Talk:Introverted logic

Under Ti as the vulnerable function (PoLR), it says "The individual is highly critical of the reliability of information sources, and consequently vulnerable to others' expectations towards him to 'make do' with less than perfectly reliable information."

Wouldn't skepticism of the reliability of information sources be somewhat of an intuitive trait? Would SEEs be as inclined to question sources as much as IEEs? It seems that sensing people would be more accepting of the "common view" of reality as usually portrayed, and less likely to suggest that commonly-accepted information sources aren't true (?).

Or is the idea really that people with Ti PoLR lack confidence in their own ability to check the consistency of information they hear, which might sometimes result in an excessive requiring of additional "proof" from others?

I personally thought this formulation was quite good, and I made some slight changes to it, but now when I review it, I think part of it is more about PoLR and part is more about in the 6th position:

: The individual is highly critical of the reliability and authoritativeness of information sources

: and consequently vulnerable to (touchy about) others' expectations that he "make do" with less than perfectly reliable information. It means wanting to have everything spelled out in detail.

However, the word "reliable" in the second line may be associated more with again, and I can see situations where the formulation would apply almost completely to . Basically, if the IEE or SEE can't understand the basic principles behind something, that would be a sensitivity towards . If he or she is irritated by a lack of information/knowledge about what to do or what operation to perform in a specific situation, that would be more of a sensitivity. Both of these seem to be characteristic of SEEs and IEEs.

I don't see a tendency for sensing types to have a more "common view" of reality. Maybe how they talk about their view of reality is different (generally, talking about it through whatever is their base function). (Admin 00:48, 3 June 2007 (CDT))

Ti PoLR as strength?

Do you think, then, that in certain situations, Ti as PoLR may be a strength? After all, sometimes the reliability of sources should be doubted. Furthermore, the trustworthiness of sources is important. Are there times when someone with Ti PoLR may come to a better understanding than someone with "stronger" Ti, precisely because the Ti-PoLR person's obsession with distrusting sources leads him/her to discard a bad source? Or would people with strong Ti be no less likely to reject a bad source?

I think so, definitely. Any 4th function can be a strength. For example, the LSI or ESI may be able to cut off superfluous speculation about things that cannot be known. People tend to "spew off" a lot of superfluous, even exaggerated information through their leading function, and those with the same vulnerable function will tend to be highly discriminating and critical of this information and try to get rid of all that they cannot confirm based on their own personal experience. This explains why SEEs and IEEs are reluctant to apply new theoretical constructs until they have personally observed them at work, whereas LIIs and LSIs seem to apply them at all times and almost arbitrarily - from the SEE's and IEE's point of view.

Also, a lot depends on the person's intellect, which influences the expectation level for "good information." In other words, an IEE or SEE can get deep into philosophical or scientific theories and choose the very best, core systems of ideas from among them, but they will still display the same Ti POLR behavior, rejecting all new formulations and "laws" that don't mesh with those "very best" ideas that they have confirmed for themselves.(Admin 02:28, 7 June 2007 (CDT))

Be sure to type in "(~~~~)" at the end of your discussion posts. This then displays your user info and the time of the post.

It appears that someone has taken out the "good PoLR" wording and made the 4th function emphasize more weakness. It's a little bit too bad, because although I questioned it, I think there is something to it. I'm also seeing that in other function definitions now, the PoLR descriptions are emphasizing weakness. I suppose we should try to come to agreement: Should descriptions of the 4th function describe it mainly as some great weakness, or should they acknowledge that it may be a strength in some cases? The wording will be quite different depending on one's interpretation. --Jonathan 22:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

If possible, we should include both positive and negative aspects of it. Thehotelambush 23:20, 4 July 2007 (CDT)