Right / left or evolution /involution, Process /result

[Deleted Member 44]

Right and Left in Socionics​

• The process IM types are (right or evolution) : ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII.
• The result IM types are (left or involution) : ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI.

Right and Left in socionics

In the most general form, this polarity is understood as the opposition of the processes of...

socioniks.net

 

[Deleted Member 44]

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."

 

[Deleted Member 44]

Evolution–Involution Dichotomy (Process-Result)​

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.