# Opening the can of worms of Process/Result Dichotomy



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I want to understand the Reinin dichotomies better 
and figured that creating a series of threads for that purpose is in order.
I have a basic understanding of them, but feel that I could learn more.
I'd like to work myself systematically through them
and have selected Process/Result as the next.

This is not an attempt to take a particular stance, 
so feel free to share whatever point of view seem relevant.
With whatever arguments that naturally follow.

Reading up on it I find that it seems complicated.
There seems like process is about following a process to completion.
While the other just tries to get the result as soon as possible.
Although this is probably a big oversimplification.

The source material I'm aware of can be found here under Evolution/Involution

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/786738-random-strat-stuff-fractals-reinin.html

Process and result - Wikisocion


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Hmm I find this a bit tricky.
Let me try to spell out my thinking.

Now trying to divide up the two groups into some sort of coherent units 
that mean something of relevant significance is the goal.

*Process:*
ILE and ILI, LSI and LSE, SEI and SEE, EIE and EII

(ILX, LSX, SEX, EIX) shortform.

*There are four dual pairs:*
ILE-SEI, ILI-SEE, LSE-EII, LSI-EIE

*MBTI form:*
ENTP-ISFJ, INTJ-ESFP, ESTJ-INFP, ISTP-ENFJ
*vs socio*
ENTp-ISFp, INTp-ESFp, ESTj-INFj, ISTj-ENFj
*vs cog function*
Ne/Ti-Si/Fe, Ni/Te-Se/Fi, Te/Si-Fi/Ne, Ti/Se-Fe/Ni

-----------------------------------------------------

*Result:*
ESE and ESI, LII and LIE, IEI and IEE, SLE and SLI

(ESX, LIX, IEX, SLX) shortform

*There are four dual pairs:*
ESE-LII, LIE-ESI, IEI-SLE, IEE-SLI

*MBTI form:*
ESFJ-INTP, ENTJ-ISFP, INFJ-ESTP, ENFP-ISTJ
*vs socio*
ESFj-INTj, ENTj-ISFj, INFp-ESTp, ENFp-ISTp
*vs cog function*
Fe/Si-Ti/Ne, Te/Ni-Fi-Se, Ni/Fe-Se/Ti, Ne/Fi-Si/Te

--------------------------------------------------------

*EDIT:*
As far as I can tell the main thing is that process types build,
while result types tend to break whatever is the subject of the information.
Or at least puts itself in a position to break.

LII breaks logic, ESE breaks the collective story.
IEI breaks core issues, SLE breaks objects.
ESI breaks values, LIE breaks systems.
IEE breaks possibilities, IEE breaks ideals.

I have no idea if what I just wrote is accurate at all,
but I need to write it down to have some sort of startingpoint to work out from.
Yet this doesn't really help all that much as I've just substituted result for break.

End of extra rant edit...


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

I wouldn't do the MBTI to Socionics over functions. That's usually broken on both ends.

It's a cycle of break/build within types as well. E.g., IEE breaks possibilities, builds relationships, breaks force, builds laws; SLI breaks Sensations, builds Work, breaks Time, builds Emotions.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

DavidH said:


> I wouldn't do the MBTI to Socionics over functions. That's usually broken on both ends.


Yeah, but since I create with +Ni, I'm not really interested in +Ti, 
a little brokenness there is not in the way of that.
I'm in other words looking for something else.
This other thing I'm looking for will not be of much interest to you with -Ni.
Hopefully that will not disuade you from having fruitful discussions about this topic regardless.
I've learned from dealing with +Ti types earlier, 
that they can be helpful in pointing out useful data to my patterns.
But, that when I'm trying to be creative they can be a little bit disruptive.
Insisting that what I'm dealing with is worthless.
They usually had the answer all along,
but didn't find it valuable, or at least had the capability to go there but didn't.
This I find is often a big cause of interpersonal friction.
More or less in the line of benefactor/beneficiary.
What I offer seem useless, what you offer is of use, but I hesitate to accept it.

*Edit02:*
The first edit means that what I just wrote is pretty much wrong...
*:Endedit*



> It's a cycle of break/build within types as well. E.g., IEE breaks possibilities, builds relationships, breaks force, builds laws; SLI breaks Sensations, builds Work, breaks Time, builds Emotions.


That is interesting, let me get the a diagram of that.










Argh different charts have different schemes....

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/6-Translation-Model-A

Who the fuck is right? :/

*Edit:*
Seems like the 16types overview is a big typo...
They explain it right over the top, but then continue to do it wrong in their examples.
Good job...


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Well, I'd probably refrain from utilizing personal anecdotes for creating logic and associations for stuff in Socionics, and just stick to what you gather from the sources them selves.

The schools don't agree on +/- in the Vital. They only agree on +/- in the Mental. Vital is you as an individual, which means in a group there's no real way to identify or observe such as you're in the Mental when in non-personal (familial, lovers, lifelong friends) groups.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Hmm...
I find a lot of issue up in the air now.
Let me try to sort this further.
*ILI*
*Ego-Block:* Build with Ni, Break with Te.
*Super-id-block:* Build with Fi, Break with Se.
*Super-ego-block:* Break with Fe, Build with Si.
*Id-block:* Break with Ne, Build with Ti.

*ESI*
*Ego-Block:* Break with Fi, Build with Se.
*Super-id-block:* Break with Ni, Build with Te.
*Super-ego-block:* Build with Ne, Break with Ti.
*Id-block:* Build with Fe, Break with Si.

Ah I think I have a pattern here.
Extroverted result types breaks the object, builds the subject. 
Introverted result types breaks the subject, builds the object.

Extroverted process types builds the object, breaks the subject.
Introverted process types builds the subject, breaks the object.

I name them External-breakers and External-builders, Internal-breakers and Internal-builders.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@*DavidH* 
Well whatever, I have a pattern.
I'll give that and the school that follows the benefit of the doubt until someone can convince me otherwise.

Onward to the next dicho... Carefree/Farsighted


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Red Magician said:


> Hmm...
> I find a lot of issue up in the air now.
> Let me try to sort this further.
> *ILI*
> ...


Another pattern I have noticed is that Process-types build by perceiving and break by judging in their ego block, whereas Result-types build by judging and break by perceiving. As such, your earlier hypothesis that Process-types build and Result-types break appears to be correct within the strict context of the user's ego block perceiving function.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

PiT said:


> Another pattern I have noticed is that Process-types build by perceiving and break by judging in their ego block, whereas Result-types build by judging and break by perceiving. As such, your earlier hypothesis that Process-types build and Result-types break appears to be correct within the strict context of the user's ego block perceiving function.


Well if you look at the information elements in this chart.










You will see that each type have pluses or minuses allocated to just one color.
That is the pattern.
And that is not contained to just the ego-block.
So either one breaks the intro or extroverted functions.
This follows a pattern that matches the dichotomy.
A visual representation if my explaination is too all over the place.
I have a tendency to not care about explaining the details very good, when I see the pattern myself.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Red Magician said:


> There seems like process is about following a process to completion.
> While the other just tries to get the result as soon as possible.
> Although this is probably a big oversimplification.


Basically the ones who use process aren't really looking for the final result, they aren't rushing the middle part to get to the end quickly, it's like all parts are one big thing or many big things and none of them are in a special higher hierarchy.

For result types, they may ignore minor details more often. For result types there will come a point where they wanna rush towards the end to get it over with or abandon the whole thing in the middle.

It kinda reminds me of Judger vs Perceiver in mbti, I could be wrong tho


----------

