# Ni discussion



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> huh? is that "holy union of analysis and experimentation" exclusive to Ni? I do the exact same thing about some stuff, just reading isn't enough, I need to do the experimentation through experience too


it's more observation-less experimentation with Ni -- Se/Si doms seem to require more tangible evidence/experience, while Ni often suffices with mental modeling and projections ... but i don't think this is particular to Ni ... and also process/result apparently matters in this whole observation business so it might not be influenced by one element:

"...Right and left types also differ in how they engage in scientific development. Right type of researcher will carefully collect facts about some problem that is of concern, processes them, derive a system, and formulate the resulting findings. Such path of formal or "correct" research meets the academic requirements for science. Unfortunately the probability of obtaining fundamentally new knowledge in this way is low. Left "informal" science is organized quite differently. It is based on putting forward hypotheses and schemes of a general nature that attempt to explain the nature of phenomenon that is under investigation in an informal setting without much consideration of accepted academic canons. Then the hypothesis or crude scheme is compared to the actual phenomenon. If it works, then it is accepted as a working model and made to undergo further revision. If the hypothesis proves to be unsuitable, then it is simply discarded as unreasonable. It is best when two-three models are developed side-by-side by "left" methods, and as a result of competition the one that is most viable wins.

Most of the results of socionics have been derived by left methods. It is understandable that the right formal academic science treats socionics with much skepticism. Socionics offers the finished product, but where is the process of lengthy and detailed research and studies? The solution of this problem is, of course, supplementing the quick but unreliable left approach to knowledge with the knowledge and research of the right approach - which is the only one that earns credibility in formal circles."


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> it's more observation-less experimentation with Ni -- Se/Si doms seem to require more tangible evidence/experience, while Ni often suffices with mental modeling and projections ...


Yeah okay




> but i don't think this is particular to Ni ... and also process/result apparently matters in this whole observation business so it might not be influenced by one element:
> 
> "...Right and left types also differ in how they engage in scientific development. Right type of researcher will carefully collect facts about some problem that is of concern, processes them, derive a system, and formulate the resulting findings. Such path of formal or "correct" research meets the academic requirements for science. Unfortunately the probability of obtaining fundamentally new knowledge in this way is low. Left "informal" science is organized quite differently. It is based on putting forward hypotheses and schemes of a general nature that attempt to explain the nature of phenomenon that is under investigation in an informal setting without much consideration of accepted academic canons. Then the hypothesis or crude scheme is compared to the actual phenomenon. If it works, then it is accepted as a working model and made to undergo further revision. If the hypothesis proves to be unsuitable, then it is simply discarded as unreasonable. It is best when two-three models are developed side-by-side by "left" methods, and as a result of competition the one that is most viable wins.
> 
> Most of the results of socionics have been derived by left methods. It is understandable that the right formal academic science treats socionics with much skepticism. Socionics offers the finished product, but where is the process of lengthy and detailed research and studies? The solution of this problem is, of course, supplementing the quick but unreliable left approach to knowledge with the knowledge and research of the right approach - which is the only one that earns credibility in formal circles."


Interesting, Left > Right for me there yeah.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Same for me as well. Left > right. One of the reasons why I am more interested in the qualitative sciences.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Same for me as well. Left > right. One of the reasons why I am more interested in the qualitative sciences.


ILI is right type though..??


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> ILI is right type though..??


ILI is left according to Reinin but in Gulenko and Prokofieva's version ILI is right.
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Process_and_result#Extended_characteristics

Edit: Damn confusing name changes. I think sticking with process vs. result is more convenient.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> ILI is right type though..??





Ananael said:


> ILI is left according to Reinin but in Gulenko and Prokofieva's version ILI is right.
> Process and result - Wikisocion
> 
> Edit: Damn confusing name changes. I think sticking with process vs. result is more convenient.


What Ananael wrote. I figured something was messed up there, because I have always related more to process. It's one of the Reinin traits I'm absolutely sure I am. 

Regardless, I still relate to Gulenko's definition of left more than right. I never cared much about achieving such rigid scientific results. One of the things that always bored me with the hard sciences.

With that said, I want to add that perhaps I might seem like a rightist, not sure, but superficially I do not relate much to the rightist description.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Ananael said:


> ILI is left according to Reinin but in Gulenko and Prokofieva's version ILI is right.
> Process and result - Wikisocion


Gunleko is the one who wrote that article I linked above and according to Gulenko ILI is right (process) type.



ephemereality said:


> What Ananael wrote. I figured something was messed up there, because I have always related more to process. It's one of the Reinin traits I'm absolutely sure I am.


Gunleko considers ILI to be right (process), while you said you relate more to his left (result) description. Something is strange here.



ephemereality said:


> *Same for me as well. Left > right.* One of the reasons why I am more interested in the qualitative sciences.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Gunleko is the one who wrote that article I linked above and according to Gulenko ILI is right (process) type.
> 
> Gunleko considers ILI to be right (process), while you said you relate more to his left (result) description. Something is strange here.


Wouldn't that be true for itsme45 as well, since all irrationals would be process? I would honestly need to study Gulenko more to understand why he arrived at this and why he describe them this way. It could simply be that reading this somewhat out of context doesn't provide the entire idea of what he means here. It could also be that in the absence of someone who fits result better that it is easy to relate to a description without understanding its full implications. Which is why I added the last paragraph. Or it could just be that Gulenko is wrong, lol, just like how he doesn't agree with subtype theory either where many of his proposed subtypes in his DCNH system clearly contradicts what is described by Meged and Ovcharov. 

I also don't think relating necessarily indicates a strong likelihood that we are this or such way as it ultimately hinges on that we are capable of properly identifying what we are. I for some time thought I was a positivist too because I didn't think I tend to always see things negatively. I'm not a pessimist. It's just that in contrast to an actual positivist it's apparent that I am a negativist.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Wouldn't that be true for itsme45 as well, since all irrationals would be process?


No, process-result doesn't follow rational-irrational trait.
Look at the type list here: Process and result - Wikisocion



The process IM types are : ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII.
The result IM types are : ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI.

If itsme45 is SLE then left/result trait is fitting to her, but your ILI self-typing doesn't match match the left trait.



ephemereality said:


> I would honestly need to study Gulenko more to understand why he arrived at this and why he describe them this way. It could simply be that reading this somewhat out of context doesn't provide the entire idea of what he means here. It could also be that in the absence of someone who fits result better that it is easy to relate to a description without understanding its full implications. Which is why I added the last paragraph. Or it could just be that Gulenko is wrong, lol, just like how he doesn't agree with subtype theory either where many of his proposed subtypes in his DCNH system clearly contradicts what is described by Meged and Ovcharov.


He went by the benefit and supervision rings and assumed that types need to be on same side of this dichotomy if they are in same ring, otherwise it would complicate information transfer. If you identify with D-A thinking style for ILIs then you should identify with right/process trait because it's an attribute of this cog-style.



ephemereality said:


> I also don't think relating necessarily indicates a strong likelihood that we are this or such way as it ultimately hinges on that we are capable of properly identifying what we are. I for some time thought I was a positivist too because I didn't think I tend to always see things negatively. I'm not a pessimist. It's just that in contrast to an actual positivist it's apparent that I am a negativist.


I wanted to point it out for you since all ILIs I've met fit the right/process trait and very rigorously think over the details before building the cause-effect relationship between them, but due to this their thinking seems too elaborate, far-fetched and theoretical in comparison to left/result types like LII and IEI.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> He went by the benefit and supervision rings and assumed that types need to be on same side of this dichotomy if they are in same ring, otherwise it would complicate information transfer. If you identify with D-A thinking style for ILIs then you should identify with right/process trait because it's an attribute of this cog-style.


On Wikisocion description it's very clear I'm process and I also know that I'm a DA type. It's one of the things that made me reconsider my previous typing. 



> I wanted to point it out for you since all ILIs I've met fit the right/process trait and very rigorously think over the details before building the cause-effect relationship between them, but due to this their thinking seems too elaborate, far-fetched and theoretical in comparison to left/result types like LII and IEI.


Likely. Well, the way I understand Gulenko's article was that he mentions how left types deal with general ideas and I relate to that far more than I do thinking over or being concerned over scientific rigor by itself. Which is why I feel that I would probably need to study Gulenko's ideas more if I were to have a serious opinion about whether I actually think it fits or not, which I suppose in itself would point towards right. 

This is also why I don't experience descriptions being very useful especially by themselves. I also think as with the rest of socionics that Reinin traits are not in the lines of, you are either A or B, but there is likely a bit of a variable scale where people are more likely to be one over the other.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> it's more observation-less experimentation with Ni -- Se/Si doms seem to require more tangible evidence/experience, while Ni often suffices with mental modeling and projections ... but i don't think this is particular to Ni ... and also process/result apparently matters in this whole observation business so it might not be influenced by one element:
> 
> "...Right and left types also differ in how they engage in scientific development. Right type of researcher will carefully collect facts about some problem that is of concern, processes them, derive a system, and formulate the resulting findings. Such path of formal or "correct" research meets the academic requirements for science. Unfortunately the probability of obtaining fundamentally new knowledge in this way is low. Left "informal" science is organized quite differently. It is based on putting forward hypotheses and schemes of a general nature that attempt to explain the nature of phenomenon that is under investigation in an informal setting without much consideration of accepted academic canons. Then the hypothesis or crude scheme is compared to the actual phenomenon. If it works, then it is accepted as a working model and made to undergo further revision. If the hypothesis proves to be unsuitable, then it is simply discarded as unreasonable. It is best when two-three models are developed side-by-side by "left" methods, and as a result of competition the one that is most viable wins.
> 
> Most of the results of socionics have been derived by left methods. It is understandable that the right formal academic science treats socionics with much skepticism. Socionics offers the finished product, but where is the process of lengthy and detailed research and studies? The solution of this problem is, of course, supplementing the quick but unreliable left approach to knowledge with the knowledge and research of the right approach - which is the only one that earns credibility in formal circles."


Thank you for clarifying, cyamitide. 

It's interesting that this particular divide is mentioned. Though I'd probably align myself with the result method of doing things, as someone who is hoping to enter research for the formal sciences I do see the value in having well tested knowledge and solid research to support a working theory. This makes me wonder if the same could be said of process types who entertain the more informal forms of science.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I have noticed that many mistype disputes occur when one person is Right and the other person is Left. The Right person identifies a running methodology as to how a certain type is justified, and the Left person has already determined their result and justifies it with whatever other results they think fit. 

It's rather irritating because I cannot judge it appropriate not having used a mechanical process to have justified one's type, but from more leftist methods the result follows result - because that "result" is not actually a "result" unless it has been justified by process. 

This seems to be a frequent issue with quasi id's.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Regardless, I still relate to Gulenko's definition of left more than right. I never cared much about achieving such rigid scientific results. One of the things that always bored me with the hard sciences.


Do you mean natural sciences by hard sciences? I don't see them as a necessarily formal thing.




ephemereality said:


> I also don't think relating necessarily indicates a strong likelihood that we are this or such way as it ultimately hinges on that we are capable of properly identifying what we are. I for some time thought I was a positivist too because I didn't think I tend to always see things negatively. I'm not a pessimist. It's just that in contrast to an actual positivist it's apparent that I am a negativist.


Actually negativism isn't simple pessimism.




cyamitide said:


> If kill4me is SLE then left/result trait is fitting to her, but your ILI self-typing doesn't match match the left trait.


Lol did you intentionally typo my nick? 




> I wanted to point it out for you since all ILIs I've met fit the right/process trait and very rigorously think over the details before building the cause-effect relationship between them, but due to this their thinking seems too elaborate, far-fetched and theoretical in comparison to left/result types like LII and IEI.


That doesn't really add up for me at this point. So ILIs think about details and then they seem theoretical because of that how? What kind of details?

Another comment, call it nitpicking if you want but it does bother me; I recall you originally thought of yourself as ILI and then when you decided you were a positivist you decided you had to be IEI...? If so, then your argument here about how all ILI's are right/process is kind of using invalid logic... especially if you use this sort of method to type/retype people at other times too. I mean, you going by reinin to decide type and then going by type to verify validity of reinin (or strength of correlations).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Lol did you intentionally typo my nick?


haha no just tired and recalling another poster who typed as SLE, who also seemed result, and got your nicks mixed up



itsme45 said:


> That doesn't really add up for me at this point. So ILIs think about details and then they seem theoretical because of that how? What kind of details?


may be this example of an ILI argument will be more illustrative of what I was talking about concerning "detail": http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...sual-footage!)?p=849296&viewfull=1#post849296

they start from details, for example some pieces of information that they have gathered about a person, then then from these details they build a series of causal statements towards some more generalized and abstracted conclusion



itsme45 said:


> Another comment, call it nitpicking if you want but it does bother me; I recall you originally thought of yourself as ILI and then when you decided you were a positivist you decided you had to be IEI...? If so, then your argument here about how all ILI's are right/process is kind of using invalid logic... especially if you use this sort of method to type/retype people at other times too. I mean, you going by reinin to decide type and then going by type to verify validity of reinin (or strength of correlations).


positivst-negativist is unrelated to process-result, so I don't understand what argument you're trying to make here


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Do you mean natural sciences by hard sciences? I don't see them as a necessarily formal thing.


I agree with your point, as biology has too many exceptions and complexities, plus areas like molecular biology still have unknown areas, as you can find different kind of biomolecules that were discovered by accident. Also chemistry is rather complex as well, as many calculations are done while resorting to assumptions that could be proven to be inaccurate or plain wrong, plus quantum mechanics is another difficult area. The thing is that merely gathering data isn't really helpful when you're dealing with the border between the known and unknown, and sciences aren't dogmatic, so left methods would be perfectly valid for such cases where you don't have any real certainity about a phenomenon, so any hypothesis can be plausible until there's a better ground for checking if the hypothesis can be proven by experiments.

There is some formal structure, but it isn't always that useful to be honest. I haven't done proper research, so I can't give a proper reply to your other question though.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> may be this example of an ILI argument will be more illustrative of what I was talking about concerning "detail": http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...sual-footage!)?p=849296&viewfull=1#post849296
> 
> they start from details, for example some pieces of information that they have gathered about a person, then then from these details they build a series of causal statements towards some more generalized and abstracted conclusion


okay thanks




> positivst-negativist is unrelated to process-result, so I don't understand what argument you're trying to make here


Yeah but IEI is result type too, that is, the opposite of ILI, so not unrelated in this case. Of course that is assuming that you also decided you were not a process type either or why would you have not stayed with ILI otherwise. But do let me know if that assumption is wrong.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

nvm


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah but IEI is result type too, that is, the opposite of ILI, so not unrelated in this case. Of course that is assuming that you also decided you were not a process type either or why would you have not stayed with ILI otherwise. But do let me know if that assumption is wrong.


i associate more with result, the time when i was considering ILI that was based on other dichotomies


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Do you mean natural sciences by hard sciences? I don't see them as a necessarily formal thing.


Poorly phrased. Perhaps I should have just called it sciences that rely heavily on formal methods. I often find it to be nitpicky in the wrong way and seems to miss the point or what makes the study interesting. 

Not because I am against methods, clearly we need some kind of methods to even achieve scientific results, so I guess it's more a conjunction of methods and the results that are achieved where I just see it as kind of boring and a little duh. 



> Actually negativism isn't simple pessimism.


No, but there's a correlation in that I think negativists are more likely to also hold some pessimist beliefs or mindsets.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Figure said:


> I have noticed that many mistype disputes occur when one person is Right and the other person is Left. The Right person identifies a running methodology as to how a certain type is justified, and the Left person has already determined their result and justifies it with whatever other results they think fit.


Not quite in my observations. I think you're mixing up left-result and right-process with Tactical-Strategic.

The Right type person identifies methodologies ONLY if they also happen to also be a Tactical type. What I've seen happen with Right + Strategists (like EIEs for example) is they aren't as concerned with methods and ways of getting there as they are concerned with reaching some goal that they have set for themselves. If they really want a certain person to be of certain type, then that becomes their goal towards which they build a strategy. Then they start recruiting other people (tactical types mostly) who will help them get there (by showing support for whoever is arguing alongside with them, for example). LIEs being strategic do the same thing as EIEs in attempting to "guide" others towards their goals, but LIE guidance is more democratic in comparison, like using simple slogans and phrases that would be easy to understand for anyone. At the same time LIE manipulations are more dangerous than EIE's for that very same reason (simplicity, catchiness, democratism, ease of gaining momentum).

On the other hand if you have Result + Tactical type (like IEE or IEI), then this person is flexible with the end goals. They aren't construing their actions step-by-step into some kind of extensive strategy that would help them reach some major goal. So what you're saying about Left person already determining the result, that's actually a Strategist. Result tacticals will mix and match, shuffle through their methods or tactics and see which one is most applicable.


----------

