# Process/Result - Question About Gulenko's Interpretation



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zinnia said:


> Thanks for posting that. I thought a lot of it seemed rather extreme (that example sounds borderline abusive, and reminds me of a character from a video game I played a while back... lol) but that last line, quoted above... that's something I've noticed about myself that I can never really explain. It always sounds really stupid, when I think about it... and it is, but it's there, and it is an automatic reaction that I don't have much control over. I tried figuring out why, the best explanation I came up with being that I looked up to my father growing up, and he was just like that, but that couldn't be it either.
> 
> I'm thinking of a recurring "disagreement" I have with my mother, regarding the fact that, apparently, I make myself out to be so tough when I'm really a big softie; I will be domineering, draw lines everywhere, and then do something really kind/generous/whatever despite it all. My dad is the same - he will bitch about the stupidest thing (oh my god the food has been out of the fridge for 5 minutes, _the world is ending! you are a horrible person!!_), and then follow it up by catching a spider and letting it go outside. I do feel bad for my mom in a way; she is stuck between two people that have similar patterns of behavior, and she just can't do anything right in comparison and is always doubting herself. But I've always felt that our relationship is stronger than that of my dad and me, despite how we 'get along' much better.


Wouldn't enneagram make a big difference?


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Wouldn't enneagram make a big difference?


I suppose it could; I'm still trying to figure out which behaviors are due to motivations/enneatype and which are not.

It's because of that I'm not too sure about enneagram types of my family, except for my mom, who is 6-2-1. So much superego, holy shit.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zinnia said:


> I suppose it could; I'm still trying to figure out which behaviors are due to motivations/enneatype and which are not.
> 
> It's because of that I'm not too sure about enneagram types of my family, except for my mom, who is 6-2-1. So much superego, holy shit.


I bring it up because I relate to what you write about trying to appear tougher than you are. It's difficult to admit otherwise because I don't want to see myself or admit that I can be weak. Same example about your dad that I actually did the other day (but bumblebee). I'm process so it should be the other way around? 

It really depends on the situation I think. I don't try to be purposefully gruff but I can come across that way, especially when I feel that my boundaries are being pushed or invaded.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I bring it up because I relate to what you write about trying to appear tougher than you are. It's difficult to admit otherwise because I don't want to see myself or admit that I can be weak. Same example about your dad that I actually did the other day (but bumblebee). I'm process so it should be the other way around?
> 
> It really depends on the situation I think. I don't try to be purposefully gruff but I can come across that way, especially when I feel that my boundaries are being pushed or invaded.


As far as my dad goes, he is process (LSE). He was emotionally abused growing up, I think that (in addition to his base personality type) turned him into what he is.

I find it difficult to admit not so much that I can be weak, but that there's something that I don't really have full control over (that kneejerk reaction) that just happens. I hate having to answer "why do you do that?" with "I don't know." and then I get dumb and emotional over it.

I can shut down when someone is trying to force an emotional reaction out of me, or trying to 'connect' when I don't feel comfortable. It can happen, I'm not a cold bitch all the time, but I have to be the one to initiate it (lol I am like the rate-limiting step of emotional fuzzies). In general, I'm private about a ton of things, above and beyond feeling, and I don't react well either when someone invades that privacy or makes demands.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> I've generally found this to be true in my experience. Gulenko has stated that Process types are more accommodating towards strangers and people at a distance while showing their negative side around people who are close to them. This has been my experience being friends with SEIs and EIIs -- if I keep them at a distance, they are much kinder and warmer in interaction, once we get too close they become more domineering and ill-disposed. The opposite is true of Result types like IEI and ESI -- they are more spiteful and "barbed" at a distance, but become progressively warmer towards people in their inner circle. In the end, both Process and Result types are dependent on opinion of some "public", but for Process types these are people at a distance and for Result types there are people who are close to them.


Just curious: is there a reason you know of that this falls from the Process/Result dichotomy?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Dying Acedia said:


> Just curious: is there a reason you know of that this falls from the Process/Result dichotomy?


I don't know of any supporting reasoning. What it said in that article was same as much experiences with different types, so I adopted it but I am not aware of how they derived it, if it was only a keen observation someone made or whether this is taken from some work with Model A.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Process type here. This dichotomy of being 'nicer' to strangers and 'meaner' to those close to me is true in my case. I've attempted going at it the other way to try to relate better with a result type that expected it of me. It's very unnatural, like trying to write with the wrong hand. In the end, you just look sloppy. My criticisms never stem from a place of meanness in my mind, but of trying to connect with the other person through their ideas and help them to refine them. I guess I should stay away from these result types for my own peace of mind.

Anyway, that's how I know I am becoming closer friends with someone. When we can give each other a hard time and not get upset about it.


----------



## Dyidia (May 28, 2010)

Well, fwiw I wouldn't say it's not true for me, just that it seemed to miss the mark. I can understand it as a trend though.

I'd say I'm mean/cold as a way of creating distance, and warm/inviting as a way of creating closeness. I sometimes can be mean to people who are close to me if I feel like something really needs to be said, but I feel like I need to make up afterwards and show that we're actually still friends (if their behavior hadn't estranged me). With most people that I've gotten to know though, I've gained a sense of what they're like enough that I don't have to be mean even if there's something I'm wondering if they're aware of or not.

Maybe this explains why some people are weirdly annoying once I've started becoming friends with. I had a friend who once she started feeling like I accepted her just became nitpicky and a nuisance. I thought she was just going through a hard time, but when I tried talking to her about it she seemed if anything more prideful than usual. We stopped hanging out after that. 

She didn't really have it together though. I think she was EII. Definitely had core 2.


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

I would say that process types also process people in relations while they live. I just consider it part of the experience. If both people are process types they are not shaken up for drama/something similar as they take it as part of progress: you either need space or some sort of working with issues without drastic actions. I also see result types more present oriented in terms of drastic categorizations. Process types are integrative where change happens over time. Some sort of drama does not mean something definite.

I see result types more cutting when they finally do it. I imagine that many ripping off money from divorce are result types.


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

cyamitide said:


> I've generally found this to be true in my experience. Gulenko has stated that Process types are more accommodating towards strangers and people at a distance while showing their negative side around people who are close to them. This has been my experience being friends with SEIs and EIIs -- if I keep them at a distance, they are much kinder and warmer in interaction, once we get too close they become more domineering and ill-disposed. The opposite is true of Result types like IEI and ESI -- they are more spiteful and "barbed" at a distance, but become progressively warmer towards people in their inner circle. In the end, both Process and Result types are dependent on opinion of some "public", but for Process types these are people at a distance and for Result types there are people who are close to them.


Yeah it is true. What u said about EII. I bark at my mom and i care about far away people. Also society viewing my opinions as valuable matters to me more than my mom valuing them. I also always argued with my Ex whenever he is near to me and hated him and always miss him now that he is farther,


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

cyamitide said:


> It's accurate in my experience and my social interactions with people on both sides of this dichotomy. Gulenko heads a school (called School of Humanitarian Socionics) -- he doesn't work alone -- so if this was way off I would assume he would have been challenged and questioned by his colleagues and students.
> 
> Social stereotypes of what is "healthy" and "normal" aren't always a good gauge of how your life should be. Many of these are simply appeasing and flattering images and slogans designed to make you feel good about yourself, even if truth and the real state of things are muffled at their expense. What you're trying to do is fit yourself into these "positive" social stereotypes of how relationships "should be" and asking that socionics fits into them too, but what if some socionics findings go against those stereotypes? There are many things in socionics that go against the conventional social norms. For example, a typical woman in society is expected to be feminine, motherly-caretaking, emotional, soft, yielding, so imagine the surprise of SLE and LSE women that they are nothing like that. Should socionics profiles for these types be changed only because they don't fit with what the "healthy norms" are considered to be for women in our society and make them feel uneasy about themselves? I think not.


Women are still more feelers than men and Men are still more thinkers than women at a more shallower way and these feeling and thinking have nothing to do with functions. ESTP women, some of them look like feelers ESFPs. It is possible to tell. Same with some of ISTJ women. They may look like ISFJs. ESTJ women may look like ESFJs as well.

But i agree with social norms thing. It is what it is and it applies to me - i somehow feels free to be negative as well infront of my closest people doesn't mean iam faking my kinder version among strangers. I don't know how to show my warmth to my mom and i don't like it as well - i feel unease and somehow weird, may be at the core i feel it is not needed to show if u are that close. It has to be obvious in the general actions.


----------

