Aiss, I don't see the support in what you say, neither the connection between your conclusions with this array of statements. Please take is somehow systematically because it's impossible to tell what's a fact, what's observable (with several exceptions) and what does that conclude.

I don't ask you to take all the types and show how Process/Result applies on them, but first of all please at least point out what understanding of Process/Result you use. The "thinking styles", too.

For example you say:
Also, the thinking styles groups aren't taken out of nowhere - they already exists as supervision rings, from the beginnings of socionics. Unfortunately I don't have access to a direct source, but from here:
How? Where is the reason for which they "exist from the beginning of socionics"? They only coincidentally correspond to one of the many rings of the Socion. I could also invent the "defecating style" and assign it to another ring, does that mean that it's correct and based on Socionics? No. There must be some evidence and explanation.
Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
Correspondence to inductive/deductive is another matter, especially with the definitions you quote; synthetic and analytical are probably better terms. Also, for example mathematical induction doesn't merely suggest the truth, it's a valid proof method. Wikipedia has it down as in fact deductive reasoning - but as in this case, many people, when they think of "induction", don't mean "inductive reasoning" in a strict logical sense you quote, but rather as a metaphor for synthetic approach, or try to illustrate something by analogy with induction in physics. It might be a good idea to ask people what they mean by it before drawing conclusions.
Either way you take it it's the same thing. Yes, there's a possibility that people don't know what these terms mean, so they use them incorrectly, so they're wrong even more. This is why I quoted Wikipedia, so that any confusion to disappear. Use the dictionary and you get the same thing:
Quote Originally Posted by deduction
The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises; inference by reasoning from the general to the specific.
---
a. a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.
Quote Originally Posted by induction
The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances.
---
a. any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily.
b. the process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class.
Your relativism is unjustified in this case, IMO. BTW, what users are you talking about?

The only confusion that I see that can happen is the meaning of "categorical". It has two meanings that however, both apply to how Ti is used. They are related, though, categorical in terms of "categories" means the same "black-or-white" approach, true/false, or the absolute conclusion.
---

So let's put it this way, take your description of Process/Result (or maybe some thinking styles, I didn't figure out what you clearly associate with what) and your understanding of deduction/induction and explain how they emerge from each other. Let's discuss, I'm interested in case you're on something real.