According to this you would be a Tactical typeOriginally Posted by Phantom
Tactical
I focus on methods. Goals are modified to fit methods.
Strategic
I focus on goals, Methods are modified to fit goals.
Tactics
Tactical types focus their attention on their current situation, on the nearest action, on the actual choices—in other words, they are more oriented at their course, the chain of events, instead of the goal towards which this chain may lead.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It gets a lot less ambiguous and random when you do pay attention, but not paying attention is itself a valid strategy. See, there is no escaping the fact that you're a player in the game in the eyes of a true Gamma. Even a naive waif acting all innocent and such... well, that's actually also a valid strategy. Certainly they can't be that genuine and earnest in their optimism. Surely this is a trick, a plot or a ploy but now I'm on to them and they're too stupid to realize it!
Then they proceed along those lines of thought and in the process doom themselves to failure as, impossible as it may seem, they really were just being nice and meant it when they said all those nice things. All attempts to "not" play the game are, in the end, just different ways of playing it and you'd be surprised at how effective those methods of "not playing" can be. For instance, I've adopted the "total honesty" strategy. That leads to a reputation for honesty that is also fearless and quite possibly suicidal. That's actually very powerful, as that's exactly what every smart power hungry mofo needs if they want to succeed in the long term. A guy who actually calls them out before they make a cataclysmic mistake in a way that actually gets them to think it all through and thus avoid said mistake and thus, not fuck themselves over royally.
Of course, that makes said "honest" person the real power behind the throne and boy does he know it. In other words, the ILI dream job.
Alright, but I don’t see how that discounts Ni?
It doesn't. The tactical needs the strategic to give them a sense of purpose, a general direction to work toward. Likewise, the strategic will almost certainly miss the forest for the trees in the heat of battle as it were. Thus, they need to effectively "delegate" command authority to the tactical types who get all this. X, after all, needs to be done for any general "plan" to have a decent chance of working. Yet we all know that no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.
It's an odd push and pull mechanic that one must oddly master if they wanna win a war. I think this is a key part of existence thetypes were meant to fulfill. If they manage to avoid falling into the sins of pride and/or sloth, boy oh boy do things get scary indeed for their enemies. After all, they'll take this one quote/life lesson to heart and holy hell this ought to scare anyone who grasps the implications of it. "There is no limit to how far you can go, so long as you don't care who gets the credit."
I'm considering Gamma NT at the moment, does that sound right based on my answers to the questionnaire?
Which one of the two, ILI or LIE? If you can't choose between the two, do please look at rationality vs. irrationality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote