I think I mispresented my thoughts. Emotivism is associated about the usage of both Fe and Fi. So since LII-Ne has more boosted Fi and Fe, I think that it LII-Ne would be more skilled at emotivism. However, LII-Ne isn't more emotivist than LII-Ti. If that was the case all F creatives would be more emotivist then all T-doms, which is not the case. Emotivism isn't about the strength/boost or the dimmension of Fi and Fe. Hence dichotomies does not change according to subtype. Process and result doesn't even based on specific IEs that's why I left it out of the picture.
Originally Posted by ooo
I think I understand your confusion, correct me if I am wrong. You think intertype relations change according to subtype, hence process/result must differ again according to subtype. I don't know the algorithms behind inter-type calculators. However, if I had to guess, I think the calculations doesn't change due to process/result type difference. For example, lets consider the relationship with IEE and LII and lets assume that both have very strong contact type, according to some intertype calculators IEE is partially supervising LII in this case (as you said before). IEE with very strong contact type has boosted Se role, LII-Ne has weakened Se. Hence even in this case, Ti of LII-Ne still get information from Se, is supervised by the role function of IEE or LII's role function Fi gets information from N - the lead function of IEE. Hence I think intertype relations differences of that calculators relies on validity of process/result dichotomies.
Besides that, I think it is not wise to consider the results of intertype calculators as accurate, at least I could say that I haven't seen any sophisticated one that considers all aspects of socionics. The position of IE determines some limits, role function will always remain in the boundaries of role function regardless of how much it is boosted. Apart from this process and result types have differently signed IEs, I think that also changes the dynamics of intertype relations.
Last edited by myresearch; 07-28-2019 at 03:58 PM.
it's really theoretical stuff, @myresearch, btw thanks for the patience you took in answering and trying to understand my perspective... I'll try to reply accordingly
Some due clarifications before venturing further. Reinin dichotomies are arbitrary, and they're not all derived in the same fashion, some are advanced through observation, others through theoretical divisions; in some cases the R.d. have not found confirmation, and the socionists are apparently split (read the Reinin Dichotomies page on wikisocion) about what to make out of them. For these reason, we can keep going on advancing hypothesis and questioning the real validity of the R.d.
Now, let's leave the constructivist/emotivist dichotomy aside, since it just broadens the speculations further and doesn't help solve the Process/Result original question.
We can say identifying the Process/Result dichotomy is a good way to assess a type between the other most possible ones; for ex. if you identify with the Result dichotomy, you can't be a ILE, an ILI, a LSI or an EII, ie. all the types that are in the closest proximity to your type. Ironically enough though, if your subtype is LII-Ne, you'll be more similar to a LII, an ILI and an EII; and if your subtype is LII-Ti, you'll be more similar to a LSI.
So, by any subtype, you become closer to the opposite side of this specific dichotomy. Now, what is this dichotomy exactly about? It depicts a rather specific behavior: Process types focus on the process, do things methodically; Result types are more random and focus on the result.
Studying the Model A, we can't explain this behavior if not by attributing this division to the Base and Creative functions, paired together. But since a creative subtype behaves more like their mirror, or the types mentioned before, when not like their kindred (base subtype), and since all these other types behave in what is theoretically an opposite way, we have more that a 50% of possibilities that altering the type with a subtype will influence the nature of this particular behavior as well.
Result/Process is more sophisticated dichotomy than constructivist/emotivist dichotomy. One does not become closer to opposite side of dichotomy because of a subtype difference because subtypes don't effect dichotomies. Result/process dichotomy is about information flow as it is stated in the link you shared and information flow doesn't change according to subtypes as I stated above.
The combination of the positions of 8 different IEs determines one's overall psyche. LII has Ti base, Si mobilizing and Se polr. All IEs answer to base, LII gets activated with Si and supervised by Se, subtype doesn't change that. LII's Ti get information from S. Same is true for EII, EII's Fi get information from S.
People generally care about both process and result, result/process dichotomy doesn't indicate that process types don't care about the result vice versa. When process types wants to achieve a certain result, they focus on how they get there, for example, if process types have done A then B and get C, if they want to get C next time, they would do A then B to get it. The result types can be oblivious how they get C or they may think that there were other variables, for example, result types have done A then B and get C, if they want to get C next time, they may would do D and get C, they may would do A, then E, then Z, then Y and get C. This necessarily doesn't mean that process type wouldn't try anything else to get C or result type wouldn't try the method that works. However, generally process type is more prone to stick with a method that works and result types are more prone to not use a specific method.
To put it in a different way, + static types focus on what does not change and they enhance their way of thinking about unchangeable. - Static focus on what does not work and they contradict with their way of thinking of unchangeable. In other words, Fi+, Ti+ are more prone to focus on why or how something is or may be working if they think that it is working. Fi-, Ti- are more prone to focus on why or how something isn't or may not be working, if they think that it is working. Hence, Fi+, Ti + would focus on how things are working and develop or elaborate it further. For example, if Fi+,Ti would do A, then B and get C several times, they will use it and they can notice other details about it, such as: if they would do A, then T, then B, they would get a C+. On the other hand, Fi-, Ti- would focus on how that might not work. For example, they might get C by doing D or they might do A, then B on sunday and couldn't get C, they will see that method doesn't work always or the method is not so relevant.
If your confusion is based on the similarities of types, most similarities mentioned based on superficial deductions, these similarities don't refer anything substantial. LII-Ne may look similar to EII-Ne more than LII-Ti and LII-Ti may seem similar to LSI-Ti but only on surface level. If a person would see a male with long volumized hair from a very far distance, that person may think that s/he saw a female. Ofcourse having the same IE at the same position lead to some similarities. However, since the IEs are signed differently, overall mechanism of LII isn't fundamentally similar to mechanisms of EII or LSI.
So by that do you mean the inert subtype is the one that has different dichotomy if the inert functions are accentuated to a large degree?
Originally Posted by ooo
the contrary, it's more probable that an accentuated contact subtype switches dichotomies, but yeah, the same could happen for the inert subs too, I guess
Originally Posted by Disturbed