Tactical vs Strategic

[Minde]

This sounds more like tactical than strategical.

In that case, I'd say SLE.

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

That is right, Ezra.

I'm confused now. What did you mean, Expat?


And, lol @ munenori

[Jimbean]

I though that there would be more answers than just three. So I guess that is a pretty universal agreement that SLE's are more tactical and LIE's are more strategic. I tend to use strategy in my tactics, which is why I did not separate the two words, but either way it answers the question.

[Ezra]

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

It will be ravaged by hordes of Gothslavhuns under my command. We will re-enter the Dark Ages.

What! I'm retarded; I don't know any better.

I think LSI, probably.

Why?

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

I disagree. Ni dominants can foresee what could happen and will happen etc., hence, they know what moves to make. SLEs know what "territory to conquer" on a chessboard.

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.

P1. If Phaedrus relies on MBTT, he is a retard.
P2. Phaedrus relies on MBTT.
C. Phaedrus is a retard.

ISTp's [...] make better tacticians.

SLIs? No way. As Deltas, they couldn't give a shit about tactics.

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.

Agree.

What did you mean, Expat?

My guess is that he wasn't referring to the Reinin dichotomies.

So I guess that is a pretty universal agreement that SLE's are more tactical and LIE's are more strategic.

Not speaking in terms of the Reinin dichotomy, LIEs are more strategic than SLEs, and SLEs are more tactical than SLEs. However, if SLEs weren't that strategic, they wouldn't be strategic by Reinin terms, so clearly they're more strategic than many other types.

Note: in socionics, strategy and tactics are not related to Intuition and Sensing respectively.

I tend to use strategy in my tactics[...].

That makes no sense. They're two different things, using different skills. Unless you mean that when you plan something tactically, you have the over all strategy in mind.

[Expat]

I'm confused now. What did you mean, Expat?

As Ezra pointed out, I wasn't thinking of the Reinin dichotomies.

I won't try to precisely define what Reinin and Augusta meant or not with their definitions of tactical/strategic. According to what I understood of Jimbean's scenarios - battle field, football, etc - that is what I call more "tactical" than "strategic", and for those scenarios, I think that in principle the SLE fits best.

I say that not only based on my understanding of the type, but also of historical figures whom I see as SLE. For instance, it could be argued that Napoleon was a clear case of a brilliant battlefield tactician who wasn't that good in longer-term strategy.

[Phaedrus]

I disagree. Ni dominants can foresee what could happen and will happen etc., hence, they know what moves to make. SLEs know what "territory to conquer" on a chessboard.

That idea about SLE chess players being good at conquering territory etc. stems from Rick, and it is a totally ridiculous idea actually. He doesn't understand what he is talking about, because he doesn't understand the nature of chess.

dominants and dominants have different playing styles in chess, and they are relatively better at different aspects of the game. For example LSIs don't understand the dynamics of a position very well, and in every LSI chess player we see a clear tendency to focus on the static features of a position. They are often perceived at good at strategy, but they don't play according to far-reaching and deep strategic plans. The LSI is much better at short-term "mini-operations" that are the result of the LSI beeing good at applying a very pragmatic and rational apprehension of the position at hand. They take what they get and try to make the best of it.

A typical example of an LSI chess player is the former World Champion Anatoly Karpov. Like all LSI chess players, Karpov has always had a very limited opening repertoire with a clearly sober, classical touch to it. Despite being a hard-working student, he has never shown any deep interested in chess theory. His memory is not very good, but he has an inborn sense of fear and is good at avoiding mistakes. Basically, his whole approach to chess is built on avoiding mistakes of his own and utilizing the mistakes of his opponents when they suffer from time-trouble and/or too elaborate strategic plans.

Whenever I meet an LSI at the chess board I know that I am worse at planning mini-operations, and I am a worse technician overall. I know that I am clearly superior in dynamic positions so I might try to steer the course of the battle into such positions. I am better at seeing tactical combinations, I am better at attacking the king, and I know more theory. I am worse at defending a slightly inferior position, because I have a tendency (just like Kasparov or Aljechin) to counter-attack instead of endure prolonged suffering in order to secure a draw.

P1. If Phaedrus relies on MBTT, he is a retard.
P2. Phaedrus relies on MBTT.
C. Phaedrus is a retard.

I certainly don't rely on MBTT. You are fond of making lots of false statements, Ezra. That habit of yours is very irritating. It is like you want people to see you as very poor at intellectual reasoning.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It will be ravaged by hordes of Gothslavhuns under my command. We will re-enter the Dark Ages.

Could be a laugh.

SLIs? No way. As Deltas, they couldn't give a shit about tactics.

Do you think tactical and quadra are related? I think it's probably more a type related thing than a quadra thing.

In regards to ISTp, there receptive/adaptive IP temperament, and with their focus on the here and now, would make them good at quickly taking in new information, formulating and reformulating required tactics (but not strategy-cause thats long term) I reckon.

[Ezra]

Could be a laugh.


Do you think tactical and quadra are related? I think it's probably more a type related thing than a quadra thing.

Type-related, yes. But quadra does play a part.

In regards to ISTp, there receptive/adaptive IP temperament, and with their focus on the here and now, would make them good at quickly taking in new information, formulating and reformulating required tactics (but not strategy-cause thats long term) I reckon.

Maybe, but I think past their natural abilities and talents, they really don't care about the battlefield. They'd rather lie on a beach.

[ataronchronon]

Great strategic thinkers:



Great tactical thinkers:


that last guy is Lt. General Paul Van Riper. He is quite an interesting character; I've been reading about him in a book called "Blink" which is all about split second decision making. I don't know what type he is, but he believes totally in making decisions based on gut feelings in the heat of the moment without taking a second to step back gather information.

My question is why am I the first to mention ILI?

[munenori2]

My question is why am I the first to mention EII (in the strategic sense)?

[Logos]

Great strategic thinkers:

Yes, surely history shall remember him as an exemplary strategic thinker.

[Ezra]

Yes, surely history shall remember him as an exemplary strategic thinker.

Hahahaha.

Rommel was a pretty good strategist and tactician.

[1981slater]

Tactical:

Strategic:

[717495]

* The tactical IM types are : ILE, ESE, LSI, IEI, ILI, ESI, LSE, and IEE.
* The strategic IM types are : SEI, LII, EIE, SLE, SEE, LIE, EII, and SLI.

Best stick to the master's rules. Duals are opposites in this dichotomy.

[MOP]

Damn you, I though you were going to explain these.

[Cyrano]

* The tactical IM types are : ILE, ESE, LSI, IEI, ILI, ESI, LSE, and IEE.
* The strategic IM types are : SEI, LII, EIE, SLE, SEE, LIE, EII, and SLI.

Best stick to the master's rules. Duals are opposites in this dichotomy.

What would you think about switching SLI and IEE? SLI's tend to be short-term thinkers, quick to adapt to situations.

[717495]

Quick to adapt to situations is one thing that is typical for SLI, however in the sense that these are the definitions of tactical and strategic:

Tactical types

1. Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2. Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
3. Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

Strategic types

1. Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2. Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3. Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.

I would assume that IEEs are much more tactical and experimental, demonstrated by their advisory "I did it this way, and it worked" spirit, where as SLIs tend to search more for a main point and usually want to know what they're doing before they start doing it, and once they have the idea in mind, they dislike deviating from it (because they're probably frustrated that they had to figure it out in the first place, where as tactical types wouldn't assume something had to be "figured out". they just go with it, more or less.) So it's not necessarily that SLIs don't experiment, however they're inclined to want to figure out the goal ahead of time, sort of asking the question "well, why am I here?" And for me, even if it's obvious that someone needs my help, I don't get the point of just standing around waiting. If my time is being wasted, I always have to ask what is up. I think most SLIs aren't necessarily good with recognizing tactics. In a situation, they grasp what needs to be done, but they don't always know how to do it, and could use some friendly help. However in a contrasting situation, sometimes SLIs know exactly what needs to be done and they know exactly how to do it, and they're good at figuring it out before anyone else. I think anybody can be like this, depending on their strengths. SLIs can be pretty good at implementing certain tactics, especially if they are more accustomed to that specific knowledge, but I think what is suggested is that they don't readily recognize them in general.

[ArchonAlarion]

So what is process and result lol?

[Azeroffs]

tactical/strategic have to do planning.

Strategic: This is where I want to be, so how should I do it?

Tactical: This is how I do, so where will it bring me?

(notice that duals are opposites, and so this is considered a complimentary characteristic: one helps the other.)


Process/Result is how you go about doing things.

Process: The way to reach my target is to do it right.

Result: The way to do it right is to reach my target.

(duals share this, and so people of one type expect others to act the same.)

[ArchonAlarion]

Er, I guess I'm tactical and process then.

Kinda vague, though.

[717495]

So what is process and result lol?

Process/result definitely isn't the same. Wikisocion gives good descriptors.

Damn, what is going on?? I'm all of a sudden yearning for crab cakes.

[Creepy-male]

The terms come from warfare....

Tactics are whats going on at the front, they are decision concerning taking immediate action and how to do so with the biggest advantage over the enemy, its your ability to adapt to whats going on at the moment and make the best call.

Strategy is whats going on behind the front, they are decision concerning the goals of a particular campaign, the targets, to take the capital, to destroy the enemies factories for production etc. Its concerned with the overall objectives and goals of the entire campaign, its your ability to plan for a long term objective and execute succesfully.

In warfare they will use the terms "tactical victory" and "strategic victory"... a "tactical victory" is not the same as a "strategic victory".... for example if you send a group of people to blow up a factory or take a town that is a crucial part of a campagin, but end up losing tons of men and resources compared to the enemy, then that is considered to be a tactical failure, but a strategic victory.

Also you here the terms; strategic bomber and tactical bomber... a strategic bomber is one that flies far beyond the enemy lines and bombs a factory... a tactical bomber is one that flies into the fray to support the action on the front.

Playing a game of risk would be a matter of strategy... moving armies and resources etc. Making a decision to flank a group of distracted enemies is a matter of tactics... setting your forces up in the moment to get a tactical advantage.

Its really a matter of the scale/scope of the decision. Tactics are here, now, immediate, adaptable, advantage, disadvantage...... Strategy is planning, future, objectives, goals, resources, marshalling, logistics........

A football coach making a schedule of who to play when is like a strategy, where as the play by play calls is a matter of tactics.

The terms apply to everyday life also, a tactical intelligence is the kind of intelligence that a battlefield tactician would have whereas a strategic intelligence is the kind of intelligence that a battlefield strategist would have.

**I should mentioned, I don't know if these terms are completely synonyms to establish socionics theories etc...

[jewels]

yeah this isn't how I would have thought it would be, but it makes sense. I know what my big picture vision is, but to reach it, I try "whatever works." Which i guess is end result. If something doesn't work, I'll keep trying more and more things until I hit on something that does. If I can't find anything that works, I think the big picture vision might be impossible and get super depressed (until I think of the next thing).

A SLI gave me some suggestions for things I could do to achieve something (things that I hadn't even though of) -- at first I thought "oh this is tactical help," but then realized it actually gave me a whole category of similar things I could do, so it was in a way more like strategic.

It is weird how you'd think it'd be switched for tactical and strategic for IEE and SLI, but I can see it works out like that.

Quick to adapt to situations is one thing that is typical for SLI, however in the sense that these are the definitions of tactical and strategic:

Tactical types

1. Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2. Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
3. Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

Strategic types

1. Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2. Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3. Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.

I would assume that IEEs are much more tactical and experimental, demonstrated by their advisory "I did it this way, and it worked" spirit, where as SLIs tend to search more for a main point and usually want to know what they're doing before they start doing it, and once they have the idea in mind, they dislike deviating from it (because they're probably frustrated that they had to figure it out in the first place, where as tactical types wouldn't assume something had to be "figured out". they just go with it, more or less.) So it's not necessarily that SLIs don't experiment, however they're inclined to want to figure out the goal ahead of time, sort of asking the question "well, why am I here?" And for me, even if it's obvious that someone needs my help, I don't get the point of just standing around waiting. If my time is being wasted, I always have to ask what is up. I think most SLIs aren't necessarily good with recognizing tactics. In a situation, they grasp what needs to be done, but they don't always know how to do it, and could use some friendly help. However in a contrasting situation, sometimes SLIs know exactly what needs to be done and they know exactly how to do it, and they're good at figuring it out before anyone else. I think anybody can be like this, depending on their strengths. SLIs can be pretty good at implementing certain tactics, especially if they are more accustomed to that specific knowledge, but I think what is suggested is that they don't readily recognize them in general.

[krieger]

Process/Result has to do with the amount of investment the person puts into his/her activities. Process types like to give things "their all", they don't carefully dose their energy but unleash it fully upon what they're doing. Result types are more likely to hold back until a worthwhile oppurtunity arises, only to invest in it as much as they need to.

Process types find it more important to understand everything they do before they do it. Result types have an easier time acting on deficient knowledge. This is because the Accepting function of the Result type is the less general, less understanding-based of the two (- instead of +).

Process/Result is linked to clubs and temperaments... Result NTj types seem to secundarily behave like Process STj types at times, meaning they are mentally "lazy" and quick to decide but physically/practically arduous despite that they spend more time in that "mentally readied" state. Opposite goes for Process NTp types...

The words I like to use for Process/Result are:
Process: active, obstacle minded
Result: readied, oppurtunity minded

Strategy/Tactics is one of the large cycle reinin dichotomies that every type shares with his/her conflictor. If these dichotomies are real, there would be a huge number of characteristics one could identify as being shared between conflictors. I find this dubious, and am as such sceptical of these dichotomies.

Strategy/Tactics itself denotes the property that Accepting S and Creating N on one hand and Accepting N and Creating S on the other have in common.

On top of this, there are a lot of other things in the system that have a connotation of Strategy/Tactics, N/S being the most notable of these.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

- please tell me everything you know and think of about this dichotomy - I'm looking for any relevant observations anyone can provide;
- don't you think SLE and SLI are rather Tactical and IEI and IEE Strategic in behaviour? Ignore Reinin's functional definition of this dichotomy, but use descriptions or observations...

For the second point, I noticed this: when given an advice, or alternative directions, Strategic types strongly tend to ignore adopting them for the moment, although they keep them in mind for a very long time and, having visible but delayed effects on them, in many cases years (varied situations). But Tacticals usually investigate the alternatives on the spot, dismissing and forgetting them if not interesting. Yes, they may come back over the time, but as rediscoveries.

I don't know much about the dichotomy. I know about as much as what I put into that post. Strategic types have specific long term goals in mind without much focus on exactly how to get there. Tactical types know how they are and what they can do, but don't focus as much on where that will bring them.

Strategic types have inert sensing and contact intuition.
Tactical types have inert intuition and contact sensing.

This is the reasoning I came up with.

NJs are strategic because they use their future focus as means to reach rational goals. (future focused judgment)

SJs are tactical because they use their present focus as means to their rational values. (present focused judgment)

SPs are strategic because they have clear material wants and needs in mind. (material goals)

NPs are tactical because they know what they are capable of and consequences of actions, but without any necessary direction. (abilities, predictions)

[IEI]

* The tactical IM types are : ILE, ESE, LSI, IEI, ILI, ESI, LSE, and IEE.
* The strategic IM types are : SEI, LII, EIE, SLE, SEE, LIE, EII, and SLI.

Best stick to the master's rules. Duals are opposites in this dichotomy.

Duality

SLE "I want a cake". He charges ahead leaving a trail of ingredients in his wake. IEI follows loyally behind him, picks up the food and creates little iced heart shaped sponges with cherrys on top.

SLE No dual
SLE "I want a cake". He charges ahead leaving a trail of ingredients in his wake. A few days later people start complaining about the mass of mouldy crumbs building up around them and resent the SLE for stealing all their ingredients.

IEI No dual
IEI "dum dee dum dum...what shall I dream about today?"

[Nexus]

[silverchris9]

Duality

SLE "I want a cake". He charges ahead leaving a trail of ingredients in his wake. IEI follows loyally behind him, picks up the food and creates little iced heart shaped sponges with cherrys on top.

...are girls really into that kinda crap? Because I have no interest in creating iced shaped sponges for anybody, including myself. The bit about dual-less IEI is right though (of course, you can also manufacture some Se or alternatively grow some balls or some other testosterone-producing glands/organs/body parts... but I still waste a heck of a lot of time). Also, dreaming can sometimes be productive but even productive dreaming dwindles to nothing in complete unregulated Ni. You don't even get any reading done so you don't get smarter. You just laze. Ah, . Most helpful function ever.

[jason_m]

I can't speak of general trends, but I'm a better strategist than tactician. (i.e., I can't speak for every related type...)

Jason

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't know much about the dichotomy. I know about as much as what I put into that post. Strategic types have specific long term goals in mind without much focus on exactly how to get there. Tactical types know how they are and what they can do, but don't focus as much on where that will bring them.

Strategic types have inert sensing and contact intuition.
Tactical types have inert intuition and contact sensing.

This is the reasoning I came up with.

NJs are strategic because they use their future focus as means to reach rational goals. (future focused judgment)

SJs are tactical because they use their present focus as means to their rational values. (present focused judgment)

SPs are strategic because they have clear material wants and needs in mind. (material goals)

NPs are tactical because they know what they are capable of and consequences of actions, but without any necessary direction. (abilities, predictions)

Mmm, okay cool. Fits my observations rather well.

[IEI]

...are girls really into that kinda crap? Because I have no interest in creating iced shaped sponges for anybody, including myself. The bit about dual-less IEI is right though (of course, you can also manufacture some Se or alternatively grow some balls or some other testosterone-producing glands/organs/body parts... but I still waste a heck of a lot of time). Also, dreaming can sometimes be productive but even productive dreaming dwindles to nothing in complete unregulated Ni. You don't even get any reading done so you don't get smarter. You just laze. Ah, . Most helpful function ever.

Well I have never actually baked a cake.... to be honest I'm not a girly girl oohing and aaahing over pretty pink things. Sometimes I wish I was I'm scatty and lost in my head most of the time. I was trying to convey that an SLE sets the goal "cake" and provides (and steals through force) the resources to make one "ingredients" and the IEI uses creativity and foresight to put it all together and give the SLE what he wants. The cherry represents and desire to please SLE with a hint of decorative .

Dum dee dum....

[IEI]

Well I have never actually baked a cake.... to be honest I'm not a girly girl oohing and aaahing over pretty pink things. Sometimes I wish I was I'm scatty and lost in my head most of the time. I was trying to convey that an SLE sets the goal "cake" and provides (and steals through force) the resources to make one "ingredients" and the IEI uses creativity and foresight to put it all together and give the SLE what he wants. The cherry represents and desire to please SLE with a hint of decorative .

Dum dee dum....

Lol acutally sorry just realised I think you got what I meant....

To the point of why would you want to run around and do stuff for someone I can't answer that... SLE seems to be able to get IEIs to do stuff for them and I can't figure out how they do it, usually I'm pretty stubborn and difficult to mobilize into action...but 5 mins with an SLE and I'm ready to take over the world.

[carrina]

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.

As an undecided ESI-SEE, i definitely prefer to keep my long term options open and choose in the future by preparing today. I'll choose a range of possible options and set the coarse toward those ends. My plans do change over time but I continue at least doing a similar preparation for the future. Obviously I'd prefer to have a set goal (I'm torn between two outcomes) but I'm afraid of limiting myself (each option has limits and positive points.) I think tactical fits me better because I actively navigate my options in this type of mind set throughout the process of achieving my outcome. But I can't honestly say that my goal is set in stone. Hmm. Now that I think about it though, neither is my plan.

[carrina]

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

Hm. I dunno. My LSI father kept getting beat repeatedly by my SEE uncle. He studied so hard but couldn't beat him and eventually gave up.

[carrina]

That idea about SLE chess players being good at conquering territory etc. stems from Rick, and it is a totally ridiculous idea actually.

Actually it's not a ridiculous idea at all. The two best chess players I've ever known were SEE then SLE. I'm not saying this is always the case but i am saying that it's more ridiculous to dismiss the idea of SLE being a superior chess player than LSI. I have known an LSI who was obsessed with chess but couldn't get around his te ignoring issues (obvious in his architecture design as well) and an SLE who loved beating people and saw chess as one way to do that and nothing more.

[carrina]

Further, this isn't conclusive evidence for the opposing point to yours, but it does at least mute your point about the ridiculousness of superior SLE chess players, them being a myth or something is a more ridiculous idea.

[The Exception]

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?

I think I'm somewhere in between strategic and tactical? Supposedly LII and EII should be strategic.

I think I can get satisfaction from life without explicit strategic goals but I think my life would end up more fulfilling if I do have some strategic goals I explicitly focus on. I don't want to be at the end of my life thinking about all of the things I failed to achieve because of some lack of plan.

Usually I'm pretty flexible to change my goals if it's something comparable but not always.

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.

I think it's the opposite for me. I'm more inclined to know what I want but less sure of the how.

Quick to adapt to situations is one thing that is typical for SLI, however in the sense that these are the definitions of tactical and strategic:

Tactical types

1. Focus on methods, and manipulate them, with goals unsettled.
2. Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods.
3. Prefers to expand options. Doesn't like to have too few of them.

1. Sometimes true.
2. Not really, more likely to be the opposite.
3. Yes. (An excessive number of options though can be confusing).

Strategic types

1. Focus on goals, and manipulate them, with methods unsettled.
2. Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals.
3. Prefers to defend goals. Doesn't like to be forced to deviate from them.

1. Yes but sometimes I don't always have very clear concrete goals. The goals are more general and vague.
2. Yes
3. Sometimes.

Okay, it looks like I'm somewhat more strategic then.

tactical/strategic have to do planning.

Strategic: This is where I want to be, so how should I do it?

Tactical: This is how I do, so where will it bring me?

(notice that duals are opposites, and so this is considered a complimentary characteristic: one helps the other.)


Process/Result is how you go about doing things.

Process: The way to reach my target is to do it right.

Result: The way to do it right is to reach my target.

(duals share this, and so people of one type expect others to act the same.)

Going by that a mix of strategic and tactical and result oriented.

[Beautiful sky]

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.

Aren't EII strategic types?

This is one reason why I hesitate to type you EII

[Beautiful sky]

I think I'm somewhere in between strategic and tactical? Supposedly LII and EII should be strategic.

I think I can get satisfaction from life without explicit strategic goals but I think my life would end up more fulfilling if I do have some strategic goals I explicitly focus on. I don't want to be at the end of my life thinking about all of the things I failed to achieve because of some lack of plan.

Usually I'm pretty flexible to change my goals if it's something comparable but not always.




I think it's the opposite for me. I'm more inclined to know what I want but less sure of the how.




1. Sometimes true.
2. Not really, more likely to be the opposite.
3. Yes. (An excessive number of options though can be confusing).




1. Yes but sometimes I don't always have very clear concrete goals. The goals are more general and vague.
2. Yes
3. Sometimes.

Okay, it looks like I'm somewhat more strategic then.





Going by that a mix of strategic and tactical and result oriented.

Therefore you are a strategic type

[Beautiful sky]

I know my goal

I want to win at a board game of chess
I want a house
I want to be married to my bf
Those are end results
Using foresight I imagine our lives down the road and I want to be there already but along the way I work at trying to figure out what to do (I lack Te action) next and learning from my error