An interpretation for Process/Result
I'll call Process types "Localists". They see the "Micro".
I'll call Result types "Globalists". They see the "Macro".
Process types see everything on a specific scale. Result types see everything on a global scale.
EII's see specific subjective feelings such as "I like apples more than pears" or such.
ESI's see global subjective feelings such as "most people like pears more than apples"
etc.
It's kinda like you compare microeconomics with macroeconomics.
One alters supply, the other alters demand?
So EIIs demand you follow their rules, ESIs supply the enforcement of their rules o:
*Supervises Gul*
D:Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Nooooooooo! Stop making me consider the fallout of my actions!
So you're SLI now?
INFp supervise ESE
or are you ENTj now Gul?
The end is nigh
Polikujm made a post along the lines of "You can supervise me, Gul"
Then deleted it.
My means for deleting it are your means for responding incorrectly.
From the perspective of the supplier, everything is demanding their resources; & vice versa. If you tell me that Process is the demander, Result is the supplier, I think you have it backwards. EIIs I don't think are demanding people follow their rules, but they're producing rules which are in demand; and ESIs aren't supplying rules, but they're consuming rules which are in ready supply. So .. I think process is macroeconomic, and Result is microeconomic.
On the same line of thought, Process has to do with movements between parts, result has to do with the definitions placed on a thing. With process, the whole is dynamic and with result, the whole is static; process has static parts and result has a static whole. macroeconomics deals with relationships between many things, microeconomics deals with maximizing the intrinsic value of one large thing. In that way the words macro and micro are misleading. The lines drawn between micro and macro economics are arbitrary without defining a base to begin with. You can be dealing with tax numbers and balance sheet information of the biggest corporation in the world, and that's still micro economics.
alot of economists reject the idea of micro and macro economics, because what is micro and what is macro depends on your point of view. From the point of view of the government, organization of companies for the maximization of economy is microeconomics in the same way working on the balance sheet is microeconomics for a company; but from the eyes of the consumer or the businessman, it's macroeconomics; because it is concerned with how their company will will fair, as a part, in competition with many other parts. And if you are a dollar bill I'm pretty sure you can work out a way for balance sheets to be macroeconomics.
I don't think ESI will say "most people like pears more than apples", I think they will say "pears are better than apples". So they take a specific situation and treat it as a global point of view; but the global point of view is confined to themselves. This global point of view is static. What ESI says is absolutely true within their world. I don't think they try and generalize to other peoples worlds at all.. That is what an EII will do. An EII will take global events and treat them as a specific point of view; "most people seem to like pears more than apples".
Last edited by crazedrat; 07-09-2009 at 08:56 PM.
Not bad at all.I'll call Process types "Localists". They see the "Micro".
I'll call Result types "Globalists". They see the "Macro".
Process types see everything on a specific scale. Result types see everything on a global scale.
EII's see specific subjective feelings such as "I like apples more than pears" or such.
ESI's see global subjective feelings such as "most people like pears more than apples"
etc.
It's kinda like you compare microeconomics with macroeconomics.
It's the Creating function that is more specific (-) in Process and more general (+) in Result types, though. So I would formulate it as "for a Process type to think deeply on a problem is to examine it's specifics, whereas for a Result type to think deeply on a problem is to infer it's generalities."
Reason why I call - specific and + general:
In NT types, N is + and T is -. N is more general than T.
In ST types, T is + and S is -. T is more general than S.
As far as I understand Process-Result, I'm only using the extroverted elements but I'm assuming the dual introverted element is associated.
Process types are heat engines, information moves Ne->Fe->Se->Te->Ne
Information output. Producing variable amount of information, experimentation, observation.
Result types are heat pumps, information moves Te->Se->Fe->Ne->Te
Information removal. Consolidating resources, redistributing information, information verification.
For Process types, concepts are found, put into action, what happens is observed, consequences are directed. Repeat.
For Result types, concepts are found, verified, plan is put into place, action is initiated. Repeat.
Micro and Macro I think do not apply to these dichotomies.
These fits more deduction/induction.
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
But remember, everyone does both, the difference is what is vital(doing, private, experiential) and what is mental(talking, social, informational).
Rational=Deduction
Irrational=Induction
Why?
Because :
J=Laws, hypotheses
P=Facts, data
Deduction means finding facts while hypotheses are taken for granted
Induction means finding laws while facts are taken for granted.
According to Gulenko:
Deductive: Process
Inductive: Result
I personally think this is too simplistic. It's a characteristic of thought in general to alternate between the two modes. One can not spend time deducing without first having induced. One must at all times do both.
The way Gulenko laid it out, it's about what is communicated. Because you can't communicate the induction/deduction you're doing in your head. And what comes out of you is what is observable objectively.
So we really need to be more clear where deduction and induction is occurring. No one doesn't do a dose of both.
I want to use the link example because what Gulenko himself does is generate tentative hypothesis and new theoretical ideas like +/- and other sub typing theory based on empirical studies. Where as Aushra acquire started from a theory and produced mechanisms and predictions and went about seeing if observations matched those predictions.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote