okay, I have a definite opinion on all of these, some more strongly than others, but I'm going to go ahead and encourage discussion on these. Some of these things are easier to see from an outside perspective. My opinion on each dichotomy is listed after it, as well as some of my reasons.
Process vs. Result: Result. I'm far better at multitasking than most people. I even tend to lose interest in something if I'm not multitasking. Am I leftist or ADD?
Compliance vs. Obstinacy: Compliance. I get really irritated if someone makes small demands of me, and I'm particularly greedy with my time. I very much dislike being asked to volunteer my time and efforts. For example, if my mom would ask me to pick up a couple things at the grocery store on the way home from work, I would sometimes get pretty irritated, particularly if she seemed to just assume that I would do it.
This does not sound at all like me. I've had many interests that have been abandoned, most of which were career or business aspirations that I held merely for the sake of having something to work towards. I wanted to aquire wealth and tried to use the afforementioned "interest" as a vehicle. When I realized that it would require a lot more time effort than I would be willing to put forth in relation to the actual payoff, which I had often overestimated in the beginning. HOWEVER... when I was working toward those goals, I could not be talked out of it by other people. That seemed to be more of a result thing than an obstinant thing, however. The only goal that I have ever been obstinant about is international real estate investing, which is the first goal that has ever seemed to be a part of me... like it's who I am, not just what I do. Overall, however, I have demonstrated a long history of being closer to the Compliant end of this spectrum.Obstinate:
"I never let go of my passions(Interests). But I also won't, because of them, neglect sleep, eating..." "I certainly won't abandon it.... I'm inclined to carry the situation to the end" "I can't let go of my passions for the fear of losing myself, my identity/personality" "My passions (Interests) go the limits of my physical capabilities. When my physical capabilities show me their limits- I will let go of my passions (Interests) but I will do this only as a very last resort... but even then I will not abandon them but I will only "postpone" them and await the moment when I can get back to them. I won't drop/abandon my passions (interests) just because my resources are inadequate..."
Careless vs. Farsighted: Careless. The only reason that I'm not certain about this is because of the example that was used. If I'm going somewhere, instead of spending time trying to decide what to bring, I just go ahead and bring everything I can think of that doesn't seem like it will be too much of a pain in the ass. However, when I compare my mentality on the matter, it is a lot different than my ESFj bosses mentality when being farsighted. While I pack too much simply because I'm too lazy to really think about what I should pack and don't care to plan out my vacation enough to know exactly what I'll need, he puts a lot of thought into his decisions. He has a worry behind every reason for bringing everything he's bringing... many, many "what if's". I am much more of a "if we need to, we'll worry about that when the time comes" kind of a person, sometimes even being overly optimistic about my ability to deal with future problems. These items listed under Careless describe me quite well:
2. In answers to questions, anything pertaining to the search for the answer/solution (the preparation stage, collection of information, past experience and so on) is never mentioned, but rather it is "implied".
3: In speech careless often uses the word "provide" as a general concept; in that context they usually speak of that which is "necessary", "good", "it is "impossible" to "provide" everything".
Positivism vs. Negativism: Positivism. This one seems quite apparent to me, for the most part. I'm the type of person who is more likely to point out the positive aspects of a situation when someone else is pointing our the negative than vice versa. I do, however, make a bit of a conscious effort to consider the negative aspects as well as the positive, so this one isn't quite as apparent to me. If someone is talking about something they're planning on doing, I often foresee troubles they might have, but the way I voice these concerns is in an encouraging manner. I tell them that it's good that they're so interested in what they're doing and offer advice on what types of things they should expect, often offering possible solutions at the same time. But yeah, I do tend to play the devil's advocate.
Aristocracy vs. Democracy: The only reason that this one is obviously apparent to me is because I know I do tend to make statements that sound aristocratic in nature. If you look at my intentions, however, I'm not actually grouping people the way I'm making it sound like I am... I'm just purposely being a bitch. Most of the time when I am doing this it is because I can sense that the person I'm talking to will take what I'm saying literally and get upset... instead of coming back with a democratic response. If I sense that saying such a thing would incite a democratic response, I will just simply say what's on my mind instead of playing the game. That makes it a lot harder to be bitchy though. As the description plainly states, "The important thing is not how they are addressed but the reason for doing so." I very much relate to these statements:
"I'm not interested in social belongings of a person or other social hallmarks they may have" "What's in "one's head" does not determine belonging to any group. People are unique." "That’ which represents the person/individual is what's important" "When I communicate with somebody it's the same whether they are a man or a woman" "it is difficult to determine in what group somebody belongs, I cannot isolate something that other people do not have" "I am the representative only of ideas"
Statics vs. Dynamics: Dynamic. I could copy the portions of the Dynamic description, but I don't see much of a point. All I really have to say on this one is that I relate to the Dynamic description better than the Static description.
Askers vs. Declarers: Declarer. The only reason that this dichotomy even makes this list is because MysticSonic has insisted for months that I'm tactiturn. I don't see it at all... and others that I have discussed this have stated that it seems that I'm much more of a Declarer than an Asker. One said, "I don't feel like there's always a question embedded in your sentences." He is correct. It's quite the opposite, actually. Even when my sentences are in question form, there is a statement hidden in it most of the time, especially irl. I do this to the extent that some people see me as being pushy.