Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 130

Thread: Discussion of Gulenko's Cognitive Styles

  1. #81
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Igxfl View Post
    Yeah, I'm aware of the terms rational/irrational having specialized meanings, but descriptions on both rationality and the causal-determinist style seem to heavily focus on rigidity.I'm not saying irrational types are "irrational" in the ordinary sense and unable to understand formal logic for that reason, it just seems like they wouldn't prefer it, as it requires a rather heavy focus on using accumulated past knowledge with which to deduce conclusions from.

    The main issue is that it doesn't seem that merely being static/dynamic, positivist/negativist, and process/result should be sufficient to deduce so complex and specific a cognitive style as any one of those described. I don't insist that this doesn't work, but just don't see enough proof, theoretical or evidential, to go for it.

    Labcoat, your descriptions don't seem strongly related to those in the article, although they seem like they might work anyway.
    I do like the idea of process = obstacle minded & result = opportunity minded, could you elaborate on that a bit?
    Fwiw, before you brought it up, I noticed the same discrepancy with Exxp and causal-determinist (including ILE). I'm trying to figure it out myself.

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, that's a major sticking point for me. Why are ILEs (Exxp) Causal-Determinist, and LIIs (Ixxj) Holographic? Based on the ones I know, it seems like they'd either be the other way around or completely irrelevant.

  3. #83
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,868
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Positive/Result/Dynamic: opportunity taking types
    Negative/Result/Static: rejecting/selecting types
    Negative/Process/Dynamic: criticizing types
    Positive/Process/Static: headlong problem-confronting types

    Process: obstacle-minded
    Result: opportunity-minded
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  4. #84
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:26 AM.

  5. #85
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    … or perhaps you're wrong about what ENTps and other types are actually like. Ever bother to consider that angle?

    Honestly, it sounds to me like you two are just butthurt because the descriptions didn't glorify ENTps as paragons of random eccentric visionary genius or whatever.
    Eh... lol. Not in my case. I don't care about being a genius. But I care even less about being Cartesian or Aristotle-like. I'm just some dude.

    It sounds to me like Igxfl is of the same mind, and is just confused on being associated with formal, rigid approaches (which is even sillier when applied to SEE btw). These statements don't seem like ILE or SEE to me:

    Its efficacy extends to the 'logical' formulation of already existing results, the construction of operating mechanisms, but not fundamentally new discoveries. The first dead end which formalization risks is scholasticism, i.e. pointless albeit logically impeccable reasoning. The second intellectual dead end faced by sequential Determinists is the trap of reductionism, which they fall into on account of fragmenting wholes into their component parts.

    Causal-Determinist cognition forges a mentality poorly protected from indoctrination, or in extreme cases, even brainwashing. By skillfully combining memorable words and actions, it is possible to gain control over the behavior of specific individuals. Intelligent Determinists in particular, are characterized by a strong dependence on the events of childhood, which Sigmund Freud discovered in his time, though poorly understood in full. Habits in pronounced Determinists are comparable in their rigidity to conditioned reflexes.

    Standard military interrogation procedures are designed to ensure guaranteed cause-effect impacts upon the psyche. It includes measures of exposure such as sleep deprivation, changes in room temperature and/or humidity, denial of food subsequently followed by its delivery as a reward, etc. Isolation of the detainee and the gradual imposition of regulations, bears fruit sooner or later. In time, the vulnerability of psychological destabilization is manufactured into dependence upon the interrogator.
    No one's protesting about not being a "genius" here. The confusion is on these types being labeled mechanistic, programmable robots.

    edit: Oh, and if that truly is the case, then sure I'm wrong. I admit it. I don't give a shit.

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    Post(s)
    Tagged
    Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't understand why Gulenko only bases it on three Reinin dichotomies... I thought that the purpose of type itself was to describe how people process information. Isn't this what cognition is?

  7. #87

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    … or perhaps you're wrong about what ENTps and other types are actually like. Ever bother to consider that angle?

    Honestly, it sounds to me like you two are just butthurt because the descriptions didn't glorify ENTps as paragons of random eccentric visionary genius or whatever.
    Could be. Would you like to provide some actual support of your ideas now?

    Quote Originally Posted by straytk View Post
    No one's protesting about not being a "genius" here. The confusion is on these types being labeled mechanistic, programmable robots.
    Yeah, this. If nothing else, the description for Causal-Determinist seems much more negative than the others, and, even discounting that, it doesn't match up with ILE, EII, or SEE at all. I could maybe see LSI thinking this way, but it's still far from definitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    I don't understand why Gulenko only bases it on three Reinin dichotomies... I thought that the purpose of type itself was to describe how people process information. Isn't this what cognition is?
    Good point. It does seem that the actual IM elements should have more effect than three Reinin dichotomies, and rather obscure +/- ones at that. I'm not totally sold on the +/- stuff.

    ...oh, and speaking of glorifying types as genius thinkers...
    Thinking geniuses are most likely the ultimate version of Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition. Its originality lies in free play of mind, boundless imagination, and daring synthesis of contrasts. Almost always, it accompanies negativity with respect to public opinion. Often possesses a mystical streak. If Western typology believes that brilliant thinkers belonged to a type, then in my opinion it would be EIE. Unbalanced nervous system, hot and restless heart, floods of idea associations—this would be the material from which nature sculpts geniuses.
    I mean, seriously? Bias time!

  8. #88
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nil View Post
    I don't understand why Gulenko only bases it on three Reinin dichotomies... I thought that the purpose of type itself was to describe how people process information. Isn't this what cognition is?
    Socionics derives its name from cybernetics, and is heavily influenced by it. Describing cognition is only a step in what it actually seeks to describe and predict, which is human relationships. It's easier to think of Socionics as describing people in terms of input (Base function--how we see the world and live as people) and output (Creative function--how we seek to interact with people socially, whether it be by creating a context for involving others (introverted creative functions), or by providing something of social worth (extraverted creative functions)).

  9. #89
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:26 AM.

  10. #90
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,741
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wow, when did these get cleaned up? Nice.

    I definitely identify with dialectical-algorithmic, though I've got to be honest, the vortex and holographic ones still seem really alien to me.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  11. #91
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I think it matches fine enough. For ILEs, if you read posts by HaveLucidDreamz, hkkmr, or jxrtes for example, it's fairly obvious.
    I haven't spoken enough with any of them besides Lucid, but they all appear more Ti than Ne (not to say they're not ILE. I think hkkmr in particular self-types as ILE-Ti). To say it's all so obviously ILE though is strange to hear from you in particular. I know you're not totally responsible for the socionix galleries, but I've complemented you on being well rounded in your typings (even when I disagree on some). By your own measure, these guys aren't that obvious. It's across the board. You've got Sandra Bullock, Steven Spielberg, Richard Dawkins, David Deutsch, Natalie Portman, Conan O'brien, David Duchovny, Bobby Fischer (who does remind me of Lucid actually), and John Goodman listed as ENTp. It's not about taking this too literally either.. it's hard to even spot in the abstract how some these individuals are particularly causal determinist. Igxfl just sounds like he wants your point of view on how it applies (in the abstract). It's not an excuse to be a dick to a new poster who's having a hard time finding new info, and only raising questions. Shit, I'll appeal to your ego and say that you should write a book while you're at it (ok, not really..).

  12. #92
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:26 AM.

  13. #93
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,403
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Egbert Human View Post
    Socionics derives its name from cybernetics, and is heavily influenced by it. Describing cognition is only a step in what it actually seeks to describe and predict, which is human relationships. It's easier to think of Socionics as describing people in terms of input (Base function--how we see the world and live as people) and output (Creative function--how we seek to interact with people socially, whether it be by creating a context for involving others (introverted creative functions), or by providing something of social worth (extraverted creative functions)).
    CAUSAL-DETERMINISTIC STYLE MANIFESTS IN GUL'S POST^^^

    "derives, only a step, describe and predict, input - output"

    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  14. #94
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,889
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Though I'm saying some of this again, it seems that I should

    I was initially shocked at how much of this lined up with my experiences as an SEE, and it would make sense that this form of reasoning would be the most potent in an LSI (and gives me even more confidence in Judge Judy as LSI):


  15. #95
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    CAUSAL-DETERMINISTIC STYLE MANIFESTS IN GUL'S POST^^^

    "derives, only a step, describe and predict, input - output"

    No.

    http://www.facebook.com/ghostyTricks...27998817276390

    Dialectical-algorithmic, motherfucker. Read it and weep bitter tears of you're a fucknut

    Cliff's notes:

    Look at the sudden lightbulb moment where I go "Splat!" and change the way I understand something. "Aha, but not quite."

    Also look at how I frame everything as a question-and-answer session. This is what my ongoing internal monologue looks like. Splatty starbursts and ongoing dialectical arguments against invisible question- and challenge-posers.

    IT ISN'T COMPLICATED.

  16. #96
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,403
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Egbert Human View Post
    No.

    http://www.facebook.com/ghostyTricks...27998817276390

    Dialectical-algorithmic, motherfucker. Read it and weep bitter tears of you're a fucknut

    Cliff's notes:

    Look at the sudden lightbulb moment where I go "Splat!" and change the way I understand something. "Aha, but not quite."

    Also look at how I frame everything as a question-and-answer session. This is what my ongoing internal monologue looks like. Splatty starbursts and ongoing dialectical arguments against invisible question- and challenge-posers.

    IT ISN'T COMPLICATED.
    lol that was a fun read. So, do you relate more to the "asker" or "declarer" dichotomy?

    .


    .



    ...




    ..................





    .................................................. ........................................






    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  17. #97
    Creepy-male

    Default



    Already demonstrated not to be what it says on the tin.

    Try again.

    And anyway that pretty clearly demonstrated a Declarer EPIC RAMBLE. And guess which type is a Declarer, and which type isn't.

    Hint: both of them are within the types you and I think I am.

  18. #98
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,403
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @gul: fair enough, might be a bullshit dichotomy.


    might be.


    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  19. #99
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,068
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Four Philosophical Endgames derived from Aristotle's Four Causes and Gulenko's Cognitive Styles:


    Process Dual Pairings

    Causal-Determinist - ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
    Efficient Cause - Who made it?
    Who made the universe?

    Dialectical-Algorithmic - EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI
    Final Cause - What is it being made for?
    What purpose does the universe serve?


    Results Dual Pairings
    Holographical - SLE, LII, IEE, ESI
    Formal Cause - What is it that is being made?
    What exactly is the whole universe?

    Vortical - ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI
    Material Cause - What is a thing made of?
    What is the universe made of?

    Do they seem to match at all?

    EDIT: Also after reading the entire Cognitive Styles article I'm convinced Carl Sagan is either LII or IEE
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  20. #100
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,699
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dialectical Algorithmic



    Characterized by one-on-one discourse. High susceptibility to energetic fluctuation as questions and ruminations are passed back and forth. Perspectives are challenged with the goal of either widening the other's ignorant perspective, or relieving the Self of one's own unanswered questions. Dualistic in nature, universal thinking. Expectation of false dilemmas. Understanding both contradictory perspectives of an issue, in full, leads to a transcendence. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

    This cognitive style in action can also be characterized by sexual intercourse: IN OUT-IN OUT-IN OUT-IN OUT...Ad nauseam or until a realization is reached(a seed is produced).

    Visual representations:


    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  21. #101

    Default i am sorry but wtf are the cognitive styles

    i want the cognitive styles dumbed down in a way i can understand them better because i'm really fucking confused. i've tried reading the article that ashton translated and i see a lot of words that describe stuff out in outer space that i can't connect to anything on earth, i need it Si-itized or expat-itized or something. the threads so far here have been a little helpful but i still am not grasping it. i'm not the only one, am i? please don't snob at me, the common people want to know this stuff too.

    is it something sort of like:

    CD: step-by-step logic, cause and effect
    DA: looking at/reconciling both sides of the problem
    HP: getting a gestalt picture and working from there
    VS: wtf? picking the important stuff out of the flow?

    maybe examples would help, like people or quotes demonstrating a certain style. or maybe seeing how the styles might contrast or complement in intertype relationships.

  22. #102
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,741
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know what you mean. Cause-effect and dialectic-algorithmic are the only ones I can comprehend. Maybe that's part of the deal though. Some ways of thinking are too freaking strange to communicate if you don't speak the lingo. Who knows.

  23. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    I know what you mean. Cause-effect and dialectic-algorithmic are the only ones I can comprehend.
    thank you!

    Quote Originally Posted by munenori2 View Post
    Maybe that's part of the deal though. Some ways of thinking are too freaking strange to communicate if you don't speak the lingo. Who knows.
    nooooooooooooooooo

  24. #104
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,889
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's the best example of Causal-Deterministic logic in action I can find (from LSI Judge Judy):



    I'll personally have a tough time finding solid examples of the others in action, due to me not having any first-hand experience actually carrying them out myself, but if I find something solid, I'll send it your way

  25. #105
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:20 AM.

  26. #106
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:20 AM.

  27. #107
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dynamic Process - Programmed Algorithms
    Static Process - Causes and Effects
    Dynamic Result - Chaotic Thresholds
    Static Result - Fundamental Definitions

  28. #108
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    482
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do CD, DA, HP and VS stand for and what types belong in each group?

  29. #109
    The Looks stanprollyright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    In your pants
    TIM
    IEE-Ne cp 6w7 sx/so
    Posts
    555
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by detail View Post
    What do CD, DA, HP and VS stand for and what types belong in each group?
    Everything we are talking about is from this article:
    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ve_Styles(wiki)
    Stan is not my real name.

  30. #110
    detail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    482
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stanprollyright View Post
    Everything we are talking about is from this article:
    http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ve_Styles(wiki)
    Thanks!

  31. #111
    ഗന᎕ᒹ ±ᗉᚔXᙂഗ woofwoofl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    TIM
    x s x p s p s x
    Posts
    1,889
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Knight View Post
    I thought you endorsed Reinin dichotomies? I mean, really, all this strikes me as is taking a given type's Reinin dichotomies and extrapolating how that type would think based on them.
    anything that narrows things down by 75% and cuts evenly through quadra boundaries is awesome with me! one of the most valuable things to figure out, I think...

    Quote Originally Posted by detail View Post
    What do CD, DA, HP and VS stand for and what types belong in each group?
    Oh hell yeah! check this out! I posted this elsewhere, but here's a good place for it too (once again, check here for descriptions/info in the Wikisocion) - everything is color-coded in such a way that Duality partners have colors across the color wheel, Activity partners have complementary colors, and Conflictors have colors that clash... anyways, here we go!


    Causal-Deterministic (positivist, process)
    Dialectical-Algorithmic (negativist, process)
    Vortical-Synergetic (positivist, result)
    Holographical-Panoramic (negativist, result)


    Identity:

    ILE (cd) - ILE (cd)
    SEI (da) - SEI (da)
    ESE (vs) - ESE (vs)
    LII (hp) - LII (hp)

    EIE (da) - EIE (da)
    LSI (cd) - LSI (cd)
    SLE (hp) - SLE (hp)
    IEI (vs) - IEI (vs)

    SEE (cd) - SEE (cd)
    ILI (da) - ILI (da)
    LIE (vs) - LIE (vs)
    ESI (hp) - ESI (hp)

    LSE (da) - LSE (da)
    EII (cd) - EII (cd)
    IEE (hp) - IEE (hp)
    SLI (vs) - SLI (vs)


    Duality:

    ILE (cd) - SEI (da)
    SEI (da) - ILE (cd)
    ESE (vs) - LII (hp)
    LII (hp) - ESE (vs)

    EIE (da) - LSI (cd)
    LSI (cd) - EIE (da)
    SLE (hp) - IEI (vs)
    IEI (vs) - SLE (hp)

    SEE (cd) - ILI (da)
    ILI (da) - SEE (cd)
    LIE (vs) - ESI (hp)
    ESI (hp) - LIE (vs)

    LSE (da) - EII (cd)
    EII (cd) - LSE (da)
    IEE (hp) - SLI (vs)
    SLI (vs) - IEE (hp)


    Activity:

    ILE (cd) - ESE (vs)
    SEI (da) - LII (hp)
    ESE (vs) - ILE (cd)
    LII (hp) - SEI (da)

    EIE (da) - SLE (hp)
    LSI (cd) - IEI (vs)
    SLE (hp) - EIE (da)
    IEI (vs) - LSI (cd)

    SEE (cd) - LIE (vs)
    ILI (da) - ESI (hp)
    LIE (vs) - SEE (cd)
    ESI (hp) - ILI (da)

    LSE (da) - IEE (hp)
    EII (cd) - SLI (vs)
    IEE (hp) - LSE (da)
    SLI (vs) - EII (cd)


    Mirror:

    ILE (cd) - LII (hp)
    SEI (da) - ESE (vs)
    ESE (vs) - SEI (da)
    LII (hp) - ILE (cd)

    EIE (da) - IEI (vs)
    LSI (cd) - SLE (hp)
    SLE (hp) - LSI (cd)
    IEI (vs) - EIE (da)

    SEE (cd) - ESI (hp)
    ILI (da) - LIE (vs)
    LIE (vs) - ILI (da)
    ESI (hp) - SEE (cd)

    LSE (da) - SLI (vs)
    EII (cd) - IEE (hp)
    IEE (hp) - EII (cd)
    SLI (vs) - LSE (da)


    Semi-Duality:

    ILE (cd) - SLI (vs)
    SEI (da) - IEE (hp)
    ESE (vs) - LSI (cd)
    LII (hp) - EIE (da)

    EIE (da) - LII (hp)
    LSI (cd) - ESE (vs)
    SLE (hp) - ILI (da)
    IEI (vs) - SEE (cd)

    SEE (cd) - IEI (vs)
    ILI (da) - SLE (hp)
    LIE (vs) - EII (cd)
    ESI (hp) - LSE (da)

    LSE (da) - ESI (hp)
    EII (cd) - LIE (vs)
    IEE (hp) - SEI (da)
    SLI (vs) - ILE (cd)


    Comparative:

    ILE (cd) - IEE (hp)
    SEI (da) - SLI (vs)
    ESE (vs) - EIE (da)
    LII (hp) - LSI (cd)

    EIE (da) - ESE (vs)
    LSI (cd) - LII (hp)
    SLE (hp) - SEE (cd)
    IEI (vs) - ILI (da)

    SEE (cd) - SLE (hp)
    ILI (da) - IEI (vs)
    LIE (vs) - LSE (da)
    ESI (hp) - EII (cd)

    LSE (da) - LIE (vs)
    EII (cd) - ESI (hp)
    IEE (hp) - ILE (cd)
    SLI (vs) - SEI (da)


    Conflicting:

    ILE (cd) - ESI (hp)
    SEI (da) - LIE (vs)
    ESE (vs) - ILI (da)
    LII (hp) - SEE (cd)

    EIE (da) - SLI (vs)
    LSI (cd) - IEE (hp)
    SLE (hp) - EII (cd)
    IEI (vs) - LSE (da)

    SEE (cd) - LII (hp)
    ILI (da) - ESE (vs)
    LIE (vs) - SEI (da)
    ESI (hp) - ILE (cd)

    LSE (da) - IEI (vs)
    EII (cd) - SLE (hp)
    IEE (hp) - LSI (cd)
    SLI (vs) - EIE (da)


    Super-Ego:

    ILE (cd) - SEE (cd)
    SEI (da) - ILI (da)
    ESE (vs) - LIE (vs)
    LII (hp) - ESI (hp)

    EIE (da) - LSE (da)
    LSI (cd) - EII (cd)
    SLE (hp) - IEE (hp)
    IEI (vs) - SLI (vs)

    SEE (cd) - ILE (cd)
    ILI (da) - SEI (da)
    LIE (vs) - ESE (vs)
    ESI (hp) - LII (hp)

    LSE (da) - EIE (da)
    EII (cd) - LSI (cd)
    IEE (hp) - SLE (hp)
    SLI (vs) - IEI (vs)


    Quasi-Identical:

    ILE (cd) - LIE (vs)
    SEI (da) - ESI (hp)
    ESE (vs) - SEE (cd)
    LII (hp) - ILI (da)

    EIE (da) - IEE (hp)
    LSI (cd) - SLI (vs)
    SLE (hp) - LSE (da)
    IEI (vs) - EII (cd)

    SEE (cd) - ESE (vs)
    ILI (da) - LII (hp)
    LIE (vs) - ILE (cd)
    ESI (hp) - SEI (da)

    LSE (da) - SLE (hp)
    EII (cd) - IEI (vs)
    IEE (hp) - EIE (da)
    SLI (vs) - LSI (cd)


    Contrary:

    ILE (cd) - ILI (da)
    SEI (da) - SEE (cd)
    ESE (vs) - ESI (hp)
    LII (hp) - LIE (vs)

    EIE (da) - EII (cd)
    LSI (cd) - LSE (da)
    SLE (hp) - SLI (vs)
    IEI (vs) - IEE (hp)

    SEE (cd) - SEI (da)
    ILI (da) - ILE (cd)
    LIE (vs) - LII (hp)
    ESI (hp) - ESE (vs)

    LSE (da) - LSI (cd)
    EII (cd) - EIE (da)
    IEE (hp) - IEI (vs)
    SLI (vs) - SLE (hp)


    Illusionary:

    ILE (cd) - IEI (vs)
    SEI (da) - SLE (hp)
    ESE (vs) - EII (cd)
    LII (hp) - LSE (da)

    EIE (da) - ESI (hp)
    LSI (cd) - LIE (vs)
    SLE (hp) - SEI (da)
    IEI (vs) - ILE (cd)

    SEE (cd) - SLI (vs)
    ILI (da) - IEE (hp)
    LIE (vs) - LSI (cd)
    ESI (hp) - EIE (da)

    LSE (da) - LII (hp)
    EII (cd) - ESE (vs)
    IEE (hp) - ILI (da)
    SLI (vs) - SEE (cd)


    Look-a-like:

    ILE (cd) - SLE (hp)
    SEI (da) - IEI (vs)
    ESE (vs) - LSE (da)
    LII (hp) - EII (cd)

    EIE (da) - LIE (vs)
    LSI (cd) - ESI (hp)
    SLE (hp) - ILE (cd)
    IEI (vs) - SEI (da)

    SEE (cd) - IEE (hp)
    ILI (da) - SLI (vs)
    LIE (vs) - EIE (da)
    ESI (hp) - LSI (cd)

    LSE (da) - ESE (vs)
    EII (cd) - LII (hp)
    IEE (hp) - SEE (cd)
    SLI (vs) - ILI (da)


    Benefit:

    ILE (cd) -> EIE (da)
    SEI (da) -> LSI (cd)
    ESE (vs) -> IEE (hp)
    LII (hp) -> SLI (vs)

    EIE (da) -> SEE (cd)
    LSI (cd) -> ILI (da)
    SLE (hp) -> ESE (vs)
    IEI (vs) -> LII (hp)

    SEE (cd) -> LSE (da)
    ILI (da) -> EII (cd)
    LIE (vs) -> SLE (hp)
    ESI (hp) -> IEI (vs)

    LSE (da) -> ILE (cd)
    EII (cd) -> SEI (da)
    IEE (hp) -> LIE (vs)
    SLI (vs) -> ESI (hp)

    ILE (cd) -> EIE (da) -> SEE (cd) -> LSE (da) -> ILE (cd)
    SEI (da) -> LSI (cd) -> ILI (da) -> EII (cd) -> SEI (da)

    ESE (vs) -> IEE (hp) -> LIE (vs) -> SLE (hp) -> ESE (vs)
    LII (hp) -> SLI (vs) -> ESI (hp) -> IEI (vs) -> LII (hp)


    Supervision:

    ILE (cd) -> LSI (cd)
    SEI (da) -> EIE (da)
    ESE (vs) -> SLI (vs)
    LII (hp) -> IEE (hp)

    EIE (da) -> ILI (da)
    LSI (cd) -> SEE (cd)
    SLE (hp) -> LII (hp)
    IEI (vs) -> ESE (vs)

    SEE (cd) -> EII (cd)
    ILI (da) -> LSE (da)
    LIE (vs) -> IEI (vs)
    ESI (hp) -> SLE (hp)

    LSE (da) -> SEI (da)
    EII (cd) -> ILE (cd)
    IEE (hp) -> ESI (hp)
    SLI (vs) -> LIE (vs)

    ILE (cd) -> LSI (cd) -> SEE (cd) -> EII (cd) -> ILE (cd)
    SEI (da) -> EIE (da) -> ILI (da) -> LSE (da) -> SEI (da)

    ESE (vs) -> SLI (vs) -> LIE (vs) -> IEI (vs) -> ESE (vs)
    LII (hp) -> IEE (hp) -> ESI (hp) -> SLE (hp) -> LII (hp)

  32. #112
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,699
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Four Philosophical Endgames derived from Aristotle's Four Causes and Gulenko's Cognitive Styles:


    Process Dual Pairings

    Causal-Determinist - ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
    Efficient Cause - Who made it?
    Who made the universe?

    Dialectical-Algorithmic - EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI
    Final Cause - What is it being made for?
    What purpose does the universe serve?


    Results Dual Pairings
    Holographical - SLE, LII, IEE, ESI
    Formal Cause - What is it that is being made?
    What exactly is the whole universe?

    Vortical - ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI
    Material Cause - What is a thing made of?
    What is the universe made of?

    Do they seem to match at all?

    EDIT: Also after reading the entire Cognitive Styles article I'm convinced Carl Sagan is either LII or IEE
    Found this interesting article on the net:
    http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm

    Excerpt:

    Static vs. Dynamic Causes

    Matter and form are two of the four causes, or explanatory factors. They are used to analyze the world statically - they tell us how it is at a given moment. But they do not tell us how it came to be that way. For that we need to look at things dynamically - we need to look at causes that explain why matter has come to be formed in the way that it has. Change consists in matter taking on (or losing) form. Efficient and final causes are used to explain why change occurs.

    This is easiest to see in the case of an artifact, like a statue or a table. The table has come into existence because the carpenter put the form of the table (which he had in his mind) into the wood of which the table is composed. The carpenter has done this for the purpose of creating something he can write on or eat on. (Or, more likely, that he can sell to someone who wants it for that purpose.) This is a teleological explanation of there being a table.

    This seems like a plausible doctrine about artifacts : they can be explained both statically (what they are, and what they’re made of) and dynamically (how they came to be, and what they are for).
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  33. #113
    The Iniquitous inumbra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    954
    Posts
    5,996
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    THANKS FOR POSTING THE LINK AND PUTTING ALL OF THAT ON WIKISOCION. I MEAN IT.

  34. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Kudos for this thread.

    And I admit: I don't get them either. I presume they are there, but Gulenko's explanation is incoherent.

  35. #115
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,071
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    i want the cognitive styles dumbed down in a way i can understand them better because i'm really fucking confused. i've tried reading the article that ashton translated and i see a lot of words that describe stuff out in outer space that i can't connect to anything on earth, i need it Si-itized or expat-itized or something. the threads so far here have been a little helpful but i still am not grasping it. i'm not the only one, am i? please don't snob at me, the common people want to know this stuff too.

    is it something sort of like:

    CD: step-by-step logic, cause and effect
    DA: looking at/reconciling both sides of the problem
    HP: getting a gestalt picture and working from there
    VS: wtf? picking the important stuff out of the flow?

    maybe examples would help, like people or quotes demonstrating a certain style. or maybe seeing how the styles might contrast or complement in intertype relationships.
    I was a bit frustrated too in having to decipher all this academically written crap. I'll go ahead and share my understanding of this shit after contemplating on it:

    C-D: This cognition is best characterized by of thinking of things in terms of slow, gradual progression forward, which usually manifest as a high level conscientiousness. The are predisposed towards devotion to social organizations and tend to be the most conformist of the types. (conformity to the culture they were raised into, not necessarily pop culture). This is a little less obvious in ILE and SEE than it is in LSI and EII but can still be seen if you observe closely. SEE tends to keep "giving it their all" to an organization until they eventually reach the top, while ILE often endures high levels of formal education in scientific fields in order to help them eventually make breaking discoveries. These types dislike chaos/unruliness because it threatens to destroy what they have worked hard to help build and maintain. The main strength of this cognition is it's endurance while it's main weakness is it's narrow scope.

    D-A: Ehh, reading about this one doesn't really register with me. I would say however that these types are the most proactive in making changes they see as necessary. They are often religious because the good vs evil theme in many religions matches with their cognition of seeing things as this against that. I would also say these types tend to be the fussiest and more likely then other types to question and challenge others/society in some way.

    H-P: T most guarded, self-preservatory way of thinking. H-P types tend to be the most alienated and separate from society and are reluctant to make binding commitments. They easily see the potential for harm towards themselves and are thus hard to manipulate into doing things that offer no benefit towards themselves. I would also say H-P types are more content then other types at living at in a low-economic status since they are better able to enjoy things at relative value and are stimulated when they need to fight for basic needs. H-P seeks to distance itself from the delusions of others. H-P's main advantage is its ability to avoid bullshit while its main disadvantage is its difficulty integrating into society.

    V-S: The most optimistic and risk taking cognition. V-S types are best characterized by extreme ups and downs in their lives. The keep searching for and doing new things without giving much attention to the potential negatives. Their lives are full of chaotic events, such as ESE having family drama, SLI engaging in delinquent behavior, LIE investing all his money into something then losing it, IEI trying to commit suicide, etc. V-S's main advantage is its high potential for reward and it's main disadvantage is its high risk. The duality between H-P and V-S is all about H-P being able to minimize risk while V-S maximizes potential for gain.

  36. #116
    tejing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    California
    TIM
    LII-H
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    i want the cognitive styles dumbed down in a way i can understand them better because i'm really fucking confused. i've tried reading the article that ashton translated and i see a lot of words that describe stuff out in outer space that i can't connect to anything on earth, i need it Si-itized or expat-itized or something. the threads so far here have been a little helpful but i still am not grasping it. i'm not the only one, am i? please don't snob at me, the common people want to know this stuff too.

    is it something sort of like:

    CD: step-by-step logic, cause and effect
    DA: looking at/reconciling both sides of the problem
    HP: getting a gestalt picture and working from there
    VS: wtf? picking the important stuff out of the flow?

    maybe examples would help, like people or quotes demonstrating a certain style. or maybe seeing how the styles might contrast or complement in intertype relationships.
    Your C-D and D-A descriptions seem all right, but I would say H-P is more like unifying multiple possibly incomplete perspectives, and V-S is like evolving thoughts through chaos and selection (essentially guided chaos).

    Also note that this describes what the mental ring works like. The vital ring will work kind of like the dual's mental ring.
    Valued | Devalued
    < | < | Conscious
    < | < | Unconscious

  37. #117

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,163
    Mentioned
    251 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    All this is not socionics but just an unproved heresy.

  38. #118
    Poster Nutbag chips and underwear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne, 6w7 sp/so
    Posts
    4,023
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddytextures View Post
    I was a bit frustrated too in having to decipher all this academically written crap. I'll go ahead and share my understanding of this shit after contemplating on it:

    C-D: This cognition is best characterized by of thinking of things in terms of slow, gradual progression forward, which usually manifest as a high level conscientiousness. The are predisposed towards devotion to social organizations and tend to be the most conformist of the types. (conformity to the culture they were raised into, not necessarily pop culture). This is a little less obvious in ILE and SEE than it is in LSI and EII but can still be seen if you observe closely. SEE tends to keep "giving it their all" to an organization until they eventually reach the top, while ILE often endures high levels of formal education in scientific fields in order to help them eventually make breaking discoveries. These types dislike chaos/unruliness because it threatens to destroy what they have worked hard to help build and maintain. The main strength of this cognition is it's endurance while it's main weakness is it's narrow scope.

    D-A: Ehh, reading about this one doesn't really register with me. I would say however that these types are the most proactive in making changes they see as necessary. They are often religious because the good vs evil theme in many religions matches with their cognition of seeing things as this against that. I would also say these types tend to be the fussiest and more likely then other types to question and challenge others/society in some way.

    H-P: T most guarded, self-preservatory way of thinking. H-P types tend to be the most alienated and separate from society and are reluctant to make binding commitments. They easily see the potential for harm towards themselves and are thus hard to manipulate into doing things that offer no benefit towards themselves. I would also say H-P types are more content then other types at living at in a low-economic status since they are better able to enjoy things at relative value and are stimulated when they need to fight for basic needs. H-P seeks to distance itself from the delusions of others. H-P's main advantage is its ability to avoid bullshit while its main disadvantage is its difficulty integrating into society.

    V-S: The most optimistic and risk taking cognition. V-S types are best characterized by extreme ups and downs in their lives. The keep searching for and doing new things without giving much attention to the potential negatives. Their lives are full of chaotic events, such as ESE having family drama, SLI engaging in delinquent behavior, LIE investing all his money into something then losing it, IEI trying to commit suicide, etc. V-S's main advantage is its high potential for reward and it's main disadvantage is its high risk. The duality between H-P and V-S is all about H-P being able to minimize risk while V-S maximizes potential for gain.
    I'd say going by these descriptions, I fit H-P the best which is consistent with my socionics type.
    I'm not sure how accurate the V-S description would be for the rational types ESE and LIE. It seems like they would want more stability in their lives. LIE might make risky investments but it's still a calculated risk and there are multiple scenarios planned in case it doesn't work.


    Quote Originally Posted by tejing View Post
    Your C-D and D-A descriptions seem all right, but I would say H-P is more like unifying multiple possibly incomplete perspectives, and V-S is like evolving thoughts through chaos and selection (essentially guided chaos).

    Also note that this describes what the mental ring works like. The vital ring will work kind of like the dual's mental ring.
    The unifying multiple possible incomplete perspectives is what I do as an LII. I'm not sure about the other 3 H-P types.

    Can you give an example of evolving thoughts through chaos and selection? How would that look in everyday life?





  39. #119
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,071
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chips and underwear View Post
    I'm not sure how accurate the V-S description would be for the rational types ESE and LIE. It seems like they would want more stability in their lives. LIE might make risky investments but it's still a calculated risk and there are multiple scenarios planned in case it doesn't work.
    I have an ESE friend on that I get to observe on facebook. Even though he wants a stable life, he often ends up doing reckless things and landing himself in deep shit a lot of times due to his lack of foresight. Relationship problems, taking on too many unnecessary expenses and having trouble paying bills, putting himself at risk by having unprotected sex with multiple women, getting in car accidents, etc. Its with things like this where they need an LII who can help them see things from a sensible prospective and help them avoid getting into these sticky situations. I don't know any LIEs personally but I would imagine the same kind of thing applies for them in spite of their rationality.

  40. #120
    Poster Nutbag chips and underwear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne, 6w7 sp/so
    Posts
    4,023
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddytextures View Post
    I have an ESE friend on that I get to observe on facebook. Even though he wants a stable life, he ends up doing reckless things and landing himself in deep shit a lot of times. Relationship problems, taking on too many unnecessary expenses and having trouble paying bills, putting himself at risk by having unprotected sex with multiple women, getting in car accidents, etc. Its with things like this where they need an LII who can help them see things from a sensible prospective and help them avoid getting into these sticky situations. I don't know any LIEs personally but I would imagine the same kind of thing applies for them in spite of their rationality.
    Sometimes I wonder how V-S types can be so careless. I tend to err on the overly cautious side. Maybe I need a V-S dual to balance me out.

    Or maybe Gulenko Cognitive Styles are bullshit.





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •