Explaination of Process/Result and Interrogative/Declarative

[machintruc]

Let's suppose + is process, - is result.

+ means an aspect of reality which is related to the present in a given situation.
- means an aspect of reality which is related to the future and past, outside that situation.

Dynamic - is Positive, because Dynamics means changing situations, which implicates the future and the past of things.
Static + is Positive, because Statics means non-changing situations, which implicates the present of things.

Static - and Dynamic + are Negative for reverse reasons.

This is how Positivists focus on the presence, and Negativists on the absence.

I also thought : E/I has nothing to do with objectiveness/subjectiveness, but rather with objects/fields :

Let's compare the dominant types : SEI and SLI.

SEI focuses more on subjective mechanical interactions - i.e. sensations of things
SLI focuses more on objective mechanical interactions - i.e. harmony of things

Let's suppose that two colliding gears rotate in opposite direction :

SEI would focus more on what each gear is sensing, the sensations of each gear.
SLI would focus more on how gears interact to each other, the interactions generated by both gears.

SEI is a subjective type, and SLI an objective type.

Let's compare the dominant types : LII and LSI.

LSI focuses more on subjective structure
LII focuses more on objective structure

Let's suppose that eight black balls are connected to each other by white wires, to make a cubic structure :

LSI would focus more on connections relative to each black ball.
LII would focus more on the global structure generated by all the eight balls.

LSI is a subjective type, and LII is an objective type.

Let's compare the dominant types : LSE and LIE.

LIE focuses more on subjective movements
LSE focuses more on objective movements

Let's suppose that three black cubes are moving circularily :

LIE would focus more on how each cube is moving, its algorithms of movements.
LSE would focus more on how all cubes are moving to make a circular movement.

For now : SEI, LSI and LIE are subjective - SLI, LII and LSE are objective.

All those three "subjective types" have those traits in common : Carefreeness, Emotivism, and Declarativeness.

Carefreeness and Emotivism aren't important here. So let's retain Declarativeness.

So I can make this hypothesis :

E- and I+ are subjective.
E+ and I- are objective.

As you can know already, motive to communication of Declarers is subjective, and the one of Askers is objective.

[machintruc]

This explains a thing : you may type someone Extrotim or Logical because he's Interrogative, and someone Introtim or Ethical because he's Declarative. This could lead to mistypings, it happened to me at times. For example I typed LSI a girl which was actually ESE, because of subjective information percieving.

This explains also more differences between NT types - most NT types mistype themselves - There are ILE's which type themselves as ILI, ILI's which type themselves as LII, LIE's which type themselves ILI because of a caricatural definition i.e. "introvert = loner", and so on.

I Myers-Briggs typed myself INTJ - was I LII for that ? not necessarily. I heard of the J/P switch and discovered by myself that it was wrong (I'm nothing like ILI's, ILI's are hostile loners whereas I'm someone super-cool lol).

I supposed I was LII. For a little time I hesitated between LII and ILE, because they are very similar. ILE is a trap because he doesn't seem as extroverted than it is actually, because doesn't fit the mainstream definition. It's a trap because once, I typed LII a ILE girl.

You know, ILE's are pretty passive... But as I'm more relevant to Judging than percieving, more relevant to Logics than Intuition, more relevent to Ethics than Sensing, I don't hesitate anymore and typed myself LII with nearly 100% certainty.

[machintruc]

I'll do an "extroverted" description : society, mankind, the universe, have what some socionists call a PROCESS or "evolution". What does that mean exactly ?

I'll explain :

STATIC CYCLE

there are ideas, potential in things
ideas must have consistency, otherwise they wouldn't be worth anything
consistent ideas must be materialised, otherwise they wouldn't be worth anything
materialised consistent ideas must please people, otherwise they wouldn't be worth anything
however, ideas come from people, their needs, their wishes, their desires

DYNAMIC CYCLE

there are lots of options and opportunities in the world
opportunities aren't worth anything if they lack efficiency, i.e. you seek profit (in a socionic sense)
efficiency is good, but quality is good too ; if profitable things are actually "superficial empty shells" that aren't really worth anything, they won't last in the long term
quality naturally pleases people, and produces well-being on mankind
people generate such opportunities, by their human interactions ; there's always such opportunities that are created or destructed

This explains how Process types go from the beginning to the end...

...and how Result types go from the end to the beginning.

That's very natural and simple ! How come Reinin's dichotomies are an excess of white logic !? I still don't understand. At least Process/Result seems to be valid and consistent for me.

[Joy]

I don't understand what extroversion, statics, or dynamics have to do with it...

But you're right that process is evolutionary and result is involutionary.

Result: mentally simplify things, see the forest
Process: mentally complicate things, see the trees

3. Polarity "evolyutsiya/involyutsiya"

In the most general form this polarity I understand as the contrast of the processes of razvertyvaniya/svertyvaniya. Specifically, this semantics is placed in the utilized by me as the terms Latin words evolutio and involutio. Is encountered another, less formal name of this polarity — right and left types.

3.1. Intellectual level.

In the first approximation, for the description evo/invo- differences at this level will approach the contrast of deductive and inductive thinking. Deficiency in the fact that this polarity in the literature about the cognitive operations treats, at least, in two different senses. Deduktivnost' in the first sense understands the simply as strict sequence of the account of thought, t. e. as sotsionicheskuyu rationality, and inductance — as the conclusions, which follow after practical experience, t. e. irrationality.
However, 4 I will understand this polarity in the second sense, namely as simplification or the complication of the structure of the object of thought. This means that with the deductive approach from the collection of simple and obvious assertions (axioms, postulates) the necessary complex consequences consecutively are derived (theorem). Judgment flows in the direction from the simple to the complex. Evolutionary types, therefore, mentally complicate situation.
With the inductive thinking everything occurs vice versa. Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive brain reduces them to the simple, purified of details diagrams and the models. Thus, involutional types in order to be dismantled at the situation, will simplify it. The judgment in the reverse order from the complex to — the simple is typical for them.
Polarity evo/involyutsiya gives the different scale of the examination of problem. Evolyutory small see through the large. Details are distinct. Scale is small as on the detailed geographical map. Involyutory, as the oppositely thinking types, large see through the small. Details are vague. Scale is large. In negativistov, since they think more alternatively, scale will alternate, but priority nevertheless will be preserved.
Not excess it will note that the deductive thinking in sotsiume always had a priority before the inductive. To explain phenomenon, after building its noncontradictory deductive theory, was always considered the affair of the honor of researcher.

[FDG]

Yeah machintruc, good exposition. As usual Joy can only cloud issues more, but probably it's just her nature to do so.

[Joy]

Result: mentally simplify things, see the forest (the larger scale)
Process: mentally complicate things, see the trees (the details)

[machintruc]

Result: mentally simplify things, see the forest (the larger scale)
Process: mentally complicate things, see the trees (the details)

Gulenko's material should be taken with caution. That's my opinion.

[Joy]

Gulenko's material should be taken with caution. That's my opinion.

Of course.

[Jonathan]

I don't understand what extroversion, statics, or dynamics have to do with it...

It's because introverted functions are blocked with extraverted ones; hence, one of his cycles is all static types, and the other all dynamics.

One could come up with a combined cycle, like the one I proposed in my cycles thread on essentially the same topic as this thread.

COMBINED CYCLE

You see ideas, potentials in the word.
When you think about ideas, they become imaginations that you flesh out and imagine.
Imaginations need to be given external order and some efficiencies, otherwise it's all chaos and/or you're repeating yourself.
Once you've created external order and look at it what you've done, it becomes a system, which you can then make sure is more consistent.
A system or plan isn't worth much if you don't implement it.
After you've implemented something, you can then experience and enjoy what you implemented....and refine it so that it's something that one would want to experience.
It's important that this experience has a positive effect on people, and that people are able to be enthusiastic and "sold" on this great new experience.
This becomes internalized as a sort of moral outlook and general understanding of people and their needs, wishes, and desires.
From people's needs, wishes, and ideas come more ideas.

Of course one can come up with a whole bunch of such cycles, which may be relevant to people at various times and in various ways.

[machintruc]

It's because introverted functions are blocked with extraverted ones; hence, one of his cycles is all static types, and the other all dynamics.

One could come up with a combined cycle, like the one I proposed in my cycles thread on essentially the same topic as this thread.

COMBINED CYCLE

(...)

It's not really "combined", like a single sequence, but the two cycles are happening at the same time. Therefore, they are somewhat "combined".

When you think on , you think of .

There can be steps of against , then against .

COMBINED CYCLE

against - ideas vs. opportunities - find a balance
against - stablility vs. efficency - find a balance
against - amount vs. quality - find a balance
against - ethicalness vs. popularity - find a balance

It's always something like "raw vs. actual". This is why Static types are called "Heavy".

[Jonathan]

It's not really "combined", like a single sequence, but the two cycles are happening at the same time. Therefore, they are somewhat "combined".

When you think on , you think of .

This is more or less what I mean. In the other thread, I talked about one function being reinterpreted as its counterpart flipping the i/e part and the sign (the sign just indicating another phase in the process/result cycle).

However, I would disagree with some of your one-word descriptions. In particularly, "opportunities" sounds more like to me than . "Ideas" could be either one. I know what you mean by relating to "quality" but it could be confusing...just as isn't necessarily the same as popularity, even though leading- types are often viewed as "popular."

[tcaudilllg]

It's not really "combined", like a single sequence, but the two cycles are happening at the same time. Therefore, they are somewhat "combined".

When you think on , you think of .

There can be steps of against , then against .

COMBINED CYCLE

against - ideas vs. opportunities - find a balance
against - stablility vs. efficency - find a balance
against - amount vs. quality - find a balance
against - ethicalness vs. popularity - find a balance

It's always something like "raw vs. actual". This is why Static types are called "Heavy".

I'd like to state that when I talk of the "transcendent function", this is what I am referring to. The transcendent function allows one to acheive this balance instantaneously, at will.

For example, most of the INTjs here have learned to balance Ti against Te perfectly. For that matter, I think we continue to be amazed at how different balanced logic is from unbalanced logic, and the markedly different worlds of either.

Now it's, as you say, ethicalness vs. popularity. (but that's really simplifying it.) I see it more as a problem of being faced with all of these internal dispositions that somehow figure into the great Si scheme of survival, but are morally reprehensible -- downright nefarious -- otherwise.

Finding Se vs Si seems to a problem of a cash crunch vs hedonism. (for INTj) Ne vs Ni is the challenge of a lifetime.

[krieger]

I am transfering my writings on process/result from tcaudilllg's "crosstype" thread to this thread so as to not obstruct his attempts at raising discussion on the matters he reveals in the associated thread.

[krieger]

Other ways to characterize the differences:
Process: deductive reason
Result: inductive reason

According to Gulenko.

Further, Result types are said to behave "artificially polite", whereas Process types are said to be relatively blunt and direct. (I myself theorize that this has to do with the Positivism/Negativism dichotomy that is directly connected to Process/Result. Process types are negativist when dynamic and positivist when static. Result types are the opposite. So, Result pretends to appreciate things by behaving positively (positive dynamics), but in the back of it's mind, apart from it's behavior, privately criticizes things (negative statics).)

Result: able to discard "programs" (tasks that consist of multiple consecutive stages)
Process: once started at a "program" can not easily stop

I have seen it being described this way before... Must have been the thought styles thread.

When you notice that a person like me easily shrugs off insults, you may very well also be looking at a "Result" trait.

Result: unfocussed, widened attention scope
Process: focussed, narrowed attention scope

It is interesting to look at differences between adjacent types in terms of how their accepting function is the same and their Process/Result quality is flipped...

ENFp: Result Ne - skimming the cream off the crop of many ideas
ENTp: Process Ne - focussing on an idea and seeing to what conclusion it leads you

On an unrelated note; I think ENFp thought roughly works by evaluating ideas in terms of what the opinions of people are towards them... Eg. when I know some person whoose judgment I trust advances an idea, I am inclined to feel more confident in the idea myself aswell... As such I end up piecing together the work of many socionics enthusiasts: smilex, caudill, hitta, machintruc, even phaedrus...

And that is how ENFp thought is "shallow" as opposed to the ENTp thinker who does the legwork himself (unfortunately this entails an escape from "realism" (delta quadra), I am not inclined to feel envious about this).

Although this is probably the best way to describe the two personality classes:
Result: breadth first search
Process: depth first search

Result types are further said to make "snap-judgments", to trust their first impressions of issues. Process types are said to be "change agents". Instead of accepting results that are immediately available, they traverse "lonely" paths to get at what is going on beyond what first impressions might indicate.

[machintruc]

SLE's are Result, and are blunt and direct too.

[krieger]

I'm not claiming Process/Result is the only factor in determining wether a type behaves bluntly or artificially polite.

Besides that, in my experience ESTps can be surprisingly civil and charismatic when it serves their ends. They have control over their mannerisms of a magnitude that that of ESFps and ENTps can't easily match.

A way of looking at Process/Result:

ESFj: Result Fe - enthusiasm, something shallow and controlled; fun and not to be taken seriously
ENFj: Process Fe - drama, something stormy and grotesque, confronting and impossible to ignore

[Phaedrus]

The difference between ENFps and ENTps you mention is very interesting and right to the point, I think. I had also almost forgot how extremely Process I am in every one of those aspects you describe.

[machintruc]

A way of looking at Process/Result:

ESFj: Result Fe - enthusiasm, something shallow and controlled; fun and not to be taken seriously
ENFj: Process Fe - drama, something stormy and grotesque, confronting and impossible to ignore

If however you consider all ESE's as E2 and all EIE's as E6.

[redbaron]

I'm not claiming Process/Result is the only factor in determining wether a type behaves bluntly or artificially polite.

Besides that, in my experience ESTps can be surprisingly civil and charismatic when it serves their ends. They have control over their mannerisms of a magnitude that that of ESFps and ENTps can't easily match.

A way of looking at Process/Result:

ESFj: Result Fe - enthusiasm, something shallow and controlled; fun and not to be taken seriously
ENFj: Process Fe - drama, something stormy and grotesque, confronting and impossible to ignore

lol That works as a way of looking at my ESE husband also. When things are going well he's enthusiastic, fun, shallow and controlled. But when things go awry, suddenly he's stormy, confronting and ultimately impossible to ignore. The drama emerges.....

seriously.

[redbaron]

On an unrelated note; I think ENFp thought roughly works by evaluating ideas in terms of what the opinions of people are towards them... Eg. when I know some person whoose judgment I trust advances an idea, I am inclined to feel more confident in the idea myself aswell... As such I end up piecing together the work of many socionics enthusiasts: smilex, caudill, hitta, machintruc, even phaedrus...

And that is how ENFp thought is "shallow" as opposed to the ENTp thinker who does the legwork himself (unfortunately this entails an escape from "realism" (delta quadra), I am not inclined to feel envious about this).

Result types are further said to make "snap-judgments", to trust their first impressions of issues. Process types are said to be "change agents". Instead of accepting results that are immediately available, they traverse "lonely" paths to get at what is going on beyond what first impressions might indicate.

Totally me. I'm very much process.

[krieger]

Ok. That means I messed up the description, cause INFps are supposed to be Result.

[redbaron]

Ok. That means I messed up the description, cause INFps are supposed to be Result.

You know, after I wrote that, I wondered if I was clear on which was which......

[Phaedrus]

Based on this information, I identify with process more overall but INTj is apparently a result type.

How can you be sure that you are an INTj if the Reinin dichotomies don't fit you? Every aspect of your type should fit your understanding of yourself, your behaviour and your attitudes. If it doesn't you should make it fit. If you can't do that, you should critically examine your self-typing. (Why do people jump to conclusions on which type they are before they have examined all the evidence over and over again until everything fits?)

[krieger]

The actor Clancy Brown is an example of an ESTp with a talent for veiling his bluntness under a polite attitude.

Blunt beta creating Ti behavior:


Polite in the capacity of a preacher:


but as far as I'm aware, this kind of skill is not uncommon in ESTps at all.

[krieger]

Currently I understand the kind of information that creative functions deal with to be information that can be either believed or disbelieved. In contrast, accepting functions deal with information that is simply acknowledged at face value in a particular situation such that it would be silly for anyone to deny it's existence. The former is an answer to a question, the latter an observation.

Further, the + and - functions refer to wether a function is general or specific in relation to the function it is paired with. Intuition, for example, is general in relation to Thinking, because any single product of Intuition can lead one to a whole string of logical judgments. Likewise, a single piece of logical understanding can give one a great deal of practical tools, and a single practical tool can solve a myriad of emotional problems.

With these interpretations in mind I can definitely see where Gulenko is coming from when he says Result means Induction. Result means Creating = +, Accepting = -. In words: a Result type has beliefs that are of a more general nature than his observations. Anything that a Result type observes can immediately be related back to one of his/her general beliefs. This is how their characteristic "snap-judgments" arise.

[Phaedrus]

With these interpretations in mind I can definitely see where Gulenko is coming from when he says Result means Induction. Result means Creating = +, Accepting = -. In words: a Result type has beliefs that are of a more general nature than his observations. Anything that a Result type observes can immediately be related back to one of his/her general beliefs. This is how their characteristic "snap-judgments" arise.

This is not satisfactory, because it is misleading. The exact same thing can be said about a Process type such as mine. We have a problem here that I don't know how to solve. Ganin has said things similar to yours here, and the consequence of that is that the Ganin has a slightly incorrect perception of the INTp type. He talks about these aspects in his INTp Uncovered profile, and he seems to believe, as you seem to do here, that the way you are phrasing it here captures an observable difference between INTjs and INTps. But the fact is that it doesn't. What you describe might be true of all the four NT types.

[krieger]

Process: deductive reason
Result: inductive reason

--> Could you explain this one please?

See the above post.

So, Result pretends to appreciate things by behaving positively (positive dynamics), but in the back of it's mind, apart from it's behavior, privately criticizes things (negative statics).)

--> Yep, I'm guilty of doing this.

You might want to contrast this to the distribution of positivism/negativism in Process dual-couples. Postive process constitutes the quality of genuinely enjoying an activity, feeling like you are producing something useful by doing what you're doing just in the here and now. Not worrying about where your efforts are taking you, just feeling useful. Negativist process is the quality that is directly attached to this state of being: worrying that that feeling of usefulness will be harmed by errors being made.

Result: able to discard "programs" (tasks that consist of multiple consecutive stages)
Process: once started at a "program" can not easily stop

--> I identify more with process here

Ok. Slightly dissonant with INTj. Try comparing yourself to others for an objective assesment as to where you stand on this. See what you make of the elaborate description straight from Russia:

(Rightist = Process, Leftist = Result)

1. Rightists feel as if they are a part of a process, they are "immersed" in it. Because of that they have great difficulty managing several tasks at once.
2. Rightists perceive the process as a whole (Indissoluble). They tend to complete a process in one go, it is hard for them to return to previously started then abandoned projects (To return to the process that was "turned off" and continue where they left off is equivalent to starting anew)
3. Lexicon: in speech they use the word "process" a lot.

Left (result, involyutory):
Levye (rezultat, involjutory):

1. Leftists place themselves "outside of a process" and disassociate themselves from the process. For them the situation/process is something external. Because of that leftists deal with multiple tasks/affairs much more easily focusing on the beginning and end of each (They with ease govern several processes at one time)
2. Leftists are inclined to view a process through estimations of it (They "sum up" a process) and are guided/oriented towards the end result, the successful end of a process. They do not notice that something is wrong with the process until it shows up on their estimations of it. This happens because leftists are outside of a process and as such are very bad at noticing the natural flow of the process.
3. Lexicon: in speech often use words "beginning", "end", "stage", "interval", "result".

When you notice that a person like me easily shrugs off insults, you may very well also be looking at a "Result" trait.

--> How would that relate to being "result"? Personally, I don't shrug off insults very easily.

The ability to quickly snap-judge that the person is just being a jack-ass and that your making a fuss about it isn't going to lead to much good. I suspect process types are more liable to take insults personally and that they are as such more vulnerable, but that they are also more capable of standing up for themselves due to a better understanding of the specific case at hand.

Result: breadth first search
Process: depth first search

--> Again, depends on what I'm doing and what the situation most calls for

As an INTj you should have a strong dislike for the depth-first strategy. Finding a way "through" a problem will seem uninstinctive when there is also a way around it. The positive aspect of this is that you perform better under free, unrestricted circumstances. The negative that you tend to get stopped in your tracks when your options for side-tracking run out.

Result types are further said to make "snap-judgments", to trust their first impressions of issues. Process types are said to be "change agents". Instead of accepting results that are immediately available, they traverse "lonely" paths to get at what is going on beyond what first impressions might indicate.

--> I fit the change agent more

My description was probably bias towards extroversion. As INTj you're introvert and NT, which both contribute to depth of thought and "traversal of lonely paths".

There is also the issue of multiple type layers... Tcaudilllg, for example, being Result-Process will identify with many of the Process characteristics... But that stuff is still experimental.

Anyway, the above are all attempts at putting my understanding of the dichotomy into words. No doubt I will have succeeded in some places and failed in some others, so the thread is probably best taken with a grain of salt. Take it as food for entertaining thoughts with.

[krieger]

This is not satisfactory, because it is misleading. The exact same thing can be said about a Process type such as mine.

Are you sure..? If I'm not mistaken you have refered to the thought process of relating observations to previously estabilished general beliefs as "being prejudiced" before and were rather explicit about not being that way yourself. In any case that phrase is far from the worst to cynically describe the Result attitude with.

Then again, maybe "induction" isn't the right word to use here. I'll have to look into it. I'll get back to this in a day.

[FDG]

I definitely, only, exclusively relate to the result part of what is being said about the dichotomy here. Process is alien to me except in some very specific cases. Which means that it works for me.

[Phaedrus]

Are you sure..? If I'm not mistaken you have refered to the thought process of relating observations to previously estabilished general beliefs as "being prejudiced" before and were rather explicit about not being that way yourself.

I don't recall that, but maybe I have said something along that line of reasoning. The problem here, as I see it, is to express these things in a way that is not open to many possible (and perhaps even mutually exclusive) interpretations.

Then again, maybe "induction" isn't the right word to use here. I'll have to look into it. I'll get back to this in a day.

I am not oppesed to use the word "induction" to describe the kind of thought process I don't have myself. As I said in the thread about Gulenko's article on styles of thinking, I am better at deductive than inductive thinking myself. But that doesn't mean that I don't see very general patterns in the material I am studying, and I am constantly trying to find these general patterns.

[machintruc]

I noticed that Process types and Result types drink alcohol for different reasons.

Process types : because alcohol is good (i.e. the process of alcohol)
Result types : because being drunk is good (i.e. the result of alcohol)

For example, SEI's drink it because it has a good taste (+) ; SLI's drink it because they like to feel drunk (-).

[Rubicon]

I relate to the first one better. Which is why I don't drink much (because it doesn't taste very good), and the process of getting drunk is shockingly boring.

The state of being drunk also has dubious benefits.

ditto

[Wynch]

Yeah, I drink because I like the alcohol I'm drinking. I don't have to get drunk to enjoy drinking. That being said, I also enjoy the drunk too ^-^

[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

[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.