Drinking, as everything else in life, is boring and senseless if you have no purpose for doing it.
Drinking, as everything else in life, is boring and senseless if you have no purpose for doing it.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
I relate to the result dichtomy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Result. Can't just enjoy the in-the-moment Si flavor of something all too well, never could. But getting drunk with a good friend and opening up our inner worlds is very appealing to me.
Normally described as:
Process: focussed, single-tasking, inside a process that it can not easily detach from
Result: unfocussed, multi-tasking, outside the processes that it can pick up and drop as it goes
The cynical part of me theorizes that Result types are more mentally stable than Process types. The fairer way to put it, though, is that they are less invested. More inclined to draw confidence from immaterial things.
Process = +Accepting, -Creating
Result = +Creating, -Accepting
What you are invested in (complex, what took you a long time to figure out) = creating
More material = -
More immaterial = +
after all, when Intuition, Thinking and Sensing are put in a sequence, the left side of the sequence (+) signifies the more immaterial things and the right side (-) the more material things. Intuition is more immaterial than logic. Sensing is more material than logic. Refer to the distribution of + and - over the clubs:
NT = +N -T
ST = +T -S
SF = +S -F
NF = +F -N
Which shows that + and - signify left and right in the sequence:
N T S F N etc.
or, visualized differently:
N+ NT -T+ ST -S+ SF -F+ NF -N
However, we can also understand "confidence" to be a matter of the Limiting functions, in which case it is the Negativists to whom this stability is to be attributed. This in mind, it makes sense to divide the socion in 4 using Negativist/Positivist, Static/Dynamic and Process/Result. This gives rise to the 4 thinking styles.
In Statics, the Creating functions are Limiting (absolute). In Dynamics the Accepting functions are Limiting. I interpret this as meaning that Dynamics are focussed on the accumulation of materials, whereas Statics are focussed on building structures from such materials. The Empowering (contingent) functions signify wondering about the deeper complexity of a phenomenom (in Dynamics, where they are Creating; concerned with complex, delicate things) and making wild, random attempts (in Statics, where they are Accepting; concerned with simple, robust things).
Negative/Result/Static: people that are focussed on building something relatively immaterial. A sort of overarching framework from which everything can be judged at a single glimpse. Knowledge that is universally applicable in the frame of reference in which the person thinks.
Positive/Process/Static: people that are accumulating knowledge on something relatively material. Someone that studies an object the traditional way. Knowledge that is very specific to the area in which it is found and can only be applied there.
Positive/Result/Dynamic: people that find raw materials that are relatively material. The immaterial bits are sources of amazement and curiosity. Having found something that is practically useful and trivally simple to use one is left to wonder what lay at the essence of it all.
Negative/Process/Dynamic: people that find raw materials that are relatively immaterial. The beginning of understanding. If one has time to work out all the implications from what one finds one would know everything. This working out of implications is a drudging and painstaking process, however.
* relatively (im)material is understood in relation to the frame of reference in which the person thinks. T is relatively immaterial to ST types, but relatively material to NT types.
Funny detail: the Negative/Result/Statics are trying to build knowledge from which everything that is needed can be derived. The Negative/Process/Dynamics think they have such knowledge from the beginning. Quasi-identical tension, right there.
Negative/Result/Static types train themselves by thinking, whereas Positive/Process/Static types train their understanding of a certain topic. In the former the focus is on the person, the overarching whole of the experience. The latter it is on an isolated topic or object within that experience.
The Creating function is the part of the person's thoughts that undergoes training. The Accepting function largely remains in a naive, unpredjudiced state.
Accepting function signifies immediate reaction and the belief that the associated part of reality is simple rather than complex. The reigning attitude is that "it is impossible to know what is going on behind the screens, so why bother trying to figure it out".
Accepting judging functions are all about making a decision on the basis of what one knows on a topic RIGHT NOW. There is no time to think, just give the best you can do in the narrowest possible time-frame.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
I observed that SEI's were more frequent than ESE's, that LSE's are more frequent than SLI's, and so on.
This asymetric distribution has a purpose. It is natural that the process goes forward more than it goes backwards. The world, like a car, is meant to go forwards, but sometimes need to go backwards.
No.
A very small engine can have a very large turbocharger + exhaust system and it can make the car go vrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooom.
Forced induction is one of the most efficient ways to build a high performance engine. However, onset of boost has a lag period compared to naturally aspirated engines.
However in a turbocharged engine, knock and detonation risks are greatly increased and requires precise timing to manage.
How a turbocharge works is takes hot air from the exhaust of a internal combustion engine and cools it and then feeds the cooled air into the intake, creating compression.
It's a heat pump, not a heat engine.
Theoretically information within a Process types go from compression to heat rejection
Theoretically information within a Result types go from heat rejection to compression
All process types go Ne-Fe-Se-Te-Ne
All result types go Te-Se-Fe-Ne-Te
Base function Ne goes to Creative Ti(dual of Fe) in a ILE - Heat Engine
Base function Ne goes to Creative Fi(dual of Te) in a IEE - Heat Pump
I think Result and Process behaviors are better seen as pulling and pushing in the same direction than as moving things in opposing directions. Behavior of Mirrors (always one Process and one Result type) is complementary after all.
No, haven't seen anything suggesting of that. Process and Result types seem approximately as evenly distributed, both groups have more uncommon and more common types.
That explains absolutely nothing. How frequenently types appear has nothing do with how much they would be needed.This asymetric distribution has a purpose. It is natural that the process goes forward more than it goes backwards. The world, like a car, is meant to go forwards, but sometimes need to go backwards.
Last edited by Warlord; 06-07-2009 at 12:57 PM.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
This observation seems incorect.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Process
The fifth listing of each description is new. Do you agree with them?
Not readily apparent.
EDIT: Though I understand and agree. I usually trust my conclusions being that I took the time in the process.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Yes.
Hmm. Took me a few read-throughs of each statement, and some time in thought...didn't quite get it right away. But, yes...I *think* it is accurate enough in my case (being the Result type).
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
Works for me.
Quaero Veritas.
I would think I use both and it depends upon the situation.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's bullshit.
Or, I'm a Result type.
Let's check this...
If p-->q
then not q-->not p
Feel free to correct the following in case they are poorly arranged:
"Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."
"Of course we followed a wrong procedure, since the answer is wrong"
"Of course we followed the correct procedure, since we got the right answer."
"Of course we got the wrong answer, since we followed the wrong procedure"
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
For me too, I think.
I'd say whatever procedure you follow, if the result is right, it automatically makes the procedure right as well. I share some traits from the process type as wel, thoughl.
btw: I don't know what you think about it, but I'd add "strengthened by X" to many of the Reinin dichotomies. (Like "This attitude is strengthened by introversion." for Judging) For example:
Process (strengthened by j)/Result (strengthened by p)
Constructivism (strengthened by T)/Emotivism (strengthened by F)
etc.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Wikisocion says that a type with a + element as a base is process while a type with a - element as a base is a result. It has nothing to do with rationality vs. irrationality.
My reasoning is based on semantics.
Process-oriented - it makes me think of doing something for the action and not the result. That seems Irrational to me.
Result-oriented - doing something for the result and not the process(experience) sounds Rational to me.
I understand the original meanings and concepts, I just also see it from a different perspective.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
I went to the linked page, got immersed in reading, and temporarily forgot it was the fifth line I was supposed to be appraising, and when I got to the fifth line my reaction was mildly WTF.
A wrong answer is a wrong answer. If you know for a fact that the answer is wrong, then you'd have to be stupid to assume that you followed the correct procedure. Now, I might wonder if I had followed an okay procedure but made some kind of error in executing it; I might retry the same procedure to be sure.
Wouldn't a thinking person recognize multiple possibilities? That is, "Is the answer definitely incorrect? How do I know this to be certain? If it is wrong, I may have followed the wrong procedure, or I may have erred in carrying it out. Which of these scenarios is the more likely one in this case? Will I get better results by altering the procedure, or double-checking the procedure to be certain?"
It also seems to me that there is not enough context here. Are we talking about a math problem, a humanistic problem, what? Are we supposed to consider it is a simple problem, in which the procedure is easily discarded, or a complex one, in which much effort was invested in developing the procedure, making it more efficient to retry than to discard it and start from scratch before ascertaining the procedure's usefulness?
An example that introduces a third factor, an external complication:
If I bake a cake, and it falls or gets burned, I know for a fact that something went wrong. Did I misunderstand or fail to properly execute the instructions? Were the instructions faulty? Is there something wrong with the oven? I could conclude the likelihood of one of these possibilities (or another) based on evidence and experience. (a) I know I'm shitty at baking and often screw up when following instructions; (b) I tried another recipe from this book with poor results, looked up reviews of the book online, and found that others complained the recipes contained errors due to poor recipe testing; (c) my oven has been on the fritz in general.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Also works for me. Well done, dj.
EDIT: Also, golden... it's socionics. It's not a perfect mirror for real thought processes, which would, yes, take multiple possibilities and such into consideration. It's just sort of a knee-jerk reaction. I assume that if I get the right answer, then whatever I did to get there was right. Nevertheless, I am aware that there are cases wherein the end does not justify the means. Similarly, I am sure that people who assume that the the proper actions ensure the proper outcomes are also aware that there are exceptions to the rule.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Works for me.
Dunno, I am aware when I am not following the proper procedure but manage to get to the correct result and it is more often than not that I do it. I do things sloppy, but they in general work good. Overall I feel neither of those fit to my way of thinking not to mention correct procedure or correct result is not something that happens in real world in most cases.
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
Well, the way I figure it, if I got the right result, than it was A good procedure if not the one someone else wrote up.
What nil said. +/- is the answer, ftr. It's also actually in agreement with most of what Gulenko says about it, far more than "process" and "result" focused misconception.
FWIW I had many debates with people who represented "process" stereotype over it, being the one to say "your answer sucks, so stop defending the reasoning already". So I'm kind of serious about being Result type if it's supposed to work. But then my retyping doesn't help much since I encountered this with for example LIIs (self-typed as such, at least), who are supposed not to be Process.
Therefore, my argument is that the fifth point on both lists seriously sucks from my POV. Not sure how you got there, but it doesn't excuse it.
I am definitely process and yielding. That means I am either ILE, SEI, LSE, or EII I guess.
I do realize that it is how one would be thinking. If I managed to get to the result then I really wont have a problem with it and won't accept criticism or whatnot. However I wont consider it a good procedure if I will be aware in how many ways it could have failed but did not due to luck or some other factors. So I will be aware it is a bad procedure but it got the job done. Things like that happen often in my work and I would not recommend my "procedures" to anyone really but I get the job done most of the time and nobody has complains as far as I'm aware. Probably because most of my bosses are result oriented too.
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/