# Tactical vs Strategic



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Tactician: "Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods."

Strategist: "Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals."

I find these descriptions strange because usually when someone refer to another as a 'tactician' they usually mean the person improvise a solution to a specific problem at the moment, meaning methods can change to achieve an end result. And strategy usually means planning and following through with the plan. In other words: for strategists everything is settled down, from the methods to the end goal. 

In socionics it's different: the tactician have settled methods for doing things and the strategist have only the end goal settled. Can you explain your understanding of this dichotomy? Also, can you give concrete examples of someone using strategy vs using tactic?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Springwood Slasher said:


> Tactician: "Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods."
> 
> Strategist: "Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals."
> 
> ...


Maybe this will help?

For example I establish that I want to build a NAS server which is a subgoal in a larger plan. So the goal is the server which needs to have a certain utility. Now how I build it will be defined by the end, namely the desired result. I just improvise whatever resources I have or improve the resources until they meet the end goal's demands. I do not modify the end goal to accommodate the methods and resources I have at hand, I improve them to meet the end goal's demands.

Reaching the end goal is what matters, how it is reached is irrelevant. The goal is my anchor and I improvise towards it.

Its a bad idea for me not to establish goals, because that leaves me scattered and adrift in pointless pursuits. This is why I establish goals, they anchor me in a certain direction and focus my efforts.

I establish what I want to gain out of it then I research what needs to be done in order to reach the goal, find the most efficient way to do it and then apply till goal is met.

I don't like to have long term goals tho. Not seeing immediate tangible results tends to test my patience... plus can't anticipate the future, so I keep goals short and set many.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

LibertyPrime said:


> Maybe this will help?
> 
> For example I establish that I want to build a NAS server which is a subgoal in a larger plan. So the goal is the server which needs to have a certain utility. Now how I build it will be defined by the end, namely the desired result. I just improvise whatever resources I have or improve the resources until they meet the end goal's demands. I do not modify the end goal to accommodate the methods and resources I have at hand, I improve them to meet the end goal's demands.
> 
> ...



All of the above could be said for me. I can't imagine not setting goals. I need to have some purpose that I'm working towards.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

The Exception said:


> All of the above could be said for me. I can't imagine not setting goals. I need to have some purpose that I'm working towards.


Yeah, LII is a strategic type. Makes sense for you.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Felipe said:


> Tactician: "Goals are defined by, and modified to fit methods."
> 
> Strategist: "Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals."
> 
> ...


When you say a tactician improvises a solution to a specific problem, that is defining the goal in the context of the methods. The methods are the things which are being improvised. If you ask such a person what they are doing or why they are doing that, they will explain that they have a goal and these are the methods they are using to accomplish it. Internally speaking, the Tactician is defining the goal based on the methods that will achieve it.

Basically, the problem is that when a person calls someone else a Tactician, they mean this idea of improvising to achieve. But when a person is an internal Tactician, when they process information in a Tactician way, they are defining the goal by the end point and the methods that achieve that end point, and become frustrated when a goal cannot be achieved by their methods. When this occurs, the natural energetic flow of a Tactician type is to redefine the goal. This doesn't mean they always do, but rather it means that the way their brain works is that it suggests that as a preferable option.

This usually takes the form of achieving an alternate, perhaps suboptimal result (Or a better one - honestly, it takes the form of achieving a different result than expected because the task is changed to fit methods of what "can be done"). "Well, I couldn't make a server with the full specifications required with the resources I was given, so I took this spare junk computer from our tech closet and set it up in tandem for extra processing power. It isn't the goal that you asked of me and it isn't quite as effective, but I did manage to get up to about 85% of the processing power you wanted and 60% of the data storage. I suggest we purchase a large hard drive to set up in this new system". This is redefining the goal based on the methods that were used, but when the other person receives this information, they perceive it in the opposite manner. To them it seems the methods are what was redefined. But if you really think about, the goal is what was being worked towards, and the goal was not achieved. The goal changed in response, despite the unusual methods that set up something new and unexpected.

In the situation where the task succeeds but there are more resources than expected, the Tactical type might go tell the super "Hey I can use this old scrap computer to up the power of our new server by operating them in tandem, or with some new casing I can fuse the parts into a single system. That could up our company efficiency, and gives me something to work on today. What do you think?" Or the Tactician might just go ahead and do it without asking! The goal is being redefined XD

Strategic types are more inclined to change methods to reach the goal. In that same situation, the Strategic type would be more inclined to look at the situation and say "Well, I could use these spare components to help reach the goal, but this is not quite enough. None of the methods I have at hand, even things outside the scope of the supplies I was given, is sufficient to accomplish the end goal. Therefore I need to acquire more resources of an appropriate type to accomplish this goal. I need to think outside the box. Now where can I go or what can I do that will give me additional resources for accomplishing this task? Aaaah, what if I cannibalize one of the extra computers on the sales floor? Those have better specs than this old junker in the closet, and if necessary I could use both. And I have this old covering and some metal boxes, I could even attach the parts to the innards of the new server and then it doesn't have to be a multi-system array. Multi system is not what I was asked to do. I'll go check with my super and explain the situation, and ask for that additional computer"

From the outside, this may look like the goal is being changed, that the goal is being redefined in the context of the resources. But in actuality the inner cognition that is going on is redefining what resources are available and how those can be used to accomplish the original stated goal. The inner EMPHASIS if you will is on being "true to the goal", whereas for Tacticians the inner emphasis is on being "true to what I can do in this context", IE true to the methods available.

Yet both can still build the server using additional spare parts because that is the only creative solution that accomplishes this goal. And this hypothetical goal being short term means that it more favors the tactical type in terms of how applicable the example is. I hope I have distinguished them enough here, and done so successfully.

Does all that rambling make sense for you?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> When you say a tactician improvises a solution to a specific problem, that is defining the goal in the context of the methods.


I meant they have a small goal and improvise a tactic to get it, without planning for the main goal. My point is: When I hear people talking about strategy I think of huge complex plans that won't change. If some part of the plan changes, I call it a tactic, an improvised momentairy solution.

But nevermind my concept of strategical and tactic. How can I know which one I am based on socionics concept? Because I can use both depending on what I'm doing. For instance: If I'm new at a game I usually behave more tactically, I jump in and do what seems right without a main goal in mind. If it's a game I'm already used to, I usually have a strategy in mind, a main goal and the path can change accordingly.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Do you leap into the new game without a goal?

Or do you leap into the game with the goal "learn how this game work by playing it"? Or some other goal? To figure this out, you need to dig deep into your actual actions and the internal motivations behind those actions. WHAT do you do? WHY do you do what you do?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Do you leap into the new game without a goal?
> 
> *Or do you leap into the game with the goal "learn how this game work by playing it"?*


The bold


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Felipe said:


> The bold


Your changing the goal primarily by the sound of it, although this is a really brief litmus test that isn't super accurate. Basically, you approach all games this way, yah? You have settled methods. You approach the game with the concept of "my goal is to learn enough in order to later set goals". So your goal is "learn methods for later goals to be determined later". That's Tactical. Make sense?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Your changing the goal primarily by the sound of it, although this is a really brief litmus test that isn't super accurate. Basically, you approach all games this way, yah? You have settled methods. *You approach the game with the concept of "my goal is to learn enough in order to later set goals*".


Yeah, kind of. Although I never liked setting goals but I can't stop doing it recently for some reason. It kinda kills the fun of the game for me though. It becomes too predictable.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

So you prefer to have goals unsettled?


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Your changing the goal primarily by the sound of it, although this is a really brief litmus test that isn't super accurate. Basically, you approach all games this way, yah? You have settled methods. You approach the game with the concept of "my goal is to learn enough in order to later set goals". So your goal is "learn methods for later goals to be determined later". That's Tactical. Make sense?


I do just that when I'm playing games. Perhaps I'm tactical. I thought for sure I was strategic. 

I guess you could say I have an overriding goal- to beat the game, to grab all the goodies and power-ups.


----------



## dawnriddler (Sep 14, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Your changing the goal primarily by the sound of it, although this is a really brief litmus test that isn't super accurate. Basically, you approach all games this way, yah? You have settled methods. You approach the game with the concept of "my goal is to learn enough in order to later set goals". So your goal is "learn methods for later goals to be determined later". That's Tactical. Make sense?


So by this and the OP's _Strategist: "Methods are defined by, and modified to fit goals."
_ , that would make me a strategist.


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Felipe said:


> In socionics it's different: the tactician have settled methods for doing things and the strategist have only the end goal settled. Can you explain your understanding of this dichotomy? Also, can you give concrete examples of someone using strategy vs using tactic?


Let's go military.

Strategy is about winning the war. How to win the war? Be true to the goal by applying methods.

Tactic is about winning the battle. How to win the battle? Be true to the methods by reaching various goals.

As far as I'm aware on how an individual do things it can't be one or the other. A good strategist have tactics in mind. A good tactician have strategy in mind. Both are heavily focused on logistics.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

The Exception said:


> I do just that when I'm playing games. Perhaps I'm tactical. I thought for sure I was strategic.
> 
> I guess you could say I have an overriding goal- to beat the game, to grab all the goodies and power-ups.


But you can see how that is different from the goal being "becoming able to deal with the challenges the game will throw at me"?

For example, if we say that Person A desires to perfect their skills at jumping in a given video game because they frequently die by falling into holes and stuff, then the goal is changed from that overall goal of "beat the game and get everything". If you find that you are setting a bunch of mini-goals all along the way, especially if those goals pertain to developing skill to later reach unspecified goals Person A doesn't know about yet, then Person A is probably Tactical. But If the end goal is always in sight and the work to develop skills is oriented at developing skills (resources) to reach that goal at the end, and you try different tacks every time you fail (changing your methods to achieve the final strategic goal), then that would be more Strategic.

Or put another way, Tactical types tend to set short term goals that lead onward, and Strategic types tend to set long term goals and if stalled find some way to get to that end goal. Tactical types are comfortable with a more ambiguous final goal (but farsightedness/carefree modifies that) provided they can develop methods to deal with something, like developing an effective combat combo in an action adventure fighting game and getting down how to pull it off the same way every time (settled methods). Strategic types are comfortable with more ambiguous steps between to reach the end goal (unsettled methods, again modified by farsightedness/carefree).

Also, I hear that perception type struggle with determining their Tactical/Strategic more, and perception subtypes do as well.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

pwowq said:


> As far as I'm aware on how an individual do things it can't be one or the other. A good strategist have tactics in mind. A good tactician have strategy in mind. Both are heavily focused on logistics.


Yes. And this is why this dichotomy is viewed as a less useful dichotomy.

Especially since Tactical/Farsighted and Strategic/Carefree exist. What does it look like to have goals you are true to by applying methods when you prefer to think about short term goals rather than farsighted thinking? That would be frequent changing of the method and goal comapred to a Strategic/Farsighted type.

These dichotomies do not exist in vacuum.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Both types want to win the game but they want to win differently. I'm tactical and I find that my methods are very fluid based on the present moment and what seems to be the best way to accomplish any given goal i.e. winning the game. This becomes very obvious when I play LoL, as I don't follow the same method over and over in order to win, but I adapt myself to the circumstances. I have a hard time settling on one plan or one way to win, and I find that people that do that are often too inflexible and may end up losing in positions where adaptability had been better, but on the other hand, because it keeps repeating the same methods when they work they work very well. The problem is that tactical is also wishy-washy so what gives it strength i.e. adaptation, is also its main weakness because it can get lost in details without having a larger over-arching direction. Tactical is also much more reactive (you don't know what methods to use until the situation changes) than proactive whereas strategic is more proactive and "take charge" in a sense, because it's less reliant on current circumstances.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

pwowq said:


> Let's go military.
> 
> Strategy is about winning the war. How to win the war? Be true to the goal by applying methods.
> 
> ...


Well ultimately my focus would be to win the war. I would focus on individual battles since winning a battle increases the probability of winning the war in the end.

In reality though, the idea of fighting in a war feels repulsive to me. I am Se PoLR after all. :laughing:


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

The Exception said:


> Well ultimately my focus would be to win the war. I would focus on individual battles since winning a battle increases the probability of winning the war in the end.


The very reason strats and tactics are separated as two different jobs done by thousands of people. Winning a battle can be counter-productive for a war-effort, sadly, especially if your enemy has managed to get inside your decision making (ie deception).



The Exception said:


> In reality though, the idea of fighting in a war feels repulsive to me. I am Se PoLR after all. :laughing:


I'm SE-dominant. Keen interest in military history. War is always a horrible idea. I must say I have a very well developed feel for how war is perceived at an individual level at a HQ and at the front clearing an area.


----------



## dawnriddler (Sep 14, 2016)

pwowq said:


> Let's go military.
> 
> Strategy is about winning the war. How to win the war? Be true to the goal by applying methods.
> 
> ...


I like this


----------

