Explaination of Process/Result and Interrogative/Declarative

[Slacker]

Well, to be honest, I'm not a fan of the reinen dichotomies in the first place, and I've heard the +/- thing brought up and I'm even less a fan of that. Just, it works for me in this case. I don't think people should be typing by this stuff though, personally.

Edited to add - the result works for me in this case, but I don't like the process.

[717495]

Margarita, you said you're not really "serious," but I'm curious, the serious description on wikisocion doesn't really describe much as being actually serious. Do you mean you don't fit that description, or a different description, or is it all too ambiguous? The only ones I personally can say for sure I am is process and yielding--just because in my subjective experience those aspects are more relatable.

[Slacker]

I fit the dichotomy as far as that goes (the serious thing.) My problem with the Reinin dichotomies is less that they're inaccurate than that they're poorly named, which is potentially misleading, and I think they're better explained in functional terms, ie Fe valuing. So I think they're also redundant. Why can't we just say "Fe valuing" instead of "merry"?

If I didn't understand what they're going for, which isn't really the words "merry" and "serious", I would call myself "merry".

[717495]

Yeah I might be the opposite, I think the merry description might fit me better, not sure yet, but if I just hear "merry" and "serious," I would call myself "serious."

I did say many times previously I fit the ILE reinin dichotomies. But I am a more reserved/introverted person. My friends who are into MBTI call me very P, and the way I don't stick to any systems or decisions on this forum, it should be pretty obvious.

[717495]

What I did think merry/serious was for a while is someone who is serious, tells the truth and is more gullible, doesn't joke around much, versus someone who plays around and BSs more, and just wants to have fun. Because in my experience I get along much better with the former and am more annoyed by the latter/dont understand their ways well, so it seems like it should be something I should consider in a dual. The other end to this is that I'm actually rather weird and have a sense of humor, but its not based around BSing in that sense. It's a lot stranger and esoteric, but I know a few people who have caught on to it and adopted it + I've adopted theirs.

[EyeSeeCold]

The way Gulenko explains Process/Result made it more sensible to me, whereas I was effectively clueless before as to what it really meant or referred to (though if Aiss sees this, I'm sure she'll vehemently disagree that it makes any sense).

He casts Process-Result using more favorably descriptive terms for it IMO, as Evolutionary-Involutionary (Evolutory-Involutory for shorter). One way to think of this, is the direction that one's thought processes or comprehension tends to proceed:

- Evolutory (Process) types tend to deductively build things up; understanding flows from 'evolution' of simple → complex; often more particularized in scope, stronger attentive grasp on detail.
Types = ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII

- Involutory (Result) types tend to inductively break things down; understanding arises from 'involution' of complex → simple; often more generalized in scope, weaker attentive grasp on detail.
Types = ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI

Yes I do like Evolutionary-Involutionary much better. If thoughts such as mine can be derived from the semantics of Process-Result, then it's not very precise and should be dealt with.

As far as Rational-Irrational goes, I've always thought of XXXj types as having greater inclination to exert control over their psychological states—experiential occurrences become more subordinated to rational whims; XXXp types are the inverse. Naturally, normal psychologically healthy people never fall on either extreme; most people are a mix of both dispositions, but one will tend to rule more frequently than the other.

I think and are polarized in this manner. With being the archetype function, it can get lost in role-playing which isn't very healthy at extremes. , I should think, may be the most clear-headed Base function.

Though it's crucial to understand this in a phenomenological sense only; that is, to look at this from the POV of a person's conscious mind and their own self-perception. So when I say that XXXj types exert more control over their psychological states, it's that they perceive themselves as having that sort of control—not that they always succeed at exerting it, or that they're necessarily as in control as they might believe. But I've typed too much, so I'll forgo explaining any further.

I'm aware. Otherwise xxxj would be pushing their bodies past the mental/emotional/physical limits that are naturally placed on them.

However the same could be said for types that value

As tcaud demonstrated:
Beta Se (Aggression) <-> Gamma Se (Entitlement) <-> Gamma Fi (Equity) <-> Delta Fi (Desire)

Beta Se (Strength) <-> Gamma Se (Right) <-> Gamma Fi (value) <-> Delta Fi (Drive)

[golden]

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.

Right, last time I checked, it's Socionics. Let me put this differently by summing up the responses so far, because your line of thinking has no bearing on mine:

Respondents who agree with the new line 5 for process and result:

Process types: 1
Result types: 9

Other responses:

* DJ is a process type and must agree with line 5 for process, as he created it.
* Maritsa (process) says she does both.
* Slater (process) offers a correction that implies lines 5 for process vs. result are not parallel in construction.
* Aiss (process) says no and considers changing her self-type.
* Ssmall (result) says neither.
* Poli says he's a process type but doesn't comment on line 5.

So several result types are pleased with line 5; several process types appear not to be.

[silverchris9]

Right, last time I checked, it's Socionics. Let me put this differently by summing up the responses so far, because your line of thinking has no bearing on mine:

Respondents who agree with the new line 5 for process and result:

Process types: 1
Result types: 9

Other responses:

* DJ is a process type and must agree with line 5 for process, as he created it.
* Maritsa (process) says she does both.
* Slater (process) offers a correction that implies lines 5 for process vs. result are not parallel in construction.
* Aiss (process) says no and considers changing her self-type.
* Ssmall (result) says neither.
* Poli says he's a process type but doesn't comment on line 5.

So several result types are pleased with line 5; several process types appear not to be.

The quantity of response represents FAR too small a sample size to be statistically satisfactory. But if your argument is that dj's addition unfairly privileges result types, that could be true, I suppose.

Also, your line of thinking in the post I responded to appeared to be an application of system (socionics) to reality. That is, you took the systematic idea dj posted, then applied it to reality where there are a lot of messy contradictions that show that the idea doesn't work in every case. I was merely pointing out that application of the theoretical ideas of socionics to actual experience almost always turns out that way. It's never going to fit exactly, and we shouldn't try to make it fit exactly.

[golden]

The quantity of response represents FAR too small a sample size to be statistically satisfactory. But if your argument is that dj's addition unfairly privileges result types, that could be true, I suppose.

Also, your line of thinking in the post I responded to appeared to be an application of system (socionics) to reality. That is, you took the systematic idea dj posted, then applied it to reality where there are a lot of messy contradictions that show that the idea doesn't work in every case. I was merely pointing out that application of the theoretical ideas of socionics to actual experience almost always turns out that way. It's never going to fit exactly, and we shouldn't try to make it fit exactly.

Lol. On the one hand you tell me it's just Socionics, relax, I shouldn't expect it to fully fit reality, and on the other hand you tell me that the responses in this thread are not statistically significant and therefore don't, er, represent reality? That's awesome! I'm glad I don't have to debate you, you slippery eel, you.

Anyway, we're not going to come up with a statistically significant sample on this forum. I have yet to see any of us on this forum do data crunching to arrive at conclusions.

Although I understand your point about applying Socionics to reality often proving problematic, I also must say that it's what I try to do at all times. Connect it to experience. It has no value to me whatsoever if it has no bearing on reality. I don't require it to match up 100 percent, but I do hope for a fair approximation such that people's quick reaction is "Yes, good enough" or "Eh, not so much." DJ asked for our feeback, and the positive responses for process vs. response differed.

[discojoe]

I'll give an example of what I am trying to say.

At work, there is an ESE cashier who puts blueberry containers inside small paper bags, since said containers are very unreliable and likely to pop open. One time, I overheard a customer -- some environmentally over-conscientious poop head -- protest her doing this, to which she replied, almost musically, "Noooo. These are going to pop open." And she proceeded to place the berries into the bag, and I assume the customer submitted to her insistence. This is a Result mentality: "The berries should not spill, so putting them into the bag despite protest is the right thing to do."

I, on the other hand, when cashiering, follow a Process way of approaching the situation: "The berries shouldn't spill, so I will try to put them into the bag unless the customer expresses disapproval." Sometimes customers don't want the berries in the bag, so I acquiesce, not wanting to offend them or cause a scene. Again, Process orientation: "Not putting the berries into the bag was the correct procedure, since the customer didn't want me to do so." So the reality of the berries spilling was subordinate to having carried out the customer's instructions. In other words, "Of course the result is correct, since I followed the correct procedure."

Also, my LSE boss, a Process type, is extremely by-the-book, which pisses off a lot of his employees, but the end result is that the store is the most well-run, and he makes the district manager look good. "The procedures are there for a reason, so we'll follow them and get good results."

Edit: The Result person: "The procedures aren't necessarily the means of achieving the best results, so we'll wiggle out of them if we need to."

Both are used by all people, but the general mindsets, I believe, are accurate.

[Crispy]

Lol I forgot process/result was the same for duals. The example works pretty well. I wouldn't take #5 out just due to possible confusion, since it's inevitable in this type of community.

The most common example I can come up with is Results types getting marked down on math tests for neglecting to show their work, and Process types stressing how important the correct method is when solving problems. Results types usually solve faster but have to go back and fix mistakes more often while Process types go slow and steady with minimal mistakes.

[Creepy-male]

Results types usually solve faster but have to go back and fix mistakes more often while Process types go slow and steady with minimal mistakes.

Does not hold for myself (blah blah, you think I'm IEE, you're wrong, let's move on), nor does it for an ILE friend of mine. Mistakes in maths are working memory and attention span related.

[golden]

I'll give an example of what I am trying to say.

At work, there is an ESE cashier who puts blueberry containers inside small paper bags, since said containers are very unreliable and likely to pop open. One time, I overheard a customer -- some environmentally over-conscientious poop head -- protest her doing this, to which she replied, almost musically, "Noooo. These are going to pop open." And she proceeded to place the berries into the bag, and I assume the customer submitted to her insistence. This is a Result mentality: "The berries should not spill, so putting them into the bag despite protest is the right thing to do."

I, on the other hand, when cashiering, follow a Process way of approaching the situation: "The berries shouldn't spill, so I will try to put them into the bag unless the customer expresses disapproval." Sometimes customers don't want the berries in the bag, so I acquiesce, not wanting to offend them or cause a scene. Again, Process orientation: "Not putting the berries into the bag was the correct procedure, since the customer didn't want me to do so." So the reality of the berries spilling was subordinate to having carried out the customer's instructions. In other words, "Of course the result is correct, since I followed the correct procedure."

Also, my LSE boss, a Process type, is extremely by-the-book, which pisses off a lot of his employees, but the end result is that the store is the most well-run, and he makes the district manager look good. "The procedures are there for a reason, so we'll follow them and get good results."

Edit: The Result person: "The procedures aren't necessarily the means of achieving the best results, so we'll wiggle out of them if we need to."

Both are used by all people, but the general mindsets, I believe, are accurate.

Hm, okay. In this example, I would not override the customer's wish for no bag by insisting that the berries would spill. (Way to piss someone off.) That's just more my general approach to customer service and to workplace issues. At the point the customer makes his/her wishes known, it ceases to be my problem what becomes of the berries. Same with doing what my boss wants; so long as I'm following the boss's wishes, it's not my fault when things go wrong, IF I have let it be known that a problem might occur and given him/her a chance to address it.

And no, this doesn't mean I would have made an excellent Nazi.

I'm still having a hard time connecting this to process/result, though, even though you spelled it out.

[Crispy]

Does not hold for myself (blah blah, you think I'm IEE, you're wrong, let's move on), nor does it for an ILE friend of mine. Mistakes in maths are working memory and attention span related.

Does that mean you go slow and steady and still make lots of mistakes? Or you think you fit the Results end of that particular description?

[Creepy-male]

Does that mean you go slow and steady and still make lots of mistakes? Or you think you fit the Results end of that particular description?

Usually when I make mistakes it's because I habitually try to do multiple stages of working mentally and do something daft like magically transmute operators or numbers into things they weren't the line before.

My work is also uncheckable because I lump multiple steps I've done mentally into a single line.

That said, I always tried to stick to the minimum working needed for full marks, I'd just condense intermediate steps down "too much" due to impatience in writing out nigh-identical lines where you change operators or group like terms or something useless like that

I suppose I'm a 6/10 between rushing through things and doing things by the book? If there's a quick rule for getting from A -> B there's really no point in illustrating the journey. So Process.

[Creepy-]

Edit: The Result person: "The procedures aren't necessarily the means of achieving the best results, so we'll wiggle out of them if we need to."

If this were true, I would be a Result type. I'm not a Result type. I think there is more at work than this. You are generalizing. Sometimes procedure is useless and gets nothing done. Truthfully, I don't see how anyone could say that following the exact pre-made procedure will always end in the best results possible.

[discojoe]

You are generalizing.

[Creepy-]

[IMG]http://picdump.darph.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/sisko-facepalm.jpg[IMG]

Ok, ok, I understand. But I meant it in a different context. What I meant was that this dichotomy probably manifests differently in different types. Such as, an ILE and EII may "use" process differently. So "generalizing" in the sense that all types use it in the same way.

[Creepy-male]

[silverchris9]

Lol. On the one hand you tell me it's just Socionics, relax, I shouldn't expect it to fully fit reality, and on the other hand you tell me that the responses in this thread are not statistically significant and therefore don't, er, represent reality? That's awesome! I'm glad I don't have to debate you, you slippery eel, you.

Anyway, we're not going to come up with a statistically significant sample on this forum. I have yet to see any of us on this forum do data crunching to arrive at conclusions.

There is a perfectly valid distinction between applying socionics to reality and applying methods of reasoning to socionics.

+10 to dj's facepalm.

Interesting reasoning on the example about the berries. Can't you say, from a result standpoint, that you merely shifted the target? That is, you were still being results-oriented, but the intended result was the happiness of the customer, rather than the berries not spilling?

[Beautiful sky]

I, on the other hand, when cashiering, follow a Process way of approaching the situation: "The berries shouldn't spill, so I will try to put them into the bag unless the customer expresses disapproval." Sometimes customers don't want the berries in the bag, so I acquiesce, not wanting to offend them or cause a scene. Again, Process orientation: "Not putting the berries into the bag was the correct procedure, since the customer didn't want me to do so." So the reality of the berries spilling was subordinate to having carried out the customer's instructions. In other words, "Of course the result is correct, since I followed the correct procedure."

Also, my LSE boss, a Process type, is extremely by-the-book, which pisses off a lot of his employees, but the end result is that the store is the most well-run, and he makes the district manager look good. "The procedures are there for a reason, so we'll follow them and get good results."

I am process type according to this explanation. Does that sound right?

[Nexus]

I'll give an example of what I am trying to say.

At work, there is an ESE cashier who puts blueberry containers inside small paper bags, since said containers are very unreliable and likely to pop open. One time, I overheard a customer -- some environmentally over-conscientious poop head -- protest her doing this, to which she replied, almost musically, "Noooo. These are going to pop open." And she proceeded to place the berries into the bag, and I assume the customer submitted to her insistence. This is a Result mentality: "The berries should not spill, so putting them into the bag despite protest is the right thing to do."

I, on the other hand, when cashiering, follow a Process way of approaching the situation: "The berries shouldn't spill, so I will try to put them into the bag unless the customer expresses disapproval." Sometimes customers don't want the berries in the bag, so I acquiesce, not wanting to offend them or cause a scene. Again, Process orientation: "Not putting the berries into the bag was the correct procedure, since the customer didn't want me to do so." So the reality of the berries spilling was subordinate to having carried out the customer's instructions. In other words, "Of course the result is correct, since I followed the correct procedure."

Also, my LSE boss, a Process type, is extremely by-the-book, which pisses off a lot of his employees, but the end result is that the store is the most well-run, and he makes the district manager look good. "The procedures are there for a reason, so we'll follow them and get good results."

Edit: The Result person: "The procedures aren't necessarily the means of achieving the best results, so we'll wiggle out of them if we need to."

Both are used by all people, but the general mindsets, I believe, are accurate.

being a process type, you totally misrepresented results: result isn't a trial and error procedure. process types focus in on one line of thought and follow it mechanistically to it's conclusion, but result types don't do that they keep track of multiple realities simultaneously without processing any of them, to capitalize immediately on the most useful one at any given time while it is still in it's initial state - they don't tend it and they don't focus on it exclusively, like process types do; also, mistakes have nothing to do with process or results, though depending on the situation either mentality is capable of leading you astray, perhaps using the wrong method if process or skipping a step if result...

Ok, ok, I understand. But I meant it in a different context. What I meant was that this dichotomy probably manifests differently in different types. Such as, an ILE and EII may "use" process differently. So "generalizing" in the sense that all types use it in the same way.

EII and ILE are tied to process by the Abelian properties of small cycles, it works the same way as IP = EJ = dynamic = P * I = J * E = E * J = I * P

EII
introvert declaring - introspective need for concentration
autocrat judging - subject requires hierarchical priority
farsighted knowing - subject will ultimately produce relevant effects (requires knowing and is farsighted)
strategic feeling - internal perceptions will not produce internal judgments (sacrifice of attention)

ILE
extrovert asking - expression of need for concentration
democrat perceiving - subject requires idiosyncratic manipulation
carefree understanding - subject initially produces no relevant effects (requires understanding and is carefree)
tactical thinking - external perceptions will not produce external judgments (conditional response)*

*here is a clear manifestation of this last attribute (tactical thinking) from the second to last post in this thread:

There is a perfectly valid distinction between applying socionics to reality and applying methods of reasoning to socionics.

...meaning that external judgments (the rules) cannot be affected by external perceptions or the original procedure will have been sacrificed for the sake of result

EII and ILE share all other reinin and jungian traits

[Nexus]

IMO, introspective need for concentration/subject requires hierarchical priority/subject will ultimately produce relevant effects/internal perceptions will not produce internal judgments is about as EII as you can get

[ashlesha]

please explain them to me.

do not tell me whether they're worth knowing or not. I don't care

[Creepy-Snaps]

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ess_and_result

Process types
Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
Immersed to a process and tends to single-tasking.
Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.
More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end.
"Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."


Result types
Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
Focus on the beginning and the end of processes.
More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
"Of course we followed the correct procedure, since we got the right answer."

[ashlesha]

ok, i've read that before and i just can't force it into application.

[Saberstorm]

This is a hard one. I do not like the "orthodox" quote from snaps, as it seems that "process and result" has to somehow establish what in the hell do they mean by sequentially beginning to end or multitasking end to beginning. This is too vague.

For example, I am inventing something. I am behind schedule. I have been delayed by welding it, as my measurements must be flawless and I have had to spend quite a bit of time inventing a method for clamping and bracing certain rods to unusual shaped surfaces. Am I a result thinker because I moved to weld, then discovered that my measurements are wrong? I am now backtracking in the project, from end back to beginning. Or am I a process thinker because I need to build connections at work to find investors and I need to start arranging for a promotional film to be made and get the patent filed. All of these things I will start once I have a working prototype - because I have a hard time shifting from one type of task to the other. I have both a sequence and a broken sequence together in different contexts.

[Creepy-pokeball]

It is a weird one, because I line up with result, and others I know very well in person line up with process. Even though they match the predictive value I have given them, I do not since I am not alpha rational, beta irrational, gamma rational, or delta irrational.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I kind of wonder if culture/raised environment fucks this dichotomy up =/

[717495]

Idk if this helps, probably not

The basic difference between the right and the left is in the approach towards situations/processes, or more specifically, the "immersed" and "disassociated" approach when dealing with a process and the orientation on either "the result" or "the process" while neglecting the other aspect. For the leftist the results/estimations (The summing up of the process) are a tool they are forced to use in order to feel the flow of the process (Being that they are disassociated from it). The rightist on the other hand are immersed in the process and do not wish for it to be "terminated" before becoming complete (It's realization).

Examples:

Right: "It's not easy to finish something, it's also not easy to start something, but the most difficult thing to do is to continue where I left off a long time ago" "I read the book in the evening to the end of the chapter and a several pages after that??.it's just that the though of an "end" is kina scary for me" "God forbid that I am "left hanging" for a long time (regarding a computer game)" "it's difficult to get it of the ground, but after that it caries itself"

Left: "The matter at hand must be known. If estimations cannot be complete then they must at least be partial." "I find finishing and undertaking new work/ventures very interesting ... I like to do a well executed job" "the most horrible thing ? when something just won't end" "I feel like a juggler; in my hands ? activities (Processes). They all have two points ? the beginning and the end" "Well why can't you simultaneously listen and eat?"


more http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3327...process-result

[Absurd]

please explain them to me.

do not tell me whether they're worth knowing or not. I don't care

Process types think backwards, that is, they look for premises to already set hypotheses and more premises that actually solidify previous premises. It is different for Result, where thinking is forward, that is, on the basis of premises they form conclusions and again on the basis of conclusions they form another conclusions until they reach a hypothesis.

I might write more in the evening.

[FDG]

It's pretty clear when you look at mirror types executing a task, or ask them about their general attitude towards working.