Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
Process and result
¶
Process
/
Result
, also known as
Right
/
Left
or
Evolutory
/
Involutory
, is one of the 15
Reinin dichotomies <reinin_dich>
.
Process and result types
¶
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
.
Using the
four-letter code
: Process types are
xNTP, xSFP, xNFJ, xSTJ. Result types are xSFJ, xNTJ, xSTP, xNFP.
Typical characteristics
¶
Process types
¶
Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
Immersed to a process and inclined to single-tasking.
Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.
More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to
the end.
“Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct
procedure.”
Result types
¶
Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the
beginning.
Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
Focus on the beginning and the end of processes.
More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe
reading random paragraphs or chapters.
“Of course we followed the correct procedure, since we got the right
answer.”
Extended characteristics
¶
Description from
2003 Study of Reinin traits
¶
As a result of “renaming” of this dichotomy by V. Gulenko, confusion
arose. In A. Augustinavichjute [2] and G. Reinin [5] this dichotomy is
called “left - right” (Leftists types are ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI,
LSE and EII; Rightists types are ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and
SLI). We utilized in this article the more contemporary “opposite”
designations of V. Gulenko and T. Prokofieva (Leftists/Result types are
ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE and SLI, Rightists/Process types are -
ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE and EII). As the names of the
attributes do not determine the attributes themselves, the changing of
the names is an insignificant detail, but still mentioned in case one
encounters different classifications.
Process
¶
Process types perceive themselves “within the process”, they
“immerse” into it, become a part of it. Because of this, they have
great difficulty managing several processes at once.
Process types perceive the process as something whole, integral,
inseparable. They tend to follow through its course without
switching, as it is difficult for them to return to previously
started then abandoned processes (for them, returning back to the
track from which they “switched off” and continuing where they left
off is equivalent to starting anew).
Lexicon: frequent use of word “process”.
Result
¶
Result types place themselves “outside of a process”, they dissociate
from it. For them the situation, the process (what they are doing) is
something external to themselves, managed from aside. Because of
this, Result types can deal with multiple tasks/affairs
simultaneously, tracing the beginning and end of each (it is easier
for them to oversee several processes at one time).
Result types are inclined to make intermediate and final estimates,
to sum up the results or outputs. They are oriented towards the
result i.e. the finishing point of a process. They experience
discomfort if the matter in which they are involved does not have a
clearly delineated result. This happens because these types put
themselves outside of a process, thus they poorly monitor its
progressionthey use intermediate and final “result” estimates to
track the natural flow of the process.
Lexicon: in speech they often use words “beginning”, “end”, “stage”,
“interval”, “result”.
Notes
The basic difference between Process and Result types lies in their
approach towards a situation or a process correspondingly from
“within” and “without”, while orientation towards “process” or
“result” is a secondary aspect of this. For the Result types, making
estimations (the summing up of the process) is a tool they are forced
to use in order to feel the flow of the process. The Process types,
on the other hand, can “hang on” to a process because they do not
wish to “switch off” and lose contact before its completion when some
outcome is achieved.
The hypothesis about perfectionism of Process types was not confirmed
by this experiment. Most likely perfectionism is a personal trait
that is not connected to this attribute.
Hypotheses
This dichotomy is based on the features of placement and distribution of
attention as a mental function. It is possible that Process types have
have a greater level of stability and concentration of attention
(ability to focus on a single topic for prolonged period of time, even
in presence of distractions). Result types show an ability to
“distribute” their attention (to simultaneously pay attention to
multiple topics) and to “shift” their attention from one topic or
activity to another.
Examples
Right/process:
“Finishing something is not easy, it us also not easy
to start something, but the most difficult thing is to return to the
middle of something I’ve abandoned long time ago” “I read the book to
the end of the chapter and a several pages into the next chapter… the
thought of something coming to an end is frightening.” “God forbid that
I start a game of solitaire, I will “hang” with it for a long time
(regarding a computer game)” “It is difficult to force myself to
undertake a task, but afterwards it just rolls forward by itself.”
Left/result:
“The matter at hand must be known. If estimations are not
final, they must at least be intermediate.” “It is very interesting for
me to start or complete a matter… I like visualizing a finished
project or task.” “The most horrible thing is when something just won’t
end.” “I feel like a juggler; in my handsseveral activities
(processes). I am aware of two pointsthe beginning and the end.” “Why
can’t you simultaneously listen and eat?”
Description from
Forms of Cognition
by V. Gulenko
¶
In its most general form, I understand this dichotomy as ProcessResult;
or by its other informal name, RightLeft. More precisely, I refer to
the designated Latin words ‘evolutio’: “developing outward” and
‘involutio’: “coalescing inward.”
Intellectual Level
¶
Describing EvolutionInvolution at this level will initially contrast
deductive vs. inductive thinking. Unfortunately, the bulk of literature
on this cognitive dichotomy treats it in at least two different senses.
In the first sense, deduction is understood simply as a strict formal
sequence or expository progression of thought (aka Socionics
rationality), while induction is understood as conclusions stemming from
practical experience (aka Socionics irrationality).
I will frame this dichotomy in the second sense, namely as
simplification vs. complication of thought structure
. Meaning that in
deductive thinking, given a set of simple and obvious statements
(axioms, postulates), the resultant consequences can be necessarily
derived (theorem). Reasoning flows in the direction of simple to
complex. Evolutionary types therefore mentally complicate the situation.
In inductive thinking reasoning proceeds the other way around. Observing
and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive thinking reduces them to
generalized diagrams and models stripped of details. Involutionary types
break down and simplify the situation in order to understand it.
Reasoning flows in reverse order from complex to simple.
The EvolutionInvolution dichotomy confers different scales of
examination in a problem. Evolutionary types see small to large. Details
are distinct. Scale is specific and precise like geographical map.
Involutionary types on the other hand, see large to small. Details are
vague. Scale is general and broad. The scale will alternate in
Negativists, since they think more alternatively, but the same priority
will remain.
It is worth noting that deductive thinking has always had priority in
society over inductive thinking. Constructing a deductively consistent
theory to explain a phenomenon, has always been seen as a researcher’s
coup de grace.
Social Level
¶
On the social level, differences between these approaches can be
contrasted as naturality/artificiality. By ‘naturality’ I refer to
primal behavior inherent to nature, and by ‘artificiality’ I refer to
behavior accepted by society. For example, in nature, survival of the
fittest is law, whereas in society, protection and care of the weak is
cultivated.
From this stems distinctions in one’s attitudes towards people in close
or distant circles. In the life of Evolutionary types, reputation plays
a much greater role. Opinions of others in external society tend to be
more important to them than opinions of friends or relatives.
Involutionary types depend less on social appraisal. They are more
accommodating towards people of their inner circle, whose opinions they
hold in higher esteem than those of public approval or disapproval.
There is a habit in Involutionary types to abruptly curtail
conversations. They do not simply cut off communication, but
specifically wind it up, quickly finish, or summarize what has been
said. They may also suddenly deflect onto tangents, then flip back to
the topic at hand. Evolutionary types may interpret this mannerism as a
sign of tactlessness, disinterest, or resentment.
Psychological Level
¶
EvolutionInvolution, along with other dichotomies, influences a key
parameter of stress in the psyche: Control of asymmetry in the
excitatory/inhibitory processes of the nervous system.
Evolutionary types recover more slowly from stress than Involutionary
types. Their inhibitory processes are less amenable to conscious control
than their excitatory processes, hence their tendency to dwell on
personal issues. After being pulled in by any process, they are often
unable to get out of it. Which can lead to gambling, drug use,
alcoholism, or other vices, even Internet-addiction.
Consequently, susceptibility to conditioning is higher in Evolutionary
types than in Involutionary types. Conditioned responses require
movement along a single path, without possibility of turning around or
deviating from the imposed route. One of the inhibitory mechanisms of
conditioning is phobia (obsessive fear). Imagine not being able to rid
yourself of thinking you will definitely fall on a slippery road. This
is an example of a phobia. And then you actually do end up falling, even
if wearing mountain-climbing boots. According to my observations,
Involutionary types do not seriously suffer such phobias.
Thus, Involutionary types more rapidly and less painfully get rid of
illusions, imposed opinions, suggested thoughts, fanatic states, etc. It
is because of EvolutionInvolution differences that quadras are split
rings of social progress are formed.
Physical Level
¶
The EvolutionInvolution dichotomy manifests on the lower level of
communication through an orientation towards either process or result.
Evolutionary types are more inclined to procedure, which involves
careful study of details. They are subject to the logic of the
development process, which assumes motion from beginning to end and top
to bottom.
Involutionary types rush to obtain a result, frequently neglecting
details of the process, which reduces overall quality. Such behavioral
patterns lead to a tolerant attitude towards returns and corrections.
They don’t mind accepting suboptimal, but convenient solutions. They are
characterized by backward motion, from end to beginning and from bottom
to top.
Let me illustrate this by an example of reading books. Glancing
immediately at the end or bottom part of the page is characteristic for
Involutionary types. Reading in reverse order does not deprive them
pleasure of novelty, on the contrary, it stimulates their activity in
assimilating information. Involution shouldn’t be confused merely with
impatient skimming ahead, after which one continues smooth reading.
Sharpness of movement is observed in Involutionary types, along with
sporadic shifting from one activity to another. These sudden shifts
overtly contrast to the smoothness of Evolutionary types. In traditional
Socionics, sharp movements are attributed to Rationality. In my opinion,
however, this quality is more determined by Involution. For
counterexample, consider the Evolutionary Rational types
LSI
and
EII
, whose motions are characteristically soft and smooth. Yet the
nature of movement in Involutionary Irrationals
SLE
and
IEE
is so
sharp that training them smooth movement is practically impossible.
To clarify the fundamental distinction between Involution and Evolution,
the following analogy will help. In biology, catabolism and anabolism
are the two sides of organic metabolism. Catabolismthe breakdown of
complex compounds to release energy and the elimination of decay
products from the organismcorresponds to the role of Involutionary
types in group dynamics. Anabolismthe assimilation from the external
environment of substances necessary for life and their transformation
into more complex compoundscorresponds to the communicative role played
by Evolutionary behavior.
Additional Commentary and Notes
¶
Note: Process/Result trait is sometimes mistaken for intelligence level
of a person, as well as their natural tendency towards terseness or
prolixity. Victor Gulenko has described Process types as having an
inclination to “mentally complicate the situation”. Following this
reasoning, some typers attempt to draw direct correlations between
capacity for complex reasoning, tendency to debate complex topics, high
verbal intelligence and wordiness with Process trait, and conversely,
terseness and simplistic low intelligence reasoning to Result trait. The
complexity of thought that a person is capable of, as well as their
verbal aptitude, are not directly related to this socionics traits, and
care should be taken to not mistake the two.
Result types grasp the full picture at first, and this vision can quite
rich and complex due to person’s innate high intelligence or crude and
shallow if their intelligence is below average, however in both cases it
takes them a long time to attain this broad grasp. Once they learn all
that they needed to learn, it could be said, especially for Result
Ti-valuing types, that they end up being “above the system”, surveying
it whole as if from the top or from a distance, zooming in only later to
inspect its parts and details. While Process types associate with
internal processes, and end up being inside of the system, which they
see alike different pathways or lines that branch out in different
directions.
Result types do have a tendency towards terseness and “speaking in
conclusions” which they may be reluctant to expand. This sometimes is
taken as signs of low intellect. However, if required or prompted for
it, they can provide their full reasoning and supporting examples or
evidence, but they do so later, and often only with necessity,
preferring to conserving energy otherwise.
One method for distinguishing Process and Result types from written text
is to look for signs of
inductive vs. deductive reasoning
in writing.
Additional Links
¶
On the Essence of Vectors of Social Progress by Dovgan
-
further explanations and extrapolations of this dichotomy.
On Waves of Aging and Renewal: Progress Orientation in Combination with Jungian
Aspects
by Victor Gulenko.
Video Lecture: Why Right Types are More Susceptible to Suggestion
by Victor Gulenko.
Sociotypograph  determine your sociotype by Renin dichotomies
.
Theoretical properties
¶
Process
IM types
are either intuitive-logical,
logical-sensing, sensing-ethical, or ethical-intuitive.
Result
IM types
are either ethical-sensing,
sensing-logical, logical-intuitive, or intuitive-ethical.
Warning
The use of
plus and minus
IM elements is not supported by all socionists. Many see them as being logically superfluous.
Process
IM types
have a plus element in
base function
.
Result
IM types
have a minus element in
base function
.
Type
dichotomies
¶
Rationality and irrationality
Extraversion and introversion
Sensing and intuition
Ethics and logic
Static and dynamic
Process and result
Positivist and negativist
Asking and declaring
Constructivist and emotivist
Carefree and farsighted
Yielding and obstinate
Tactical and strategic
Merry and serious
Judicious and decisive
Asking and declaring