Explaination of Process/Result and Interrogative/Declarative

[Park]

Drinking, as everything else in life, is boring and senseless if you have no purpose for doing it.

[FDG]

I relate to the result dichtomy

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

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.

[krieger]

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.

[krieger]

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.

[1981slater]

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.

Yes, and this is extremely funny for irrationals in conflicting relations

[machintruc]

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.

[mu4]

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.

[machintruc]

No.

A very small engine can have a very large turbocharger + exhaust system and it can make the car go vrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooom.

Turbocharging and then exhausting is a process.

[mu4]

Turbocharging and then exhausting is a process.

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

[krieger]

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.

[Warlord]

I observed that SEI's were more frequent than ESE's, that LSE's are more frequent than SLI's, and so on.

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.

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.

That explains absolutely nothing. How frequenently types appear has nothing do with how much they would be needed.

[FDG]

This observation seems incorect.

[Warlord]

Why not?

For the same reason, that you can't select if your baby is going to be girl or boy.

[discojoe]

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Process

The fifth listing of each description is new. Do you agree with them?

[EyeSeeCold]

Not readily apparent.

EDIT: Though I understand and agree. I usually trust my conclusions being that I took the time in the process.

[Crispy]

Holy shit

[Creepy-Snaps]

Yes.

[pianosinger]

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).

[Krig the Viking]

Works for me.

[Beautiful sky]

I would think I use both and it depends upon the situation.

[Aiss]

It's bullshit.

Or, I'm a Result type.

[1981slater]

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"

[Pa3s]

Works for me.

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.

[pianosinger]

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.

I like this, too.

[Pa3s]

I like this, too.

Yeah, I had this idea a while ago. I just don't know how true they are.

[EyeSeeCold]

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.

Process sounds like an Irrational thing to me and Result an Rational thing.

But I can also see how staying on one task, from the beginning to the end can be Rational-like.

[Cyrano]

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Process

The fifth listing of each description is new. Do you agree with them?

Definitely the right answer for SLIs. Good job DiscoJoe.

[Pa3s]

Process sounds like an Irrational thing to me and Result an Rational thing.

But I can also see how staying on one task, from the beginning to the end can be Rational-like.

That's what I thought, I was focusing on the description of process/result.

[Krig the Viking]

Process sounds like an Irrational thing to me and Result an Rational thing.

But I can also see how staying on one task, from the beginning to the end can be Rational-like.

Alpha and Gamma Irrationals are Process. But you can also see how, for example, LSI uses Process as well, no?

[Creepy-]

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.

[EyeSeeCold]

Alpha and Gamma Irrationals are Process. But you can also see how, for example, LSI uses Process as well, no?

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.

[golden]

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.

[silverchris9]

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.

[Slacker]

Works for me.

[Simon Ssmall]

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.

[Slacker]

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.

[Aiss]

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.

[717495]

I am definitely process and yielding. That means I am either ILE, SEI, LSE, or EII I guess.

[Simon 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.

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.