Process and result

Process / Result, also known as Right / Left or Evolutory / Involutory, is one of the 15 Reinin dichotomies.

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.

ILE

SEI

ESE

LII

EIE

LSI

SLE

IEI

SEE

ILI

LIE

ESI

LSE

EII

IEE

SLI

Process

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Result

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Typical characteristics

Process types

1. Do things sequentially, from the beginning to the end.
2. Immersed to a process and inclined to single-tasking.
3. Focus between the beginning and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer from beginning to the end.
5. "Of course the answer is right, since we followed the correct procedure."

Result types

1. Do things randomly, seemingly doing them from the end to the beginning.
2. Detached from processes and tends to multitasking.
3. Focus on the beginning and the end of processes.
4. More inclined to read texts on books or computer randomly, maybe reading random paragraphs or chapters.
5. "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 progression—they 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

1. 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.
2. 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 hands—several activities (processes). I am aware of two points—the 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 Process–Result; or by its other informal name, Right–Left. More precisely, I refer to the designated Latin words 'evolutio': "developing outward" and 'involutio': "coalescing inward."

Intellectual Level

Describing Evolution–Involution 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 Evolution–Involution 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

Evolution–Involution, 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 Evolution–Involution differences that quadras are split rings of social progress are formed.

Physical Level

The Evolution–Involution 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. Catabolism—the breakdown of complex compounds to release energy and the elimination of decay products from the organism—corresponds to the role of Involutionary types in group dynamics. Anabolism—the assimilation from the external environment of substances necessary for life and their transformation into more complex compounds—corresponds 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.

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.