Tactical vs Strategic

[Hugo]

Tactical
I focus on methods. Goals are modified to fit methods.

Strategic
I focus on goals, Methods are modified to fit goals.


Isn't life mostly about meeting targets, goals, and deadlines these day?

I would think most people would choose Strategic. I don't think this dichotomy is useful in socionics. I think it depends, for example, on what type of job a person does.

[Phaedrus]

Isn't life mostly about meeting targets, goals, and deadlines these day?

Maybe. But not for me.

I would think most people would choose Strategic.

I wouldn't.

I don't think this dichotomy is useful in socionics.

During the debates between the former Swedish prime minister Göran Persson and our current prime minister (since the national election in September 2006) Fredrik Reinfeldt, it became very obvious and explicit that Persson is Strategical (I think he is an ESTp) and that Reinfeldt is Tactical (I am very sure that he is an ISTj).

[Hugo]

But Reinfeldt's goal was to win.

[XoX]

Tactical
I focus on methods. Goals are modified to fit methods.

Strategic
I focus on goals, Methods are modified to fit goals.


Isn't life mostly about meeting targets, goals, and deadlines these day?

I would think most people would choose Strategic. I don't think this dichotomy is useful in socionics. I think it depends, for example, on what type of job a person does.

Choosing strategic might be more common. For example I used to choose strategic but I'm slowly switching. I think farsighted people might think they are also strategic (as is my case). However if you seek for your most natural way of doing things I think the difference gets clearer. E.g. can you get satisfaction from life or work without having any explicit strategic goals? if you have a strategic goal then how likely are you to give it up if it seems like the best tactical path would lead you to a somewhat different but comparable goal?

[redbaron]

I'm all about process. I care much less about the end goal. In fact if there's some goal I'm supposed to be working towards, the goal overshadows the process and ruins it for me. For example, in middle school I used to hate science experiments because even though I enjoyed the actual experiment, it stressed me out that I had to get a particular answer and if I didn't get that answer, I'd have to redo the experiment. Rather than just letting the experiment turn out the way it would, I felt pressure to come up with the right answer. Goals ruin everything.

[Phaedrus]

But Reinfeldt's goal was to win.

Irrelevant. In their debates Reinfeldt reasoned like a Tactical. His focus was always on methods, and Persson criticized him for not wanting to set up clear goals to be reached. And Reinfeldt criticized Persson for setting up goals that he hadn't managed to reach. They were explicitly different -- Reinfeldt focussing on correct methods and seeing the goals as secondary, Persson focussing on correct goals and seeing the methods as secondary.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I'm a Tactical person - I think that's because I'm uncertain of what my goals are...but I know how to get there. I don't know what external changes I'll experience, and they may affect the end result - it doesn't really help me to have clearly defined goals.

[Slacker]

I don't think it's any more worthless than the other Reinen dichotomies.

Anyway, I'm definitely not goal-oriented. I never finish anything. But it feels good to say you like goals so most people would say they're goal-oriented regardless of which dichotomy they actually are. Which is why these dichotomies are pretty close to worthless as far as typing goes.

[Hugo]

If you worked in an office, I doubt you could be anything but goal oritentated.

[redbaron]

If you worked in an office, I doubt you could be anything but goal oritentated.

I have worked in an office and I work very well to deadlines of other people's making. But in terms of my own personal life, I don't work with goals. At least very minimally. My husband and I do have financial goals. You know, retirement, cash cushion, stuff like that, college savings. But I don't say to myself "my goal is to lose 10 pounds by Christmas" or "in two years I want to have started a business" or "by next summer I want to have the bathrooms completely renovated". I am much more go with the flow. Things get done, but only when the spirit moves and I'm very flexible about changing my mind and letting my mind be changed by circumstances and/or other people's ideas.

[Slacker]

If you worked in an office, I doubt you could be anything but goal oritentated.

As Red Baron said, when I worked in an office I worked on other people's goals, but I didn't have goals of my own. And I certainly don't in my own life. My husband is in charge of that kind of thing.

[Blaze]

Tactical
I focus on methods. Goals are modified to fit methods.

Strategic
I focus on goals, Methods are modified to fit goals.


Isn't life mostly about meeting targets, goals, and deadlines these day?

I would think most people would choose Strategic. I don't think this dichotomy is useful in socionics. I think it depends, for example, on what type of job a person does.

Choosing strategic might be more common. For example I used to choose strategic but I'm slowly switching. I think farsighted people might think they are also strategic (as is my case). However if you seek for your most natural way of doing things I think the difference gets clearer. E.g. can you get satisfaction from life or work without having any explicit strategic goals? if you have a strategic goal then how likely are you to give it up if it seems like the best tactical path would lead you to a somewhat different but comparable goal?

yeah strategic is the more attractive, popular answer but that doesn't mean the dichotomy is out the window.

i think i could be tactical actually. for example i had a career "strategy" (i called it) of expanding my influence as a means of moving up. this involved taking on a lot of different projects and taking on a part time teaching position. this did not work. these were tactics, things i wanted to do. if my goal was really to move up then i should have cut way back on my responsibilities and worked on politicking, relationships with influential people, and putting myself in the right spot at the right time. however these tactics did solidfy my position well and establish my credibility. this was good in a field where you have to do that.

[Phaedrus]

But it feels good to say you like goals so most people would say they're goal-oriented regardless of which dichotomy they actually are. Which is why these dichotomies are pretty close to worthless as far as typing goes.

In the example I gave, the dichotomy corroborated the correctness of my typing of the two politicians. But of course the dichotomies are useless for self-typing if people don't understand them.

[Ezra]

I'm strategic.

[BLauritson]

I'd like to think I'm strategic, although I'm wondering if I'm actually tactical. I don't know, I think real life requires you to be both at times. I mean, I do have goals, but I don't necessarily meet them and they are changeable. Quite often my goals adapt to how things go. An example is the music CD in my signature; back when I first started writing the album I didn't have any plans to sell it or even produce it - I was just into songwriting as a hobby at the time. As things progressed, I eventually decided I wanted to record my music and later decided I wanted to sell CDs of my music. Is this an example of tactics? I mean, I'd like to think I'm still thinking long-term, but these long-term goals aren't necessarily there from the start, they come along as things develop. Is this normal for Ni IPs? I know Ni EJs are meant to be long-term planners, but..

[Joy]

The dichotomy isn't worthless... but trying to test on it is, for the reasons you mentioned, Elzo.

Every dichotomy is stronger in some types and people than others. I'm very clearly strategic... too strategic, honestly. Some people/types are very clearly tactics, like LSE's, for example. Some people/types will seem to be more in the middle though.

[redbaron]

I'd like to think I'm strategic, although I'm wondering if I'm actually tactical. I don't know, I think real life requires you to be both at times. I mean, I do have goals, but I don't necessarily meet them and they are changeable. Quite often my goals adapt to how things go. An example is the music CD in my signature; back when I first started writing the album I didn't have any plans to sell it or even produce it - I was just into songwriting as a hobby at the time. As things progressed, I eventually decided I wanted to record my music and later decided I wanted to sell CDs of my music. Is this an example of tactics? I mean, I'd like to think I'm still thinking long-term, but these long-term goals aren't necessarily there from the start, they come along as things develop. Is this normal for Ni IPs? I know Ni EJs are meant to be long-term planners, but..

this sounds tactical to me.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think being a Tactical type is a bad thing - I think I'd prefer it to being a Stategic type. .

[aestrivex]

tactics/strategy is actually an interesting dichotomy. when i first heard about dichotomies, tactics > strategy was the single dichotomy with which i identified the most. i really like the idea of having goals not be an end to themselves. i am about the least goal-oriented person you will find; i don't set goals and i dislike tying myself into having to complete some particular arcane task for the sake of self-improvement (self-improvement itself is really an insane waste of time; like i need somebody's help to organize every single detail of my life. i really hate imposed organization on that scale.)


anyway, i don't really believe in any of the dichotomies (with the possible exception of static/dynamic) as being valid, mostly because i can't see them in other people. i've given up trying. but i'm still intrigued by this one.

[Ezra]

According to Reinin.

[FDG]

I think I'm strategy, and my interactions with tactical are always somewhat strange. I am always incredibly careful to state and to work towards my goal in order not to waste energy in vain and not to make mistakes. Tacticals seem to easily spit out their goals, and just as easily change them. So every time a tactics says a goal he has, I already think he has all his/her life planned around it, and when they change it, I'm left :S

[Jimbean]

Whether it be a battle field or an American football game, what type is the best at locating an enemies weaknesses and strengths and plans his/her opposition accordingly? I am interested in other people's answers on this.

[Expat]

This sounds more like tactical than strategical.

In that case, I'd say SLE.

[Phaedrus]

This sounds more like tactical than strategical.

In that case, I'd say SLE.

It is certainly not the SLE. (This is an extremely clear and obvious example of a false statement made by Expat.)

[pezzonovante]

It is certainly not the SLE. (This is an extremely clear and obvious example of a false statement made by Expat.)

You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Many of the greatest battlefield leaders of all time have been typed as SLE for a good reason. I am too tired to elaborate on this but I know that Expat will tear you apart.

I would equate tactical prowess to and strategy with . I consider my grasp of long-term strategy to be my greatest strength. However, I often have problems with implementing my strategies in the short run ( seeking).

[Phaedrus]

You obviously have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Many of the greatest battlefield leaders of all time have been typed as SLE for a good reason.

To be a great battlefield leader is a totally different thing from being a good strategic planner. They require different skills. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here.

[Ezra]

Whether it be a battle field or an American football game, what type is the best at locating an enemies weaknesses and strengths and plans his/her opposition accordingly?

Enemy strengths and weaknesses are certainly related to Se. Hence, it logically follows that planning the opposition will be planning according to Se.

I think some LIEs are good strategists, but I'm not sure how this is so in socionics. Someone would have to explain it in more detail to me. The best example of strategy in an LIE that I can think of is an LIE economist, who predicts and forecasts based on the stock market. Beyond this, I couldn't say. Expat could though; he can read the stock market data. I plan on learning to at some point.

This sounds more like tactical than strategical.

In that case, I'd say SLE.

I thought SLEs were strategic according to Reinin, not tactical.

I am too tired to elaborate on this but I know that Expat will tear you apart.

Se FTW.

I would equate tactical prowess to and strategy with . I consider my grasp of long-term strategy to be my greatest strength. However, I often have problems with implementing my strategies in the short run ( seeking).

Not because Reinin puts SLEs down as strategic types do I think that SLEs often have good strategy. However, they're often unable to foresee that which LIEs can foresee.

To be a great battlefield leader is a totally different thing from being a good strategic planner. They require different skills.

This is partly correct. In the British army, a platoon commander - a 2Lt - must pay attention to tactics less than his CO, but to strategy more than his men. The further you rise in the ranks, the more you need to pay attention to strategy, the less to tactics. I think the army takes people who are tactical and makes them strategic (I'm not talking Reinin here, but it probably applies to some extent), and those who are naturally intuitive or whatever; those who aren't cut out for grunt work but who are amazing strategists once they get to the top will probably struggle a bit and leave before they can demonstrate their skills.

[Park]

It is certainly not the SLE. (This is an extremely clear and obvious example of a false statement made by Expat.)

demented fuck

[Mariano Rajoy]

I am a master of strategic planning and tactical maneuvers. My global empire will be complete in 2012.

Therefore, LII are the best strategists.

[Blaze]

i was going to say SLE and LIE, depending on the specifics of the situation.

[Phaedrus]

i was going to say SLE and LIE, depending on the specifics of the situation.

And that is just a ridiculous suggestion.

[munenori2]

Well, that settles it.



I couldn't figure out if it would be better to fill out each quarter with types of the same quadra, temperament, or club. We may have to work out some kind of seeding structure.

[FDG]

It's easy, it's me. Actually, I make the best of everything, I am God. This is an undisputable fact of reality.

[Joy]

This sounds more like tactical than strategical.

My thoughts exactly.

I think LSI, probably.

[Joy]

And I think the type of strategizing that you see chess players doing is something Ti dominants are best at/most in tune with.

[Phaedrus]

My thoughts exactly.

I think LSI, probably.

An even more ridiculous suggestion. LSIs are very bad at strategic planning. Only one of the NT types can be really good at strategic planning in comparison to every single one of the S types. Strategic planning is in itself an NT domain.

[Logos]

And I think the type of strategizing that you see chess players doing is something Ti dominants are best at/most in tune with.

Definitely not always. I suck at chess.

And that is just a ridiculous suggestion.

Where is your right answer?

[Phaedrus]

Definitely not always. I suck at chess.

Where is your right answer?

I don't know which exact type should be considered the ultimate strategist, but it is definitely one of the NT types. And it is not the ENTp.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Leaving aside rhenin dichotomies, I always though NT's tend to be better at strategy building, and ST's - especially ISTp's and ESTp's make better tacticians. Where strategy is a long term plan and tactics deal with the issue(s) at hand.

[Expat]

Making a point that I thought was obvious.

Although Jimbean asked about "strategic planner", he went on to say this:

Whether it be a battle field or an American football game, what type is the best at locating an enemies weaknesses and strengths and plans his/her opposition accordingly? I am interested in other people's answers on this.

If you're talking about an actual battle field or American football game, then I think it has to do with tactics rather than strategy, and in that case, I stand by my earlier SLE assessment.

Now, if you're talking about real strategy, that is, how to win a war not a battle, with long-term thinking, then I don't think it's the SLE. LIE makes more sense.