Detail-orientation
how do different types deal with details?
i can see this being attributed to various things like s/n, j/p, process/result, etc.
i ask because somebody in the chatbox the other day mentioned entjs being overfocused on details as one possible manifestation of Si polr? but i often have that problem myself and ideally any "dual" who is helpful to me would be good at helping pull me out of the details.
For formerly thought chemical musings on this, http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...etail-aversion
I don't really have a problem with details despite being intuitive/perceiving/whatever. I make very few mistakes when taking detailed customer orders at my bakery job all day, and kind of pride myself in this because my coworkers are so sloppy sometimes. I just would rather not focus on the details if I didn't have to, as they can be really boring and tiring. I also tend to zone out when people tell really detailed stories. Not sure if this could be tied torole or anything Socionics-related in my case.
its that thing again... where si polr and base si can mean exactly the same thing...
Usually process, negativism and sensing are known as "detail-oriented" dichotomies. I don't think ENTj can easily be overfocused on details, being result, positivism and intuitive.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Now now lungs.Originally Posted by lungs
Indulging in speculation, because I've wondered about this myself... What if being detail oriented in general is NTR, but type has something to do with what particular details we notice or care about. Or our attitudes toward them. I don't know how that would line up in terms of types, exactly, I'd have to think about it.
Lessee, I know two ILIs who are both diligent workers but also a bit troublemaking because they don't like dumb middle managers, and they refuse to work quickly at the expense of accuracy or quality, even if overtly required to. Personally, maybe I tend to track all the bits of what people say and do and what they seem to need so I can be more supportive, on the altruism side, and so I can avoid offending them in order to have more traction in life, on huge self-ly side. Maybe.
Any takers?
Usually when people think of details they are taking about concrete knowledge of the world. So that said,
Sensors, having more pronounced sensing over intuition are conceptually more aware of the details in their environment; because where Se is more situational awareness and can give them an edge in understanding and dealing with their immediate surroundings, Si allows them to become impressed by what's there and recall the details of those impressions. But if we're taking about factuals, Te seems focused on what's happening around them and effecting that and tend to get engrossed in the details of what's going on to do so. I think Ti is apt to internalize these happenings and create a network of details that logically relates and logically explains them because it's internalized thinking. Se and Te can be verified, whereas Si and Ti can't because they are individual or subjective to some degree. But since thinking involves Te and sensing involves Se, someone that is sensing and thinking is going to have a good awareness of the concrete details of what's around them.
As far as intuition and feeling, they are not concrete in nature. Intuition and feeling comes more from the unconscious than thinking and sensing do and can be hard to explain because they deal with implicit knowledge rather than what's concrete, like Se and Te does. So although Ne is focused on the external, just as Te and Se are, the focus is on perceiving and using concepts. Ne will see the world in terms of concepts, something that is more along the lines of Socrates' recollection theory that these concepts are things we already know or are a part of our capacity to perceive, but require the external world to recall them, and Ne will apply those concepts. Ni on the other hand, internalizes those concepts and explains them through archetypes that attempt to explain the root nature of a thing, rather than logically sorting concepts like Ti might do. Feeling, being also more unconscious and implicit is somewhat intuitive (I think) because Fe is a lot like Ne, except whereas Ne sees implicit concepts and applies them to the external world, Fe sees the implicit emotional affect of the people around them and acts to modulate that. I think this is the key difference with Fi in that Fi internalizes the implicit emotional affect of the people around them, but does not seek to modulate or change it. Fi is more concerned with understanding why someone feels the way they do, rather than focusing on what someone feels (Fe).
So,
Fi - has details of why others feel the way they do
Fe - has details about what others feel
Ne - Understands the world in terms of conceptual details
Ni - Sees the world in terms of conceptual details, namely through archetypes.
Si - Has a store of details about the world, recalled by the impressions these details made on their minds
Se - Aware of the different things in the world and can recall them by their many details
Te - Knows the details of what's happening around them
Ti - Detailed about how to analyze a logical understanding of the world around them
All in all, I'd say sensors and thinkers are the most detail-oriented because what they know is the most down to the earth: one knowing about the many different things in the world and the other having a great deal of factual knowledge about what goes on.
/2 cents
/something like that, anyway
I'm putting my money on this being most quoted/referred to post which actually discusses Socionics of 2014.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
Yeah, makes sense. I have the impression that people have a common understanding of details as "Concrete real world details about objects", thus my answer. I have an awesome memory for numbers and maps, but nobody I know seems to consider this part of me as "detail-orientation".
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The devil is in the details!
There's definitely a lot of features in how good with details someone ends up being in practice. One of which is simply the "it must be done" attitude versus the "I won't do it if I can't care" one.
Personally details do not come easily to me. If I am elaborating on something, if it doesn't follow very directly from my image of the situation that a certain clarification/understanding is necessary, I won't provide it.
I really like the distinction between the involutionary form of detail-avoidance and the intuitive form, because this is probably a very common mistake. The parallels are very striking. Intuition, supposedly to Jung, would ask "where something is going" in perceiving it. Hence, you might think the envisioning of a generalised form of the result in mind in involution is an appeal to intuition, as it is a "where it is going" thing somehow.
However, there is a sense in which these are very different - intuition does not fulfill its principle if it's just used to guess at outcomes. Yes it can be remarkable at scenting out what exactly is going to happen, but true to its ideal, it is to scent out the not yet manifest possibilities, that is, it conveys such an intangible image of where things are going as to be impossible to link to a specific outcome.
In this sense, the impatience with processes of result orientation is very different, because the result being guessed at may easily pertain to direct sensory truths, rather than about uncovering the implicit.
When I picture the process-oriented NT, actually I get the sense especially with ILE, the positive Ne valuation might lead to a sense of having an intuition in mind, and wishing to "explore" its not yet manifest nature, that is the potential it conveys, and just sort of play with it. I've actually seen just this sort of thing in someone that I know that I'm pretty much sure has to be ILE. -Ti reduces the intuition to the most general form of an outcome that can be envisioned from the intuition.
They aren't the same thing but they can manifest in a curious manner which might appear similar.
Base function essentially is a area of stubbornness and confidence can border on arrogance. "I have the confidence to be perfect here" Normal perfectionism
Polr function is a fear reaction and can provoke a strong fight response which can be extreme, "I must be perfect here" Neurotic perfectionism
Differentiating the 2 as function expressions can be hard, but when you look at the other traits things become clear.
There are various EIE chef and SLI chefs both at the top of their professions who display this extreme proficiency in their craft, yet when you look at these individuals from the outside, they're totally different. Yet this function expression can seem quite similar on appearances.
Some various thoughts:
I consider myself a Conscientious type in terms of the Big Five (which is somewhat highly correlated with rationality in MBTI), which I think is partly a good measure of this. I generally think that when I do an important task, I'm rarely impulsive even when my mood is contrary to the task, and I like to do things systematically and thoroughly (not necessarily in order though!). If the task is limited in scope or follows a set formula, I am unlikely to miss details. If the task is more than that and perhaps requires a little more effort than an usual task, I generally will cope quite well with it as long as I am able to set my own pace (or have such an illusion: e.g. if someone sets a deadline and it is ages away, I may well start right away, even if it isn't necessarily efficient to do so). The kind of details I miss are probably things that happen in real time...perhaps during the project...maybe because being able to reflect on things (or being able to weigh them up) is important, and maybe processing what several people have said in a busy, hustlely-bustlely sort of way (perhaps because it is unexpected but also because it can be vague and unquantifiable).
The best orientation to detail goes to Delta STs and LSI+ESI. Irrational Se also absorbs a lot, but they're not so interested in controlling details in a stabilizing mode.
I agree with this.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Are you kiding me? They are extremely detail oriented, especially LSI: a process-introvert-thinking-sensing type (but ESIs are as well, since they're negativists). LIIs are not detail oriented, intuitive-result, ESEs can be but they're positivist-result types so...not particularly.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
sure, ok, i think LSIs and ESIs are very attuned to explicit details, like my LSI friend can often recall conversations word-for-word and it's creepy how he knows the phone numbers of most people he talks to by heart. and i think that sort of focused (practical) attention to detail is more like Se-creative, like they have a very narrow scope of things they want to know the details for, and everything else is extraneous. but it's different from the sort of anal attention to detail i see in Ne/Si rationals where they want to know each and every facet and every implication and application of theories and ideas. like if i'm trying to read up on fiber optics, i'm more likely to get side-tracked by buzzwords and 5 hours later i've read a billion things about the properties of EM Modes and basics of light without knowing anything significant about fiber optics themselves, whereas on the opposite token LSEs are more likely to get side-tracked by WHERE these fiber optics are used and their applications and availability and things like that without knowing about their internal mechanisms and if you ask them to explain this to you, they will run through each and every thing they know. LSI/ESIs aren't this thorough, they're more attuned towards immediate gain/loss.
lol i reckon my name should be in the dictionary as a synonym for "detail orientation". being the static/process/positivists/intro rational lead i think we aren't called inspectors for nothing (:
Last edited by miss BabyDoll; 09-19-2014 at 11:39 AM.
Okay this table (below the link) is my very brief take on the issue, in which SEIs and LSEs come out as most detail oriented (with LSIs as close second) and IEIs and LIEs come out as least detail oriented...mhmhm. Needs some refinement.
https://www.sendspace.com/file/99746q
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
you posted this at the perfect time when just the other day i came across a problem at work which was solved in five minutes.... but resulted in my lse coworker sitting in my cubicle for about a half hour explaining the back story and how people in other departments are tangentially involved and telling me to wait while she left to go find somebody else who could come look at my computer and then came back saying he was out for the day but with a complicated alternative solution that would take three times as long. the bane of my existence. luckily there was another coworker (who i'm starting to think is eii) who talked her down a little bit. when she suggested the ridiculous alternative solution i opened my mouth right away to say it was a bad idea but the (eii?), probably noticing my irritation, tactfully interjected to say why it would be fine to wait and implement the first idea.
when i started this thread i was thinking of something very specific having to do with covering all the bases when planning things, and i also can have problems taking too long to do certain things like proofreading bcuz i don't want to leave mistakes, and i didnt think of other kinds of detail orientation until gelden mentioned it. i dont memorize phone numbers tho, i only remember the birthdays of like 3 people lol.
Between intuitive and result orientation, details are really not easy for me. I sort of have to compress the purpose of all the details in my mind to get anywhere with them.
I think the process/result thing is an excellent way of adding to intuition/sensation in how you understand detail-orientation, because not all details actually come from sensory orientation. In particular, not all details correspond more to a sensory stimulus than to some other faculty of cognition. For instance, many details are very purely in the logical rationalization realm. How do you get from principle one to principle three by logical implication - that involves various "details" which may be suppressed by someone who moves forward and backwards somewhat wildly and nonsequentially.
This actually goes back to something Ananke and I discussed once - a lot of spontaneous association-forming is incorrectly linked to an intuitive predominance, and is actually more related to irrational cognition in general. It depends in which perceptual sphere the associations tend to form.
However, and this is key, whether these form or not, one has to study the overall psychic structure to determine the nature of the cognitive processes in question to discover a certain cognitive motivation. In other words, it isn't that various irrational associations occur, but why they occur.
There is the difference between irrational cognition which occurs undirected (try an intuitive-dominant type's sensation to know what this means) and irrational cognition which is directed, meaning where the awareness of the individual responds to select perceptions out in one of the two main perceptual spheres.
Undirected cognition often is paid attention to in the sense that you know it is somewhat indirectly important, but corresponds poorly with your cognitive aims. I think this is sort of what happens with the processes of a result type. They still "exist" but are very much outside the main directed, willful, conscious cognitive aim hence to understand the final product of the cognition in entirety, you might need to know this about them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
