PoLR Function

CatGoddess

Active Member
Local time
Today, 10:12
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
301
So, TLDR (why are these usually put at the bottom???) - This article talks about shadow functions. I'm especially interested in the seventh (PoLR) because the concept seems to explain a number of personal observations. Thoughts?

Reddit Post

The personal observations:

{from a different thread)
minuend said:
I personally reject and fight against logic, as an ENFP. If I see a tinsy winsy bit of logic in what someone says, I shut that shit down with my superior emotional skills. Pew pew (that's the sound of emotions clouding your vision and making you dumb). On the death of me, I'll never acknowledge logic. Shush, go away
The interesting thing is that, though you may be joking, this seems to pretty much be how an ENFP dude I know thinks. To be fair, he's a high schooler, so the odds of him being a mature human being were slim to begin with, but still. He contradicts himself quite frequently, sometimes in the same (fast, long-winded) sentence, and if anybody points that out to him (not even to be mean, necessarily; sometimes they're just trying to figure out what he actually thinks) he flips his shit. i.e. "Why don't you like me???", etc. There's a number of other things, too.

I find this interesting because I'd think that it would be ExFJ sorts who would be the most anti-logic, but they're typically appreciative of it (as long as it's not really "mean") even if they don't tend to excel at deductive reasoning. It tends to be ExFP people who get so bent out of shape and refuse to respond to logical arguments/like to argue through loudness and pushiness. (some of the ones I know are more mature than the one I described above, but I've still noticed breaking down and refusing to respond to logic when under stress)

Some recent research I did, though, suggests that that actually is a part of "type theory"; apparently, PoLR is the true weak point. The inferior is a love-hate sort of thing, whereas the bad side of the PoLR is more of a hate-hate, or a "get this shit away from me". This explains, I think, why most IxTP I meet actually do enjoy the warm, mothering sort of people to some extent and have a greater regard for niceness than I do. They (or, @you, reader, since this is an intp forum) might be bad at producing Fe-relating things, and they might even become bitter about social interaction at some points, but they still want that warmth and Fe-style care.

On the other hand, as an INTJ, Fe is the PoLR for me. I have a great dislike for "solicitous" behavior - casual acquaintances pushing me to tell them what's wrong when they already asked and I said "nothing", people demanding that I eat at x time and not leaving me alone when I say no, telling me I should "express" x emotion at x time (I view emotions as private; my internal experience is not for the benefit of casual acquaintances and strangers, ty very much), etc. On the other hand, IxTP friends of mine seem to enjoy Fe sort of behavior; they view it as "nice" or "sweet" or whatever (I tend to see it as smothering or, in my worse moods, emotionally authoritarian.)

So, to sum it up: INTP complaining about Fe looks more like "I hate social norms! I have to say hello and how are you every time I meet somebody or else they already think I'm a rude douche... Plus, I always feel so awkward talking to people because I know I'm probably breaking 1000 norms per second" (while secretly wishing they were more adept at Fe)

INTJ complaining about Fe is like "Why the hell do people insist on controlling and meddling with things that are not their business? I do my work and I do it effectively; nobody has the right to tell me I have to 'participate' in their useless 'bonding' games... Why do I have to 'bond' with these people, anyways? What, does everyone have to like them in order for them to feel validated? Do they have to control other people's social interactions?" (while getting along decently in social situations by behaving politely, formally, and competently, albeit somewhat coldly)

So, yeah. Thoughts on PoLR or any other part of the reddit post?

EDIT: Changed the link to not fill the screen with words.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 04:12
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
It's worth keeping in mind MBTI is a classification system much like how a "What Hogwarts house are you?" is a classification system, just because you can sort people into four or sixteen types doesn't mean there's four or sixteen types of people.

Just because someone is a certain type doesn't mean you have an insight into their personality based on their type, it's very easy to get lost in a "no true scotsman" like confirmation bias loop where you assume things about people and dismiss being wrong about them as them as having miss-typed them.
 

CatGoddess

Active Member
Local time
Today, 10:12
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
301
Maybe not, but you can understand things about people based on definition. i.e. an ESFJ is by definition naturally skilled at other people's emotions and by definition values harmony because that's what Fe is. If those things are untrue of someone then, yeah, they're not an ESFJ because they don't fit the definition of what an ESFJ is? It's not really an insight so much as it is a tool to organize information you already know. Like, I might already know somebody is warm and empathetic, cares about group cohesion and "nobody being left out", etc., and isn't super strong at logical analysis in daily life. I use the "typing" to form that general info that lets me see the big picture of how those aspects of the person mesh together.

I mean, you'd think these predictions would be obvious if I know the person is warm, empathetic, etc., but it really does become easier when I abstract out to "ESFJ" to figure that they'll be concerned with team-building exercises and won't want to slash an activity that they think "builds community" even if it's eating up the organization's budget. So, at its core, it's less that I use MBTI as a way to make assumptions about people; it's that I use it to understand what I already know about them and what effects those aspects of them will have.

Like, it's not that, say, Fi is a "real" thing; there's no cluster of Fi neurons or some such shit that dominate somebody's brain. It's a concept of x sort of desires and values that you can use to process your knowledge of somebody so that that knowledge actually becomes usable. It's a tool, and it's kind of like this:

Without "classifying" it, you know the animal is furry, smaller than you, quadrupedal, friendly, not as smart as you, smelly when wet, etc. That's a lot of unsorted data, and it can be difficult to use it by itself. However, by putting it within your framework for "dog", it becomes a lot easier. You're not changing your information; you're just organizing it.

And, as I see it, cognitive function dynamics are basically just a way of describing how relying on and placing value on a certain idea or way of operating (say Ti, which means that you like/value breaking things down and analyzing them as parts) kind of necessarily results in disliking/not valuing an opposing idea/way. Like, if you think things have to be learned by trial and error (what we call "Se"), you'll inevitably be against deciding things based only on abstraction and theory (what we call "Ne")

I was just noting that my personal experience seems to support the idea of the PoLR, and thought it was a very good way to differentiate between "types" that are both weak at a certain "function". And I was interested in seeing if other people's experiences also support that. Since there's not really any other way to collect additional data on this topic.
 

OmoInisa

Active Member
Local time
Today, 16:12
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
205
Location
London, UK
Maybe not, but you can understand things about people based on definition. i.e. an ESFJ is by definition naturally skilled at other people's emotions and by definition values harmony because that's what Fe is. If those things are untrue of someone then, yeah, they're not an ESFJ because they don't fit the definition of what an ESFJ is? It's not really an insight so much as it is a tool to organize information you already know. Like, I might already know somebody is warm and empathetic, cares about group cohesion and "nobody being left out", etc., and isn't super strong at logical analysis in daily life. I use the "typing" to form that general info that lets me see the big picture of how those aspects of the person mesh together.

I mean, you'd think these predictions would be obvious if I know the person is warm, empathetic, etc., but it really does become easier when I abstract out to "ESFJ" to figure that they'll be concerned with team-building exercises and won't want to slash an activity that they think "builds community" even if it's eating up the organization's budget. So, at its core, it's less that I use MBTI as a way to make assumptions about people; it's that I use it to understand what I already know about them and what effects those aspects of them will have.

Like, it's not that, say, Fi is a "real" thing; there's no cluster of Fi neurons or some such shit that dominate somebody's brain. It's a concept of x sort of desires and values that you can use to process your knowledge of somebody so that that knowledge actually becomes usable. It's a tool, and it's kind of like this:

Without "classifying" it, you know the animal is furry, smaller than you, quadrupedal, friendly, not as smart as you, smelly when wet, etc. That's a lot of unsorted data, and it can be difficult to use it by itself. However, by putting it within your framework for "dog", it becomes a lot easier. You're not changing your information; you're just organizing it.

And, as I see it, cognitive function dynamics are basically just a way of describing how relying on and placing value on a certain idea or way of operating (say Ti, which means that you like/value breaking things down and analyzing them as parts) kind of necessarily results in disliking/not valuing an opposing idea/way. Like, if you think things have to be learned by trial and error (what we call "Se"), you'll inevitably be against deciding things based only on abstraction and theory (what we call "Ne")

I was just noting that my personal experience seems to support the idea of the PoLR, and thought it was a very good way to differentiate between "types" that are both weak at a certain "function". And I was interested in seeing if other people's experiences also support that. Since there's not really any other way to collect additional data on this topic.
Excellent post. The PoLR is one of those few concepts in Socionics that I find very powerful and useful at describing reality. The quadra/intertype relations paradigm is insightful as well, though it overextends itself.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 04:12
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,532
Maybe not, but you can understand things about people based on definition. i.e. an ESFJ is by definition naturally skilled at other people's emotions and by definition values harmony because that's what Fe is.
Fe is a category, just because someone's an extrovert who relies more on feelings than thoughts to make decisions doesn't necessarily mean they're good at it, for example you would expect an ENFP to be easy going and insightful but:
this seems to pretty much be how an ENFP dude I know thinks. To be fair, he's a high schooler, so the odds of him being a mature human being were slim to begin with, but still. He contradicts himself quite frequently, sometimes in the same (fast, long-winded) sentence, and if anybody points that out to him (not even to be mean, necessarily; sometimes they're just trying to figure out what he actually thinks) he flips his shit. i.e. "Why don't you like me???", etc.
Now you might say maybe he's not an ENFP but that's exactly my point, mature ENFPs may be easy going and insightful in general but individuals are not defined by their type, it's a generalization not a rule.

Not all extroverts are well spoken, not all introverts awkward, not all initiatives are deep and not all sensors are vapid, not all thinkers are intelligent and not all feelers are sensitive (some are incredibly manipulative and self centered), not all perceivers are lazy and not all judgers are quick to make decisions.

You can only talk about types in general because they are inherently generalizations.

I'm not saying these generalizations aren't useful but if you're going to theorize about them you should do so in general, it's misleading to say INTPs are more contemplative than other types, which unfortunately is how a lot of guides on MBTI are written, whereas it would be true to say INTPs are generally/usually/often/etc more contemplative than other types.

This is especially helpful when dealing with communities that tend to attract a lot of the same types like this forum, it's easy to think that there's very few INTPs here when in actual fact most of the people here are INTPs and your assessment is being affected by comparing them to each other, those few aren't the only INTPs they're just the most stereotypical INTPs, remember MBTI is a relative classification, the definitions of introverted and extroverted are defined by the average level of um "-troversion".
 
Local time
Today, 11:12
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
10
If it means anything to you, Ni is like some weird, dark thing that I have to deal with from time to time, I have no idea what it is or how to even begin measuring it lol, yes I know I said measure :(( wtfff
 
Top Bottom