IE manifestation differences between process/result types

[Muddy]

I have a theory that the way IEs manifest in types is heavily influenced by whether that type is a process/result type. For example, the way a process type like LSE uses Te would be more similar in how another process type with Strong Te like ILI and less like how a result type like LIE or SLI would use Te. This is sort of like the +/- theory, only that I think the differences are could be process/result rather then quadra. I also that think all process functions are vauled somewhat by all process types and vice versa for result types, even those that are in Id/superego. For example, an SLE might appreciate loyalty and companionship even though Fi is his polr, but he won't recognize a universal sense of morality which is process Fi.

My take on how I think the IEs manifest, with the types who represently most strongly listed :

Process (LSE and ILI, semi-valued by ILE and LSI)

Being efficient and productive in business, directing labor and actions of others, gathering knowledge for the purpose of furthering career and position in society

Result (LIE and SLI, semi-valued by SLE and LII)

Coping with difficult situations, making use of limited resources, gathering knowledge for the purposes of survival and comfort


Process (EIE and SEI, semi-valued by SEE and EII)

Using emotions to incite passion towards a purpose, maneuvering and manipulating crowds and audiences

Result (ESE and IEI, semi valued by ESI and IEE)

Creating a warm and positive atmosphere, easing emotional tension


Process (LSI and ILE, semi-valued by ILI and LSE)

Rules, order, adherence to a code, following norms, laws

Result (LII and SLE, semi-valued by LIE and SLI)

Deciphering complex problems, reasoning, making sense of situations


Process (EII and SEE, semi-valued by SEI and EIE)

Morality, doing the right thing, contributing to the greater good

Result (ESI and IEE, semi-valued by ESE and IEI)

Keeping close with loved ones, companionship, loyalty




Process (SEE and LSI, semi-valued by LSE and SEI)

Subordination, getting others to act to your will, expansion and presence


Result (SLE and ESI, semi-valued by ESE and SLI)

Counter-aggression, physical strength, violence, warfare



Process (ILE and EII, semi-valued by EIE and ILI)

Following your dreams, finding a way to happiness and success, seizing opportunities


Result (IEE and LII, semi-valued by LIE and IEI)

Theorizing, sharing of ideas, openness to alternative methods and viewpoints



Process (SEI and LSE, semi-valued by SEE and LSI)

Aesthetics, beauty, interior design, maintenance of self and surroundings


Result (SLI and ESE, semi-valued by SLE and ESI)

Comfort, pleasure, resting while ill, saving energy



Process (ILI and EIE, semi-valued by ILE and and EII)

Awareness of global trends, planning the future, setting goals


Result (IEI and LIE, semi-valued by IEE and LII)

Avoidance of danger, contemplation, self-awareness

[The Exception]

Hmmm, I seem to relate a lot to both result Ti and process Fi.

[Chae]

"Coping with difficult situations, making use of limited resources, gathering knowledge for the purposes of survival and comfort"

[Myst]

I definitely strongly prefer the process Te, process Ti and pretty strongly process Si over the result versions of Te/Ti/Si.

Se can go both ways.

Fi and Ni can go both ways too.

Fe: idk, neither is done all that much by me. Ne: idk, again, not much of any of it... though 'following dreams' is ok

[The Exception]

Process (LSE and ILI, semi-valued by ILE and LSI)

Being efficient and productive in business, directing labor and actions of others, gathering knowledge for the purpose of furthering career and position in society


Result (LIE and SLI, semi-valued by SLE and LII)

Coping with difficult situations, making use of limited resources, gathering knowledge for the purposes of survival and comfort

--Not sure but lean more towards result. I don't care about directing others' actions or labor.


Process (EIE and SEI, semi-valued by SEE and EII)

Using emotions to incite passion towards a purpose, maneuvering and manipulating crowds and audiences

Result (ESE and IEI, semi valued by ESI and IEE)

Creating a warm and positive atmosphere, easing emotional tension

--Strongly prefer result. I don't like the manipulation thing.


Process (LSI and ILE, semi-valued by ILI and LSE)

Rules, order, adherence to a code, following norms, laws

Result (LII and SLE, semi-valued by LIE and SLI)

Deciphering complex problems, reasoning, making sense of situations

--Result again. I can see some value and necessity for the process but result is far more appealing and enjoyable.


Process (EII and SEE, semi-valued by SEI and EIE)

Morality, doing the right thing, contributing to the greater good

Result (ESI and IEE, semi-valued by ESE and IEI)

Keeping close with loved ones, companionship, loyalty

--I lean more towards process. I see value in the result but I probably don't keep as much closeness or companionship as I should. The first is what I'm more obsessed with overall.



Process (SEE and LSI, semi-valued by LSE and SEI)

Subordination, getting others to act to your will, expansion and presence


Result (SLE and ESI, semi-valued by ESE and SLI)

Counter-aggression, physical strength, violence, warfare

--I don't like either of these. Not suprising since this is my PoLR. But I think I'd pick process- seems a little less aggressive and violent.


Process (ILE and EII, semi-valued by EIE and ILI)

Following your dreams, finding a way to happiness and success, seizing opportunities


Result (IEE and LII, semi-valued by LIE and IEI)

Theorizing, sharing of ideas, openness to alternative methods and viewpoints

--I really like/want both of these. I suppose I slightly favor result- at least I tend to do that more.


Process (SEI and LSE, semi-valued by SEE and LSI)

Aesthetics, beauty, interior design, maintenance of self and surroundings


Result (SLI and ESE, semi-valued by SLE and ESI)

Comfort, pleasure, resting while ill, saving energy

--A mix of some from each. For process, I like aesthetics and beauty but bored with self-maintenance but see a need sometimes. For result- like comfort and pleasure. Mixed feelings about resting while ill and saving energy. I don't always do that consistently. I slightly favor result if I had to choose because overall, comfort and pleasure is a greater priority for me than aesthetics and beauty.


Process (ILI and EIE, semi-valued by ILE and and EII)

Awareness of global trends, planning the future, setting goals


Result (IEI and LIE, semi-valued by IEE and LII)

Avoidance of danger, contemplation, self-awareness[/QUOTE]

--Moderately prefer result.


So I chose result for all except Fi and Se. Is there a significance to that?

[Exodus]

I have a theory that the way IEs manifest in types is heavily influenced by whether that type is a process/result type. For example, the way a process type like LSE uses Te would be more similar in how another process type with Strong Te like ILI and less like how a result type like LIE or SLI would use Te. This is sort of like the +/- theory, only that I think the differences are could be process/result rather then quadra.

What do you mean exactly? Are you saying that we only/mainly use 8 of the information elements, and that you share the same ones with other Process/Result types? Because that's exactly what Model G says. You may want to look into the various signed-element theories if you haven't already.

[Muddy]

What do you mean exactly? Are you saying that we only/mainly use 8 of the information elements, and that you share the same ones with other Process/Result types? Because that's exactly what Model G says. You may want to look into the various signed-element theories if you haven't already.

I tried looking up about Model G before and the only place I could find information about it was the facebook group and I didn't have the patience for delving into that scattered mess so I don't know whether or not what I'm saying is the same as whatever that said. I wouldn't surprise me if somebody else came to same conclusion on this.

Basically what I'm saying is that all process types value all process versions of the functions and all result types value all result versions of the functions. In other words, I think that an IEI would be on share more in common with an SLI or IEE than he would with an EIE or LSI despite being in opposite quadras with the former, due to the process/result differences. Function strength-wise I still think it is the same as model A.

I also think that there are 2 IEs for each function rather than just one. For example and think IEI base function would be both result Ni and result Fi. Correspondingly IEIs dual seeking would result Se and Result Te. IEI's demonstrative would be process Ni and Fi and the PoLR would be process Te and Se.

[Myst]

Function strength-wise I still think it is the same as model A.

Cool because there are +- IE theories out there that claim quite different function strengths. For example, I'm supposed to have 4D -Si and 1D +Si. And my dual (EIE) is supposed to have the 4D +Si

Quite honestly though, I couldn't be bothered to look into all these variants of signed (+-) IE models. Very clearly, there is something beyond just the 8 unsigned IEs - even Jung's original followers noted things related to this - but none of these models will ever get at it properly. Rabbithole "fun"...

I also think that there are 2 IEs for each function rather than just one. For example and think IEI base function would be both result Ni and result Fi. Correspondingly IEIs dual seeking would result Se and Result Te. IEI's demonstrative would be process Ni and Fi and the PoLR would be process Te and Se.

I don't think I can agree with this. The idea for the base function is that it's the leading function. Its preferences are the real absolute preferences through which everything else goes. You can't add another orientation into that that will conflict with it at least on certain aspects. If the IEI has both Ni and Fi as base function, is the IEI a Rational or an Irrational type now?

Also - using myself as an example here because I can observe my own internal processes the best - I'm just not seeing how I'd be as receptive to Ne as to Fe as the dual seeking. I'm very clear on how I can't process it in the same automatic way. Neither +Ne nor -Ne.

[golden]

Several of the process / result distinctions you make for my type (EIE) fit me well, although the one doesn't, as I seem to relate equally to both types of you describe.

I think a lot of the other descriptions make sense for the people I know.

I'd be interested in learning more about this.

[Muddy]

I don't think I can agree with this. The idea for the base function is that it's the leading function. Its preferences are the real absolute preferences through which everything else goes. You can't add another orientation into that that will conflict with it at least on certain aspects. If the IEI has both Ni and Fi as base function, is the IEI a Rational or an Irrational type now?

Also - using myself as an example here because I can observe my own internal processes the best - I'm just not seeing how I'd be as receptive to Ne as to Fe as the dual seeking. I'm very clear on how I can't process it in the same automatic way. Neither +Ne nor -Ne.

I'm still in the process of thinking these through, but what I'm thinking right now is that there are four "tiers" of function value. 1st and 2nd tiers would you all process versions of your normal Model A functions if you are a process type and vice versa for Result types, and 3rd/4th tiers would all the result versions of the Model A functions if your process type and vice versa of you are a result type. Using your type LSI as example, your 4D function values would go in order from Process Ti (Base)>Process Si (Showoff/Recreational)>Result Ti (Boredom/Disinterest)>Result Si (Demonstrative/Mockery). Process Ti would you be your strongest and most valued function, with Process Si slightly behind it. 1D functions would correspondingly Process Fe (DS)>Process Ne (Help appreciated)>Result Fe (Annoyance)>Result Ne (PoLR).


Keep in mind this is just more of my brainstorms. I'll leave the actual model making to LII/ILI.

[Muddy]

Several of the process / result distinctions you make for my type (EIE) fit me well, although the one doesn't, as I seem to relate equally to both types of you describe.

I think a lot of the other descriptions make sense for the people I know.

I'd be interested in learning more about this.

To honest and I didn't really have any good ideas for what to put down for Ne one so that why it might suck. I hurried through a couple of them because I get bored from writing too long.

[Myst]

I'm still in the process of thinking these through, but what I'm thinking right now is that there are four "tiers" of function value. 1st and 2nd tiers would you all process versions of your normal Model A functions if you are a process type and vice versa for Result types, and 3rd/4th tiers would all the result versions of the Model A functions if your process type and vice versa of you are a result type. Using your type LSI as example, your 4D function values would go in order from Process Ti (Base)>Process Si (Showoff/Recreational)>Result Ti (Boredom/Disinterest)>Result Si (Demonstrative/Mockery). Process Ti would you be your strongest and most valued function, with Process Si slightly behind it. 1D functions would correspondingly Process Fe (DS)>Process Ne (Help appreciated)>Result Fe (Annoyance)>Result Ne (PoLR).

That seems to fit surprisingly well for the Ti/Si part, whatever you mean by tiers. I'm not sure on the result Fe part.

[mclane]

I think this works because some types have the same "hidden" functions as I learned here. For example, the base and HA of SLE, are the demonstrative and base of ESI.

[Pookie]

I think this works because some types have the same "hidden" functions as I learned here. For example, the base and HA of SLE, are the demonstrative and base of ESI.

Can you flush that all out for me. Reading the link I cant quite connect it to some types have the same hidden functions.

[mclane]

Can you flush that all out for me. Reading the link I cant quite connect it to some types have the same hidden functions.

Does this image clear things up a bit?

[Pookie]

Does this image clear things up a bit?

Lol no. I dont know what you mean by hidden functions. I can interpret it, but when I see new things in socionics I prefer to see it all listed out in front of me so as to not mix my own tea into the cup and taint the insight.

My query flushed out: What is a hidden function? Does that correspond to a particular or two blocks? Ive never seen the term before. What comment is your response replying to? Si is the demonstrative for ESI, did you mean ignoring(Fe).

[mclane]

Lol no. I dont know what you mean by hidden functions. I can interpret it, but when I see new things in socionics I prefer to see it all listed out in front of me so as to not mix my own tea into the cup and taint the insight.

My query flushed out: What is a hidden function? Does that correspond to a particular or two blocks? Ive never seen the term before. What comment is your response replying to? Si is the demonstrative for ESI, did you mean ignoring(Fe).

I'll try... ESI's base is -Fi, which is actually (as per the image) -Fi/+Fe (+Fe is the "hidden" component). +Fe is the base of EIE, this means that EIE and ESI have the same base. This goes for all IM's: ESI's demonstrative is +Si, which is actually +Si/-Se, which is SLE's base. ESI's base is also SLE's HA, this is the real reason supervision takes place (guiding the supervisee towards their HA).

[Pookie]

You think Demonstrative - Base interactions are the reason for supervision? Demonstrative is rarely spoken about, and Base is usually the frame for every topic. Where does the negative dynamic come from in their interactions? And thank you for clarifying what Hidden meant.

[mclane]

You think Demonstrative - Base interactions are the reason for supervision?

No, I think base - HA interactions are the main reason for supervision.

Demonstrative is rarely spoken about, and Base is usually the frame for every topic

This a bad habit probably inherited from MBTI (where the demonstrative is not regarded in any way -- is also one of the reasons many people mistype in MBTI; because they confuse their demonstrative for base and viceversa). Demonstrative is a very important function.

Where does the negative dynamic come from in their interactions?

They are not negative (as long as the supervisee accepts the superior position of the supervisor). The problems comes when the supervisee tries to "rebel" against the supervisor (usually because the supervisee sees a particular supervisor as a "bad" supervisor).

And thank you for clarifying what Hidden meant.

No problem.

[Pookie]

This a bad habit probably inherited from MBTI (where the demonstrative is not regarded in any way -- is also one of the reasons many people mistype in MBTI; because they confuse their demonstrative for base and viceversa). Demonstrative is a very important function.
.

Oh, no. Im not saying demonstrative isnt a very big deal. In all honesty id say it rivals base as the most important, but I have a hard time imaging situations popping up frequently where a "do it, dont talk about it" attitude causes other people to be irritated, but then as you said later thats not the function interaction causing friction. But yeah, hugely important, but also maybe the least likely function to cause irritation in others.