Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 130

Thread: Discussion of Gulenko's Cognitive Styles

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Discussion of Gulenko's Cognitive Styles

    The original article in automatic translation has been replaced with a finished translation.


    Forms of Cognition
    by Victor Gulenko

    English translation from original publication in Journal "Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology", N 4, 2002

    The manifestations of three dichotomies: Static–Dynamic, Positivism–Negativism, and Evolution–Involution; examined on four levels: intellectual, social, psychological, and physical. From these dichotomies are identified the cognitive styles corresponding to Sociotypes. The features of Causal-Determinist, Dialectical-Algorithmic, Holographical-Panoramic, and Vortical-Synergetic forms of cognition are described. Also explored is their formative influence on modern philosophical paradigms and the special role of Supervision rings in societal transmission of information.
    Keywords: Socionics, psychology, cognition, static, dynamic, positivism, negativism, evolution, involution, information metabolism, synergetics, Supervision relations




    From the standpoint of their structure, cognition in my opinion is most successfully modeled by combinations of these three dichotomies: Static–Dynamic, Positivism–Negativism, and Evolution–Involution. Why these? I came to understand this relationship in two ways. First, I noted that the most rapid and complete exchange of information occurs through Supervision rings, which are formed by these dichotomies. Second, finding Socionics analogies to other models of comprehending reality (worldviews) I found that information exchange in each of the four Supervision rings embodied fundamental forms of intellectual activity found across the history of established thought.

    If my conclusions are valid, then the mental activity of Supervision rings constitutes that which cognitive psychology typically refers to as styles (or forms) of cognition. A strict deductive proof of this theory is not my aim. Instead I will simply present the results obtained. Coming from the practice of consultation, teaching, and training work, inductive generalizations have more weight for me than the mathematical calculations so dear to the hearts of some Socionists.

    How do you determine that a person is actively thinking? Let us examine from the side. He first loses internal composure, then recovers it (he is using Static–Dynamic). First doubts, then confidently asserts something (he using Negativism–Positivism). First specifies concretely, then generalizes, moving from one logical level to another (a process controlled by the Involution–Evolution dichotomy as I will show below). Emotional coloring, judgment speed, following the present pattern (i.e. Logic/Ethics, Extro/Introversion, Rational/Irrational) all play their specific role here, of course. But the three dichotomies which unite Sociotypes into Supervision rings, exert a more noticeable impact on aggregate social intelligence in the form it has historically developed.

    I emphasize that in this article I will investigate the structural forms of cognition, not their content. My attention will not be directed on what a person thinks, but how they think. In other words, the subject of my discussion will be on the instrumental and technical aspects of thinking.


    Static–Dynamic Dichotomy

    In general terms, this dichotomy refers to orientation towards either space (Static) or time (Dynamic). The categories of space and time are vital a priori concepts studied in detail by Immanuel Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason", contrasting them as extent and duration.
    Statics depend more on space, Dynamics more on time. Filling space with objects characterizes Static behavior, whereas Dynamics saturate time with events. Statics cannot stand empty space—they immediately fill it with available items on hand. Dynamics cannot stand empty time—boredom, stagnation, prolonged states of the same condition. In a certain sense, Statics can be called people of place, Dynamics people of time.

    Now consider this dichotomy on the individual levels of communication.

    Intellectual Level

    Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend towards associative-synthetic thinking.

    Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. Whereas synthesis is akin to associativity, i.e. the association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries.

    The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism. Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. Later John Locke argued that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the association of ideas against purely semantic connections, which in his opinion were secondary.

    Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. Here are some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.
    Roman orator Cicero used the 'method of loci' to memorize his speeches by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room, mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required. Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk the route, 'raising' key concepts they had previously laid there.

    Contemporary advertising cleverly exploits the Dynamic side of human cognition. It is mainly based on the mechanism of association by context (manly cowboy next to a pack of cigarettes) or contrast (ordinary laundry detergent vs. advertised laundry detergent). Judging by this means of consumer inducement, advertising presumably influences Statics much less than Dynamics. Statics memorize more effectively when material is structured in rigid semantic relationships, where each concept is fixed in memory cells like a computer.

    Thus, Dynamics are stronger in synthesis operations (not mere simple connections, but confluence of associations), while Statics are stronger in analysis (not just any separation, but clear and precise delineations). Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with the Static–Dynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary Rationality/Irrationality. But then, what exactly is the latter? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over context).

    Social Level

    Differences between Dynamic and Static types at this level corresponds to the contrast between initiators and finalizers.

    Dynamics are stronger at the beginning of any activity: they easily move and quickly enter the realm of nominal activity. Rapid transitions from a previous state into a new process of change itself—this is their customary life. Statics better sustain and continue what has already begun—that which is already in motion. They must be preliminarily excited.

    However, in the Dynamic is a process of continuous readjustment of focus and 'drift' of purposes. Because of this, the priorities of Dynamics are volatile and poor in hierarchical coordination. One wish may be quickly replaced by another and it is difficult for them to concentrate on any one specific long-term goal without external support. The strength of Dynamics is not in retaining goals, but in achieving them; they are better tacticians than strategists.

    The objectives of Statics are more stable and reliable. They know what they want and are able to maintain long-term focus upon it. They arrange priorities in their life and work, with well-differentiated primary and secondary objectives that are rarely reversed. Statics are more successful strategists than tacticians; they know what to do much better than how to do it.

    A predominance of Dynamics in any social group renders it unstable, prone to endless change, and sensitive to external interference. Conversely, if predominated by Statics, then rapid transformations prove to be impossible due to excess psychological inertia, rendering the group stabler but more conservative.

    Psychological Level

    The Static–Dynamic dichotomy controls the degree of equilibrium in the nervous system. Generally, the nervous system of Statics can be regarded as balanced and Dynamics as unbalanced.

    This is tied to variability in the internal state commonly referred to as 'mood'. The mood of Dynamics, even if Rational, can substantially change or fluctuate for seemingly insignificant reasons (from an outside observer POV). The Dynamic wants total freedom but is more dependent on ambient environmental conditions and needs a solid foundation.

    Statics possess a relatively autonomous psycho-emotional state; their mood is difficult to spoil, and equally difficult to raise. For Statics, providing reliable support to those psychologically depending on them is a routine situation.

    Dynamics often develop a psycho-physiological phenomenon known as 'synaesthesia'—a complex relationship between the sensory modalities that results in confluence between them. Synchronized perception of color, sound, smell, and taste as a single complex gives Dynamics a special vividness in their perception of reality. Sometimes fusion of sensation is developed to such an extent that internal images appear indistinguishable from reality. For Statics, given the discreteness of their mental apparatus, regular synesthesia is usually a rare exception or the result of special training.

    Physical Level

    At this level, Static–Dynamic manifests as contrasting impulses to biological homeostasis/heterostasis. Homeostasis I understand as constancy and heterostasis as variability of the organism and its surrounding environment.

    Dynamics are heterostatically inclined to change their material conditions of life such as wardrobe, home interior, or furniture arrangement, for sake of variety or out of boredom. For Statics this tendency is uncharacteristic. Only with difficulty do they proceed with changes to their home environment to which they have become accustomed. They will do so only when it's easier to yield to circumstantial pressures, than to resist.

    As types with variable metabolism, Dynamics can rapidly grow stout, though just as quickly lose weight if they fall into a state of emotional distress. Statics have the opposite problem, of a stabler weight and build: if already seriously fat (or thin), they remain so for longer times. Their bodily metabolism is more invariant.

    The same laws apply in relation to other physiological parameters such as temperature, blood pressure, perspiration, etc. For example, the body temperature of Dynamics may fluctuate during the day even with no overt symptoms of illness. With sufficient training, Dynamic types can consciously change these parameters in the desired direction.


    Positivist–Negativist Dichotomy

    Positivism I understand as the tendency to maximize the positive, Negativism as the tendency to minimize the negative. Positivists primarily perceive the positive side of any phenomenon, and often turn a blind eye to the negative. Negativists won't overlook problems, and simultaneously mitigate any positive aspects to their situation of interest.

    Intellectual Level

    At this level, the Positivism–Negativism dichotomy manifests as identification of similarities or differences in object comparison. In Negativists thought processes prevails contrast, in Positivists leads comparison. Meaning that Positivists more easily hold overall views of an object, without considering its internal divisions. Conversely, Negativists more easily distinguish its extreme points of separation and opposing contrasts.

    Directly relevant to this is a dichotomy known in cognitive psychology as convergent/divergent thinking [5], discovered by J. P. Guilford. In his opinion, divergent thinking, from simple initial data, yields several different solutions to the same problem; a trait characteristic to the alternative-thinking of Negativists.

    Opposite this, convergent thinking searches for a single valid encompassing solution; a trait more characteristic to Positivist thinking. For them, a problem is unsolved until the validity of one solution is proven against other alternatives.

    Social Level

    Positivism–Negativism affects the degree of internal group coherence and regulates attraction/repulsion between its members.

    An individual's ability to assimilate into a group is typologically predictable. Negativists are remote types. They need constant assurance, even in a group they consider their own. Therefore it is more difficult to fully integrate Negativists into a group. Positivists on the other hand, are inclined to close range communication. They do not polarize contrasts, but smooth them over in one way or another. Thus Positivists facilitate monocentric group structure and unity of purpose. Whereas Negativists amplify polarizing forces conducive to polycentric group structure.

    Consider the example of SEI, a fairly good-natured type, although Negativist. Is there a behavioral tendency towards remoteness? Yes, it contrasts its subgroup with other subgroups. Thereby disrupting, unintentionally or not, unity of purpose in the whole group overall.

    What process balances internal group cohesion? It is observed that Positivists are drawn towards their opposite, which contributes to overall group solidarity, particularly through the ease of intragroup role distribution. Negativists on the other hand, have an inherent paradoxical attraction to those similar to themselves. The nearer such parallel charged elements converge, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to implement mutual action. Repulsive forces rapidly emerge and fracture group integration.
    The overall incidence of monolithic or polarized group behavior is a reliable index for gauging Positivist–Negativist tendencies. Negativism generates tension in intragroup relations, leading on one hand to an increase in psychological distance between members, but on the other hand activating its internal momentum to say "Move!". Positivism by contrast contracts psychological distance and encourages internal group cohesion, but can also bring complacency, carelessness, and 'vapidity' of existence.

    Psychological Level

    In a psychological sense, this dichotomy can be approximately interpreted as trust/distrust.

    Each type of person behaves in life according to how they answer the following existential question: is human nature inherently good or evil? For Positivists, human nature is inherently good, so they are more likely to be trusting. This does not mean that they consciously consider themselves to be good, just that they conduct themselves as if others were. Negativists even under favorable conditions are inclined to expect the worst. Their degree of trust in others is therefore is much lower.

    The relation between Positivists and Negativists is illustrated well by the analogy of electric conductors. Electric-people (Negativists who have accumulated a negative psychological charge) discharge into conductor-people (Positivists), who tend to provoke them in just the right way to do so. All of which happens mostly automatically and unconsciously. The resulting emotional flash establishing temporary balance of psychological (electro-)potentials. This beneficial surge of emotional release, Aristotle in his "Poetics" called 'catharsis'—psychological purging via intense experience.

    Physical Level

    The spatial arrangement of conversation parties in front or near is a key factor in communication, its importance first stressed by Harry S. Sullivan. Negativists gain leverage in communication from positions opposite the partner, Positivists from positions alongside or at an angle deflecting a straight-on gaze.
    Automatic reductions in confrontation due to being seated side by side, are a common method used by marital psychologists working with couples. Sitting side by side and addressing an imaginary third party, enables couples to gradually decrease the severity of sore conflict.

    Clinical psychologists studying nonverbal cues classify gestures indicative of critical attitudes. Such gestures are typically 'closed'—for instance, a hand at the mouth. From a Socionics standpoint then, closed demeanor is better explained by Negativism, not Introversion.

    Negativism induces tangible bodily tension. Negativists are inclined to accumulate 'charge', making highly-charged Negativists easily overexcitable (especially if also Dynamic). In order to compensate against this, Negativists are recommended to engage in physical exercise that relaxes and smooths internal tension. While Positivists are recommended to perform physical exercise that excites and intensifies their physiological processes.


    Evolution–Involution Dichotomy

    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.


    Causal-Determinist Cognition

    Let us now examine the first cognitive form: It is analytic, positive, and deductive. We will call this style Causal-Determinist. Its carriers are Sociotypes ILE, LSI, SEE, EII (ENTp, ISTj, ESFp, INFj, respectively)

    As Statics, their cognitive activity is stable and clear. As Evolutionary types, they think procedurally without overlooking parts and intermediate details. As Positivists, they aim towards singularly valid solutions.

    Intellectual Sphere

    Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature. Speech in this cognitive style takes shape with aid of the connectives "because", "therefore", "consequently" (causal conjunctions). The mental process consists in constructing chains of cause and effect, reducing explanations to deterministic mechanisms. Using the example of Aristotle, who first pointed out four ways to explain phenomena, the reason for the existence of a sculpture is the sculptor who fashioned it directly.

    In the scientific sphere so thinks ILE, in the managerial-administrative sphere is methodical LSI, in the social sphere SEE calculates chains of material interests, in the humanitarian sphere subject to the same categorical imperative is EII.

    Social Sphere

    Aristotle is considered the discoverer of this approach. The basic laws of formal thinking are outlined in his theory of syllogism. However, the first to consistently put them into practice was Euclid, founder of geometry. More recently, its principles grounded rationalist Rene Descartes in his 1637 treatise "Discourse on the Method". Then it finally took shape in mathematical logic. The Causal-Determinist paradigm reached its apogee in Logical Positivism, then increasingly began to decline in value towards the end of the 20th century. However, as the common stereotype of proof, it still dominates to this day.

    I will touch its advantages. First, it is perceived by society as the most authoritative, most convincing, and singularly correct. In mathematics, it is formalized as the deductive-axiomatic method. Use of it requires great intellectual stamina. Second, attributes of greater clarity and concentration are inherent to this style. The type most characterized by singular concentration is LSI. However, the irrational SEE argues quite soundly, deriving one consequence from another, implying focus on the chain of events. If even one link fails for any reason, then Determinists lose their sense of rationale and find it difficult to act because they see no reason to.

    At the same time, Causal-Determinism has its drawbacks. It is primarily the most artificial and removed from the laws of functioning life. 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. This deficiency was noted even by the ancient skeptics, as well as in modern times by Hume, who doubted that any event could be dictated by strict reason.

    Indeed, in building a long chain of cause and effect, it is difficult to avoid the danger of circularity, the risk of falling into circulus vitiosus—a vicious circle in the proof. Kurt Gödel's theorem on the incompleteness of formal systems, asserts that any sufficiently complex system of rules is either inconsistent, or contains conclusions that can be neither proven nor refuted by the rules of that system. This established limits in the applicability of formal logic. Using the deductive-axiomatic method, the medieval Scholastics in particular, attempted to rigorously prove the existence of God. Resulting from closure of causes in terms of effects, they circularly arrived at a definition of God as the thought which thinks of itself.

    Psychological Sphere

    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.

    It is noteworthy that extreme critical situations, trigger a 'slow-motion film' state of mind in Determinists. Thinking becomes particularly clear, but stretched out over time, such that seconds can subjectively feel like minutes. Along these same lines, due to an abrupt shakeup of their psyche, the stress of surprise severely impedes their cerebral activity until they can recover in deep sleep.

    The psychological school of Behaviorism represents this model of the psyche. Its supporters believe that behavioral learning is achieved through reinforcement—rewarding adherence to rules and punishing their violation. B. F. Skinner formulated the principle of operant conditioning, according to which the behavior of living organisms is completely determined by the cause-effect of this conditioning. He proposed the method of 'successive approximations', in which students receive positive reinforcement in instances where their behavior conforms to that desired.

    Behaviorists developed the concept of conditioned learning and established a rigid procedural method of action towards the goal as the basis for its operation.

    Scientific Sphere

    Formal logical thinking in its time gave birth to the deterministic cause-effect worldview. This is the worldview of classical physics whose cornerstone is Newtonian Mechanics, and was the dominant paradigm until the early 20th century. Rigid systems operate according to these rules—organisms and mechanisms. When faced with multi-factor processes (such as psychology or society), however, reductionism loses its explanatory power to portray complex phenomena in terms of their basic components. Additionally, this classic paradigm has been too influenced by the ideal of 'progress', in spite of numerous historical examples of regressive tendencies, setbacks, repetitions, etc.

    A real-life model of Causal-Determinist cognition is given by information represented in the form of a chart or realistic illustration made using a direct perspective. In this technique, objects are depicted larger or smaller in proportion to their distance from the observer. By drawing in this way, following strict instructions, any object can be easily depicted.


    Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition

    The second cognitive form is of particular interest: it is synthetic, negative, and deductive. The working name of this style is Dialectical-Algorithmic. Representatives of this style are Sociotypes EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI (ENFj, INTp, ESTj, ISFp, respectively)

    As Dynamics, these types synthesize associational images. As Evolutionary types, they increase deductive complexity of them. As Negativists, they work well with contradictions and paradoxes.

    Intellectual Sphere

    The essential distinguishing feature of the Dialectical style, is a view of the universe as a unified struggle of opposites. In speech it often uses syntactic constructions "if-then-else", the predictive branches of a developing process. Within limits, the Dialectic strives to find an intermediate point of dynamic equilibrium between contrasting extremes. Dialectical cognition is born from the colliding flow and counterflow of thought, the consciousness and unconsciousness. Thinkers of this style are characterized by an express inclination towards the synthesis of opposites, the removal of contradictions, which they so keenly perceive.

    Its advantages are obvious: it is the most subtle and flexible style. It can easily switch to an opposite direction, and possesses predictive ability, accompanied by an effective type of associative memory. Algorithmic thinking is also good at solving problems of classification, given their gift for recognizing complex patterns. Beyond the circumstantial conditions of a problem, it perceives a fundamental algorithm for its solution.

    According to Aristotle, Dialecticals prognostic thinking explains reality on the basis of purposive causes. For example, the cause of a sculpture is an idea of it in the head of the sculptor. The main role is played by a program, the intention of the creator. Thus, it can be considered teleological, and hence the most 'religious' in its essential thinking. Many scholars of this type sooner or later come to faith (not necessarily a church confessional).

    Social Sphere

    Historically, the first representative of a Dialectical worldview would be Heraclitus. Epitomizing the Dynamic dichotomy, he was of the opinion that "you cannot enter the same river twice" because whenever you enter again, the flow is already of different water. In more recent times it developed into Hegel's comprehensive theory of a rational system. Since Dialectical cognition, compared to other styles, is the most oriented towards creative intention, it invariably leads to ideas of a creator, an absolute, a cosmic intelligence, etc.

    Two of its representatives—EIE and ILI—are usually recognized in society as the most intellectual types. They form the backbone of intellectual elites, expert clubs, esoteric groups, etc. They are the best computer programmers, knowing better than other types how to work with moving structures—algorithms. Algorithmic diagrams consist of blocks and arrows showing the order of transitions, branches, and loop cycles. The crux of a program is its dynamic structure—pointers, rather than blocks. The formula "if-then-else" is, in essence, the core of any algorithm.

    The disadvantages in Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition include instability and uncertainty. Algorithmics suffer from difficulty in making choices and embracing unambiguous decisions. This thinking is more comparable to a symphony of flowing interwoven imagery, rather than a mechanism of clearly established instruction sets. Another problem is increased criticality, which can be so high that it incurs self-destruction, plunging them into danger of total detachment from reality, and leading to mental disorders, especially in cases of hereditary predisposition.

    Psychological Sphere

    The psyche of Dialectical types is most prone to transformations. From a psychological point of view, an unstable oscillating psyche is fertile ground for suggestibility. Occasionally Dialectics lose control over the parallel streams of thought fluctuating in their heads. They need only tune out their internal oscillation between freedom of choice and fatalism, and reinforce the latter. Doctors know that a small but accurately timed shock can throw the heart into a state of fibrillation. Likewise, a successfully directed signal at the right time can throw the Dialectical psyche into a chaotic state.

    The EIE Sociotype has a very suitable psyche for suggestive influence. It is characterized by so-called moments of imprint vulnerability. In these moments an intense suggestion is triggered—an imprint—the prerequisites of which are a state of extreme fear, confusion, or surprise. A 'No Exit' sign suddenly seen by a person of Algorithmic psyche at a time of severe emotional turmoil, may catalyze a decision about suicide. Exploiting this paradoxical nature of Dialectical types, shock therapy is capable of completely reprogramming their conception of reality, including core value judgments.
    A certain, although rare sign of Dialectical cognition—accidents that lead to states similar to a deep trance or coma, followed by sudden enlightenment or the appearance of esoteric abilities.

    The other version is slow suggestion, primarily based on entrainment through rhythmic vocalization and/or sound, multiple repetitions of the same phrase with variation. Variations in this case are particularly significant, working akin to the chorus in a song. Gradually a trance state is reached—external relaxation with internal concentration. The greater the monotony, the sooner a deep trance is reached. Hence why some people rapidly settle down and fall asleep under a monotone 'bubnezh' TV.

    Scientific Sphere

    Dialectical thinking best corresponds to the quantum-probabilistic worldview of modern physics. According to this paradigm, there are no immutable laws, only tendencies and probabilities. Quantum Mechanics is built on the counterintuitive principle of particle-wave duality, according to which microcosmic objects behave as particles and as waves. Two of the 20th century's greatest physicists disputed over this view—Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. The former defended causal-determinism as the nature of the universe, the latter advocated a probabilistic ontology. In the aftermath, Bohr won. Though apart from its historical context, the dispute makes little sense, given that these cognitive forms are dual to one other. Jung's principle of 'synchronicity' also lies within the Dialectical paradigm.

    Contemporary British mathematician Roger Penrose has suggested that the human brain uses quantum gravity as a means for intuitive insight. He's written several books ("The Emperor's New Mind" and "Shadows of the Mind") stipulating that the brain is a quantum computer, and that Aristotelian logical thinking is actually alien to human beings. If he is right, it follows that the integral type of humanity is Dialectical-Algorithmic.

    A real-life model of this thinking—double-images periodically passing into each other. Simple example: a projection onto the plane of a truncated pyramid. After examining it awhile it alternately seems convex, with the top facing to the observer, then concave, with the rear wall receding into the distance.

    One more graphical illustration of Dialectical perception. What do you see in the picture: a vase against a black background, or two facial profiles on a white background? It depends on which one for you is the background, and which is the figure. Some see a vase and the profiles turn into a dark background, others see two black profiles and the white vase goes into the background. But once a person sees both images, fluctuations of attention begin. The picture seems to pulsate: you see a vase, then the profiles. There is a dialectical exchange of background/foreground. Triggering negative reverse perspective, where distant or darkened objects are perceived more significantly than those located closer to the observer.


    Holographical-Panoramic Cognition

    In cognitive theory, the third cognitive form is the least studied: it is analytic, negative, and inductive. The provisional name of this style is Holographical-Panoramic. 'Holograph' originates from the Ancient Greek words holos "entire, whole" and grapho "write". This name is derived from the Holographist's ability to densely pack information via method of 'like to, similar' analogy. Sociotypes possessing this form are SLE, LII, IEE, ESI (ESTp, INTj, ENFp, ISFj, respectively)

    As Statics, Holographers attain reliable precision of thought. As Negativists they periodically turn the object of thought to its opposite side. As Involutionary types, they sporadically change the angle of examination or criterion of judgment.

    Intellectual Sphere

    This cognitive style has much in common with the holographic principle in physics. A hologram (optical) is a statistically recorded interference pattern made by two beams of light which are transmitted and reflected from a single source. Holographic technology allows us to obtain a three-dimensional image of an object. The hologram itself is an aggregation of stripes and spots exactly resembling the embedded object. The two beams of light are superimposed in such a way that every part of the hologram carries information about the whole.

    In this way, by mentally superimposing multiple projections of the same object, Holographists reach a holistic view. To do this, they look at the image and select a desired angle of examination. Holographic cognition often utilizes the grammatical conjunctives: "or-or", "either-or", "on the one hand, on the other hand". It actively uses the principle of perspective; unrestricted choice in point of view. The holographic approach is a progressive approximation towards the purpose, or away from it, accompanied by changes of perspective. The holographic process is carried out as if calibrating focus.

    Holographic cognition has a characteristic penetrating, skeletal-revealing, 'x-ray' nature. It unhesitatingly cuts away details and nuances, giving a coarsely generalized representation of the subject. Take for example the two orthogonal cross-sections of a cylinder: the horizontal section looks like a circle, and the vertical section looks like a rectangle. Two different perspectives of an indivisible whole which, when superimposed in the mind, produces transition to a higher level of understanding about the object.

    SLE thinks this way in battle. Analyzing the situation, they simplify it to two or three facets (frontal, flank, and/or rear), but then quickly go to a higher tier of understanding. LII grasps the problem from opposite sides, mentally rotating the situation in three dimensions around its semantic axes. ESI first draws near to a person, then moves away, seeming to probe the individual from all sides, cutting off those who could let them down. IEE detects the possible hidden motivations of a person, as if building their psychological 'hologram'.

    The main advantages of Holographic cognition are as follows. First, it is multi-perspective. As already stated, because of this it attains a dimensionally holistic and complete depiction. Second, it values simplicity and clarity, avoids pretentiousness, and forgoes 'bells and whistles'. Holographists are particularly effective in crisis situations, when it is necessary to make decisions quickly, and there is no time to weigh all the details.

    The obvious disadvantage of this cognitive style is that it appears too rough, lacking adequate consideration to details which become important when a process flows smoothly. Its information-dense constructs are often difficult to decompress and unpack; to outsiders, they may seem void of intermediate links for establishing coherency in their connections.

    According to Aristotle, Holographic cognition corresponds to explanation by structural or formative causes. Aristotle called it the structure of form. Returning to the sculptor example, the cause of the sculpture is its latent form, which the sculptor merely sets free by cutting away excess marble.

    Social Sphere

    A vague idea of the holographic concept was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz's "Monadology". His monad, a microcosmic reflection of the whole world order, is analogous to a hologram. Ecologists regularly turned to it in attempting to understand why there is stability in nature. Relationships between living and non-living nature arising in a given territory causes biogeocenosis, or ecosystem formation. Ecosystems are primarily characterized by equilibrium of self-similarity over time, where long-term coexistence of opposites without merging (synthesis) is observed. Therefore, Static prevails over Dynamic in such communities. Therein lies the fundamental law of homeostasis in the ecosystem.

    General systems theory was later formed on the basis of these ideas. It was founded by Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who introduced the concept of open systems, which exchange matter, energy, and information with the environment, thus resisting destabilization.

    While Determinists attempt to explain the behavior of a system by its component parts and interconnections, Holographists find novel qualities illustrating emergent features in it that cannot be accounted for solely from its internal structure. Therefore, the Holographical paradigm can generally be called a systemic-ecological worldview.

    Contemporary 'green' ideology is an epitomization of this cognitive form. This does not in any way imply that the ideologues of this movement are Holographical types—cognitive styles and proclaimed viewpoints may not necessarily coincide! Manifestations of one cognitive style through another are completely typical. The books of "quantum psychologist" Robert Anton Wilson are a good example of this, in which his Dialectical-Algorithmic form is laden with multi-perspective, holographic content [5].

    Psychological Sphere

    Holographical cognition corresponds to a stable, self-possessed psyche resistant to conditioning. In comparing the conditionability of an LSI psyche to its Involutionary Mirror SLE, observation shows that the degree of psychological resistance is much higher in the latter. How is this explained? By the durable cognitive infrastructure on which it is built. Complete panorama, which allows periodic change of perspective on the subject. Good balance between the immune and nervous systems, as well as the primary sense organs.

    In neuro-linguistic programming, this principle is used in a technique called 'reframing'. Reframing changes the perceptual framework contextualizing an event. If we mentally place a familiar object into an unfamiliar context, then significance of the whole situation changes. For example, imagine a tiger first in a jungle, then in a zoo cage, then on the balcony of your apartment. The standard Socionics type is depicted as immersed in its 'club'. But what if you shift it to quadra? What if it turns out to be among types with opposite cognitive styles? The chain can continue indefinitely.

    With reframing it is possible to see the familiar with fresh eyes. The type of the psyche in one who resorts to this technique remains constant of course, only their subjective relation to the object of attention is changed. The benefit of this method is primarily in the fact that new perspectives emphasize aspects of a situation that may have been previously underestimated, allowing the possibility of discovering new avenues of growth, and expanding one's existing range of choices.

    Scientific Sphere

    A real-life physical model of this multi-perspective intellect is the hologram—a superimposition of multiple images where each one can only be seen when looking at a certain angle. Change of perspective occurs intermittently and does not alter the system itself, only its priorities. In this way, multiple standards can be implemented, making it possible to work with a complex system as if it were a simple sequence.

    Another real-life prototype of Holographical cognition are fractal objects, discovered by mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in the 1970s. Geometrically, fractals are figures with diffuse outlines, possessing self-similar internal structures. For example, trees, snowflakes, coastlines, etc. They are characterized by multiple internal forms similar in principle to nesting-dolls. Like a hologram, any fragment of a fractal contains complete information about the entire fractal. The part is always structurally similar to the whole.

    Socionics types are also like fractal objects. Hence my holographic concept of personality as a nested system of types, one inside another [4]. Which opposes the prevailing flat view of Socionics advocated by people with reductionist thinking.


    Vortical-Synergetic Cognition

    The fourth cognitive style: it is synthetic, positive, and inductive. Its most appropriate title is Vortical-Synergetic. This form flows in Sociotypes ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI (ESFj, ISTp, ENTj, INFp, respectively)

    Synergetics—the science of how order emerges from chaos. The word 'synergy' in Ancient Greek means "concerted action". The concept of synergy continues to be discussed at present. In the West, it is called 'Chaos Theory' or 'Nonlinear Dynamics' [9]. For our purposes, it is important to note that it is characterized by so-called dissipative states—non-equilibrium, nonlinear, unstable.

    As Dynamics, Synergetics think fluidly with tints of one thought cascading into another. As Positivists, they converge towards a point of attraction. As Involutionary types, they frequently turn backwards and jump over previous levels, displacing the flow of their thoughts like a vortex or fluctuating storm.

    IEI as if in a kaleidoscope sees whimsical iridescent imagery, dissolving then receding in flux. LIE thinks very experimentally with many variants rapidly assorted and mentally tested on the fly for practical applicability. ESE initiates a social torrent leaving behind a trail of emotional turbulence. Thoughts 'swarm' and chaotically displace one another. SLI 'lies in a drift' as it were awaiting favorable wind. Once the situation becomes favorable, self-organization immediately takes hold and rapid thinking initiates, scrolling through incoming information, identifying options most and least likely to succeed.

    Intellectual Sphere

    Characteristic of a 'vortex' is its self-organizing nature, moving like a whirlwind. This manifests mentally as a rapid search for options, tests, and the subsequent screening of variants which do not yield results. It operates on basis of testing, advancing to the goal through trial and error. In a sense, it is comparable to a perpetual lab experiment in the brain.

    The first advantage of Vortical cognition—liveliness and naturalness. It seems to simulate the actual processes occurring in nature. Another advantage—faith in success and luck. Synergetics do not confuse temporary setbacks with error; they will undertake attempt after attempt until success ultimately comes to them.

    Its chief disadvantage is that the intellectual search is often blind and uneconomical. Another difficulty is its randomness and spontaneity. Synergetic intellect is a kind of chain reaction that catalyzes itself. The mechanism of positive feedback operates: if not curbed, then the concentration of effort first leads to an explosion, followed by dissipation.

    Synergetic intellect explains phenomena through substantive reasoning. The very substance (material or substrate) itself generating phenomena through natural movement. In the Aristotle example, the cause of sculpture is the block of marble from which it was made.

    Social Sphere

    Vortical cognition developed into a unique intellectual paradigm that was deemed later than all others to have social merit, despite it being most akin to natural phenomena. It is known that in natural conditions, all processes run in cycles. For example, in laissez-faire economies operating on Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' principle, natural cyclical fluctuations in market supply and demand guide the natural equilibrium prices of goods.

    Studying biological evolution, Charles Darwin discovered its origin as a struggle for existence against natural selection, and survival of the fittest organisms. The main engine of this 'evolution', is involution through events of random variation, which abruptly leave no intermediate gradual links between appearances of species.

    Biological self-organization is catalyzed by mutation—sudden, unpredictable changes in genetic material. Involution generates pulsating chaos, as evolution simultaneously selects and propagates useful mutations.

    Following in the involutionary trend of Darwinism, the concept of 'punctuated equilibrium' emphasizes the discontinuous development of species observed in nature. Authors Gould and Eldridge conclude from this fact that smooth gradual evolution of species is impossible under natural conditions. To survive, all organs must simultaneously be in working order; there are no creatures present with half-fin wings, half-hoof toes, etc. According to this theory, the lifetime of a species is divided into two unequal stages of duration. The first stage is stasis, long periods where no significant species change occurs. Then the second stage, a time of fracture when the species is rapidly converted into another form, or dies out.

    In the 20th century, as I mentioned, the vortex idea was rediscovered and Synergetics adopted its armament. The motto of Synergetics—order through fluctuation. Such fluctuations (local perturbations in the system) are analogous to biological mutation. Order in the chaotic evolution of complex socio-psychological systems, Socionics understands through the law of quadra progression. However, we must not forget that in the irreversible progression of quadras is a series of involutional junctures—jumps, twists, and turns. Because of this, the real non-theoretical quadra progression curve is jagged and looped, its outline resembling the dancing tongues of a burning flame.

    Psychological Sphere

    This cognitive style imbues qualities of endurance and optimism to the psyche. However, the psyche of Synergetics is less stable than that of Holographers. Synergetic types are partially conditionable, but capable of discarding undesired habits. For restoration of normal mental life they need specific, and sometimes long periods of trial and error. Depriving their life of continuous forward movement exerts a bad effect upon their mind. Operating principle: As ambient momentum of circumstance declines, their self-determination atrophies. Lack of oncoming circumstantial pressures renders them increasingly worse off.

    The best countermeasure in such situations is positive self-programming. Consisting of forcing disturbing thoughts to the background and dissolving them in positive scenarios. IEI before sleep visualizes a pleasant scene to remove disturbing experiences of the day. LIE casts a desirable goal in its imagination, optimistic it will eventually acquire the necessary persons and resources. ESE simply does not think about past mistakes and its mood is improved by itself. SLI is not the first place puts a positive scenario and awaits the moment possible to implement it.

    It is often forgotten that the synergetic aspect of development makes extended forecasts futile. American meteorologist Edward Lorenz descriptively coined this phenomenon the 'Butterfly Effect'. Where a butterfly waving its wings in some part of America can, with specific confluence of circumstances, induce a hurricane somewhere in Indonesia. Complex nonlinear phenomena are unpredictable, because tiny initial influences with time can lead to enormous consequences. In conventional life, this same phenomenon is called the Domino Effect. Where the initial fall of the first domino successfully entails catastrophe of the series. The catalyzing action, whose event occurs on your will, determines which of the scenarios will run—optimistic or pessimistic.

    Scientific Sphere

    This cognitive form reflects the synergy formed by the current worldview. Within this paradigm during the 18th century arose the Kant-Laplace hypothesis about the vortex origin of the sun and planets from cosmic dust.

    The Synergetic paradigm is opposed to Creationism; the emergence of complex systems explains spontaneous creation, not divine intervention. A typical example from the history of science is biochemist A. I. Oparin's hypothesis on the emergence of life from inanimate matter in the primordial 'broth' of Earth's early existence, which was largely confirmed in Stanley Miller's famous 1953 experiment.

    Also hailing from the Synergetic paradigm comes the outlook of Nikolai Amosov. According to him it "explains the evolution of the world's self-organizing structures… miracles can happen, but are of no practical value." He sincerely believes demonstrative simulations can be recreated by computer models.

    Synergetics recognize the critical role of chance and free will in transitional moments of history. Synergetically-minded scholars frequently consider alternative historical outcomes. British historian Arnold J. Toynbee in particular, explored this twist on the course of ancient history—what if Alexander of Macedon did not die (pessimistic version), how would the world have developed then (optimistic version)?

    A real-life model of Synergetic cognition is the turbulent flow. Turbulence is a liquid or gas flow, in which there is rapid mixing of its moving layers. The behavior of such flows cannot be predicted. Whereas the preceding laminar flow phrase exhibits clear regularities deducible by Causal-Determinism.

    Mathematical modeling of natural growth processes typically uses exponential functions. Such functions describe geometric progressions, rather than arithmetic values. Logarithmic (S-shaped) curves terminating in saturation points are common in dynamic modeling. Implying that self-organization is not omnipotent: after exceeding a certain limit, it exhausts its own momentum. At which point it becomes necessary to either yield to external structure, or create a new nexus of self-organization. Synergetic types naturally select the latter.

    Lev N. Gumilev offers a Synergetic account for involutions of ethnogenesis in the birth, growth, and death process of societies. Social systems dictate rules of selection for specific behaviors of people. Charismatic-personalities (cranks, outcasts, dissenters) engender a variety of diverse social mutations. Society holds them at bay, until such time that it weakens for any reason (due to economic crisis, internal wars, cultural stagnation, etc.). Afterwards, the energy of a new order vigorously sweeps the decrepit system and begins to grow in its place. But sooner or later, the new order itself will age just the same and be forced to give way to an alternative system ripening in its depths, and so forth.

    Vortical cognition is hardest to convey to people of Algorithmic cognition, since to them free choice and the game of chance opposes teleology, fate, the special role of a creator, etc. When Synergetics speak about the implicit order in chaos, if we translate their words to the language of Socionics, they imply that Holographical cognition, with its minimally convoluted ordering structures, is dual to the chaotic vortex.


    Conclusion
    1. What you focus attention on creates your subjective world. If you concentrate attention on problems, then your world will be full of obstacles. Focus on the positive side of the situation and it becomes easier to live. Will reduce the scope of thought, come to the idea of creator. You will enlarge, to believe in free will.
    2. Socionics useful to formulate criterion for high-level professionals. Average specialists analyze only the conditions of the problem, and highly qualified only its method of solution. Anyone aware of their own intellectual limitations can learn to overcome them, or better yet, seek the aid of people which think in these forms already because of their Sociotype. In any event, systematic work in this way will increase efficiency of your intellect.
    3. Quartet types, referred to as Supervision rings, are macro-model internal information structures of the psyche. Perfecting this structure is the first radical step in managing ever-increasing volumes of data. The second step is to move to collective forms of intellectual activity. All the complexity is to properly combine these forms of thinking in a coherent group. Otherwise we are really confronted with the end of the science, exhausted separately of all 4 basic paradigms established in the acclaimed book by J. Horgan [7].
    4. Your thoughts will only firmly and without distortion penetrate public consciousness if your quartet learns your POV. They indeed think in the same form as you, but refract it through different kinds of activity. Only after passing through all the regular stages—from inception to development, debugging, and implementation—can an idea be fully ushered into reality. No need to confine to quadra limits. Real propagation occurs through the Supervision ring. Quadra is important, but only a way-station along this path.
    5. 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.
    Sources

    1. Alekseev AA, Gromova LA Do not get me pravilno6 or a book on how to find your style of thinking, effective use of intellectual resources and gain rapport with people. - St., School of Economics, 1993.
    2. Gulenko VV Synthesis and antisintez polarities. Epistemological dichotomy. Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 1998. - NN 5-6.
    3. Gulenko VV, Tyshchenko VP Jung in school. Socionics - mezhvozrastnoy pedagogy. Educational and methodical. allowance. - Novosibirsk: Izdatel'stvo NGU, 1997.
    4. Gulenko VV Man as a type system. The problem of diagnosing the ego and persona. Socionics, Mentology and personality psychology. - 2000. - N 6.
    5. Robert A. Wilson. Quantum Psychology. Translated from English. Ed. J. Nevstrueva. - K.: "Janus", 1999.
    6. Godefroy J. What is Psychology: In 2 Vols Volume 1: Ed. with the French. - M.: Mir, 1996., Pp. 436.
    7. Horgan J. The End of Science: A look at the limited knowledge in the twilight of the Century of Science, Ed. from English. M. Zhukova. - St.: Amphora, 2001.
    8. Kapitsa SP, Kurdyumov SP, Synergetics and forecasts of the future. Moscow: Nauka, 1997.
    9. Gleick J. Chaos. Creating a new science, Ed. from English. M. Nakhmanson, E. Wing. - St.: Amphora, 2001.
    Last edited by silke; 07-21-2017 at 11:42 PM. Reason: updated

  2. #2
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Haven't even read it yet, but thanks.

    And yes, I'm pretty sure I can, but give a bit of time.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  3. #3
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have read that text, and it taught me a lot about properties of supervision rings and +/-

    Although they are not coined by Jung or Myers-Briggs, those dichotomies are IMPORTANT to describe some human feelings or behaviours, especially in leadership situations.

    For example : my driving monitor is LSE. When I'm driving well, he remains silent. When I do mistakes, he reacts and relentlessly says : "you don't care about what's happening !!!". Sometimes he says me that he has an hard time to teach me to drive, because I'm anxious and I always want to be right, even when I make mistakes, I tend to have bogus justifications.

    Another example : recently, I accompanied my mother (EIE) to an hypermarket. She thought the staff made a mistake of 10-15 euro because she has not understood the conditions for some discounts. She spent 30-40 minutes only for that. This kind of behaviour is less frequent in Positivists.
    That same mother, when she does cooking for his husband and his son (me), she tends to cook servings that are up to 2-3 times more than necessary, because she fears that someone would not eat enough.

    A more abstract example : computer programming.

    Negativists detects bugs and lacking functionalities more effectively than Positivists, whereas Positivists are more "circumventing" problems, by not so much focusing on what's lacking. This explains why ILI are so efficient in computer programming.

    Negativists say that "too much" is better than "not enough"
    Positivists say that "not enough" is better than "nothing"

  4. #4
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: "Forms of Thinking" by Gulenko

    Follows, a personal interpretation and a simplification rather than a simple clarification of syntax.

    Gulenko discusses the cycles of supervision and their attributes.
    The dichotomies that define the cycles are static-dynamic, result-process, positive-negative
    He's trying to connect these to "forms of thinking" categories of cognitive psychology (I do not have extensive experience of these categories and can't really evaluate whether he succeeded)

    He suggests a process of shifting between dynamic and static, negativism and positivism, process and result. (He links dynamic with doubt, and time and static with confidence and space. Something I'm not entirely happy with, though I feel I understand the reasoning behind this link and don't think entirely baseless, just... strictly speaking wrong.)

    An attempt to adapt and correct his descriptions (to an extent):

    Statics tend to try to define their surroundings and make things happen now. He suggests that they are more capable at intellectual analysis.
    Dynamics try to control their activity and trust that their views will eventually prevail. He suggests that they are more capable at intellectual synthesis.

    He claims that dynamics flit from activity to activity whereas statics are more stable, more habitual to finish what they started.
    He asserts that dynamics are better at tactics but in my experience this is not the case, I'd say dynamics are better at handling "the how, the technique, the means to an end".
    He asserts that statics are better at strategy but again in my experience this is not the case. Again I'd rather say that statics are better at creating the "what, focusing on what they want to reach".

    Statics always know what they want. When statics act dominant, the environment has a lot of change and concentrated drive towards a single direction.
    When dynamics act dominant, individual acts are effective but the social environment itself is chaotic and unfocused.

    Also the emotional state of the static is more stable than that of the dynamic.

    He also claims that dynamics are more likely to experience synaesthesia, to feel their environment more and react to it stronger than statics.
    Also he claims that the dynamics' more extreme reactions do take physical forms as well.

    ........

    Positivism-negativism.
    Positivism : comparison, divergent thinking, directed toward volume?
    Negativism: contrast, convergent thinking, directed toward accuracy

    Positivism on a social level, smooth relations, social convergence
    Negativisn on a social level, rough relations, social divergence

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


    Process (involution): Simplification of object of thought, "thought of large constructs and how they divide into pieces" (not fully agreeing with the last part)
    Result (evolution): Complication of thought structure, "thought with small pieces and how they connect into big ones."

    Socially:
    Process: Tactless. Natural, anti-social. Less caring of the general opinion, more caring of that of close ones. (again, not fully agreeing with this)
    Result: Tactful. Artificial, social. More caring of general opinion, less of that of close ones. (again, not fully agreeing with this)

    Result: Inability to change their situation
    Process: Ability to change their situation

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

    These he connects into:

    ENTp + ISTj + ESFp + INFj (positivist, static, process)

    He calls them Cause-effect thinkers. (These people will continue to search for a solution till they find one they can accept ie. until they are able to cause a desirable effect.)

    Now when I use the words cause-effect thinking in daily use, I mean that one is thinking about what was the cause of a given effect. This is not the case here. This is about thinking how to cause an effect. And not necessarily a certain effect but any effect that has properties that qualify. The negative stereotype of this way of reasoning would be "wishful thinking".

    His 4.1 chapter has very little interesting. Except that he talks about how 'cause-effect' thinkers are rigid. To me that doesn't really seem true in all cases. Moreso on IJs but the EPs that belong to this group, particularly the ESFps don't seem rigid to me. Direct and forceful to be sure, but rigidity doesn't seem correct. It might be a translation mistake. *shrug* His idea to suggest that cathegorical imperative is a form of this thinking is splendid though. The idea that "You can cause others to behave towards you in a certain way if you behave so towards them." Splendid.

    In 4.2 he calls Aristotle the discoverer of this 'technology of thinking'. Hmm... I believe I get what he's trying to say but still, he shouldn't call it a discovery if it's a natural way for 1/4 of humanity to have used during all of history. Whatever.
    His assertion that logical positivism is associated with this stuff would of course be true.

    4.2 He comments that this style of thinking is the most authoritative, most convincing, "singularly correct". I am inclined to agree with this on a social level. When hearing this kind of reasonin, it is difficult to resist. The drive, the enthousiasm, the wildly positive claims are very drawing. One tends to wishe that this kind of reasoning was true. But if one really goes into the substance of the claim, this kind of reasoning is also often hollow, too far reaching and makes someone who knows a subject balk.

    4.2. In here, he also claims that this is the same as the deductive-axiomatic method. It IS NOT. Logical positivism and deductive-axiomaticism are antagonistic to each other. What cause-effect thinking really is is induction. From the description of socionics 'positivism' and 'negativism' this should be self-evident. One should note the differences between logical positivism as concentrating on things that can be positively proved to be true and the idea of 'falsifiability'.

    He also claims the limits of logical positivism as wrong. He claims that it does not lead to fundamentally new discoveries. This is again completely wrong. Socionics 'Positivism' has exactly the quality of leading into uncharted territory. Again, he connects this way of thinking to reductionism. Again something that is not the essence of cause-effect thinking and another error.

    For whatever reason, Gulenko seems to have reversed the 'negative' and 'positive' traits in some of his reasonings.

    Gulenko also talks of the necessity of this group to do things following a certain number of steps. When they fail to use one of these steps, they have difficulty in seeing how to 'circumvent' the process.

    Socially he links these types to grand scale change.

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

    The second group, (dialectic-algorithmic) ENFj-ISFp-ESTj-INTp

    Synthetic, negative, concentrated (act by adding limits to themselves until they've reached the best reachable solution)

    Quote:

    5.1.
    "Essential distinguishing feature of dialectical style - reflection of peace as unity and struggle of opposites. In the speech it uses syntactic construction “if- that -otherwise”, that forecasts the versions of the development of process."
    Good. Important.


    Quote:
    The thinkers of this style are characterized by the expressed tendency toward the synthesis of oppositions, the removal of the contradictions, which they so acutely receive.
    Another good part.

    Quote:

    Its advantages are obvious: this most flexible and thinned thinking. It capably of easily being thrown to opposite direction possesses by the predictability. The effective type of associative memory accompanies it. Algorithmic thinking also solves well problems to the classification, since has the gift of the recognition of complex means. After the conditions of task it perceives the typical algorithm of its solution.
    Hmm...

    Quote:

    On Aristotle, dialectical- prognostic thinking explains peace on the basis purposeful reasons. For example, the reason for the appearance of sculpture is idea about it in the head of sculptor. Main role in this case play program, intention of creator. Thus, it it is possible to consider teleologic, and it means, by the most religious in its essence thinking. Many scientists of this type sooner or later come to the faith (is compulsorily church -[konfessionalnoy]).
    Relates to a real phenomenon but draws a very wrong conclusion.

    In 5.2 Gulenko calls dialectical thinking the most directed thinking. This is correct. Good way to notice. A drive, a pushiness towards completion, towards some definite, yet unknown end-point. Gulenko claims that people who think this way are generally seen as intellectuals, congregating in clubs of experts, esoteric groups. Hmm... I know that it's common to see even ESTjs as nerds, withdrawn from society and more or less absolute. But still, this is too generalized. ISFps don't go to the same gatherings as INTps. Though a correct observation, this needs more work, more clarity.

    Problem of dialectical thinking: lack of unique solution. Something of a problem but not necessarily. Dialectical thinking strives to advance toward a single solution, but as it proceeds from input, the input may be lacking and define not a single solution but a variety of them. In such a case a dialectical thinker may not stand by any of the answers as more correct than any of the others and may only consider their work complete if they've mapped ALL the solutions. And this requires work. This huge work-load can be circumvented by gaining more limitations to rule out a number of paths of progress. Also this style of thinking is problematic when the input is contradictory. In those cases the path of thinking may lead nowhere or has to be restarted by modifying the primary assumptions that started the process. (this works at least for ESTj, think it's somewhat different for other members of the dialectical group)

    "Its one additional problem - increased criticality, which can be such high which causes spontaneous decomposition, it plunges into the danger of complete detachment from the reality, and with the presence of hereditary predisposition with the specific probability it leads to the disorders of psyche. "
    Important but very easy to misunderstand. Dialectical thinking reacts to personal experience but it's not very good at controlling its input. If the input is crap, the output is crap as well. But if the input is just slightly faulty in a simple way, the output can be faulty in a completely ridiculous way. For example, if a seamstress receives an order from his boss to "sow 20 buttons", it would be entirely reasonable to go out on a field and sow those buttons. Naturally dialectic thinkers learn to correct this kind of obvious behavioural problems early in life but the problem is descriptive of the kind of trouble dialectics run into. And the problem in this case wasn't that she was deteched from reality but the exact opposite of it, she was too in contact with the stimulus and over-reacted. A separate issue is that one way to correct this overflow of input is to distance oneself from a certain amount of it.

    Dialectic thinking is thus extremely suggestible.

    On 5.3 Gulenko notes that it is useful for dialectics on occasion to be interrupted and slapped around a bit. This will cause them to stop their previous reaction and reorient themselves.

    Quote:

    The accurate, although rare sign of dialectical thinking - accident, which leads to the states like deep fainting or coma, and then to illumination or discovery of special abilities.
    The second version - slow suggestion, which, mainly, is built on the cramming through vocalization and/or hearing. It is reduced to the multiple repetition of one and the same phrase with the variations. Variations in this case are especially meant. They work just as refrain in the song. Gradually is generated [transovoe] state - external weakening with the internal concentration. The greater the monotony, the rather is reached the deep trans-. Thus, some people calm down and rapidly fill up under monotonic “[bubnezh]” of television set.
    Interesting, at least somewhat correct. Though slightly far-reaching. Descriptive, not definitive.

    On 5.4 Gulenko seems to be completely wrong again. Dialectic thinking is NOT in conflict with the idea of rigid laws and it certainly isn't identical with probability thinking. This is not to say that it's impossible the quantum mechanics was developed by someone using this ideology, but quantum mechanics in itself is a deficient picture of dialectical thinking. Multiple parallel thinking on the other hand would be a good description of dialectic thinking. Also the concept of probability would better be understood by the concept of options. Now the cause, the number of options of course forces the estimation of probability but that is a separate process and in the strictest sense, is no longer a part of the dialectic thinking process in and of itself, (though it is a natural effect of it).



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

    Third group:
    ISFj, ESTp, INTj, ENFp (negative, static, result)

    "Holographic thinking". ie. describing the whole of something. Continuous twisting, turning, expanding of object of thought.

    The concepts here are strange... In the lead part of the chapter 6 Gulenko connects induction with this group that is by definition 'negative'. Similarly as he connected reductionism with cause-effect thinking. He seems to have mixed up these links. From all that I know, holographic thinking works in association with cause-effect thinking and dialectic thinking in association with vortex thinking. So such an error in one's self-analysis is certainly understandable. What I don't get is how he's able to make such an obvious error. One reason I can suggest is how he analyzes the socionics system in cycles of balance and inbalance, extroversion and introversion etc. The nature of which causes that if you focus on the interim part of the cycle instead of the end and the beginning you get the opposite meaning for an issue. *shrug* Maybe.

    Anyway, his introduction speech is essentially another form to define reductionism, describing the whole by describing it one view-point or piece at a time. Anyway, as a 'result' group these holographists tend to take quick glimpses at an object and accept the result quickly so as to be able to focus to another part next. Snap-judgments. Anyway, he claims this property for the 'negativism' group but obviously, it's not. Again, a strange mistake.

    He characterizes the group as defined by the words: “or - or”, “or- or”, “from one side, from other side”.
    I personally know that I do use this kind of thinking occasionally, but mainly as a trivial form. I believe I don't mean the same thing that Gulenko implies holographists mean when they talk this way. This just to illustrate how the external forms can easily mislead.

    "It actively uses principle of menu, free election of the point of view." Very important, very characteristic.

    Holographic approximation - this successive approximation to a purpose or the removal from it, accompanied by the change of foreshortenings. In the process of holographing as if sharp focusing is accomplished.

    Gulenko's next supposition is funny:"Holographic thinking has the characteristic skeletal- gripping, penetrating, “X-ray” nature."
    'Result' group generally states the easy things, that are the most obviously perceivable about a subject, without going into detail or getting a deeper look of a subject. He paints restraint and conservation of resources as perceptional ability. Well, it does look like it from the outside, and it certainly feels like it when one is doing it oneself, but the attempt to be penetrating doesn't make one so. No super-powers there.

    "...It without the regret intercepts details, nuances. General, completely convoluted idea about the object gives..."
    Yes, I get it.

    Gulenko's assertion of this group's ability in a crisis seems to relate to the ability to 'always do something relevant to the situation'. To quickly grasp issues is a part of it. But that's a 'result' property, so vortex thinkers are similar in this.

    Gulenko's claim that this form of thinking in particular providing a complete understanding of a subject doesn't hold water. It's a value-statement in defense of his own way of thought.
    Advantages: "Simple, clear, usable knowledge." "Non-pretentious, frugal, rather reliable."

    The process itself is about making snap-judgements, but within the definition they don't lead to anything but the next snap-judgment. When Gulenko talks about ability in crisis situations he's sort of misleading. Holographists are equally characterized by endless procrastination in a sea of negative thoughts that lead nowhere. From what I can see, the "ability " in crisis situations actually relates to the ability to analyze instead of synthetize, to see oneself separate from the environment and focus on the parts of the environment that one sees important oneself, to resist input. To ignore the fires and the falling debris and quickly do something useful.

    "An explicit deficiency in this style of thinking in the fact that it too rough, does not pay the adequate consideration to the details, which become significant, when process proceeds exactly. It is difficult to unpack its information products. It seems strangers that in them be absent the intermediate components, which must ensure connectedness. "
    Again, very important.

    If I take a deeper look into this it seems like he is describing a way of thought in which the world is judged as a number of options, which are analyzed without committing oneself and tested until one of these options has been found to be "complete", "able to fulfill all the necessary wishes and requirements", "perfect for the holographist". Waiting for such a situation to arrive in which not choosing is not an option. But frankly, this looking at a thing from each and every possible side is another way to define reductionism, something Gulenko claims to oppose. I think his thinking is fuzzy here.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vortex thinking

    ENTj, INFp, ESFj, ISTp.
    Synergic(cooperative) thinking. Continuous flow of suggestions and ideas. Finding new ways to combine things.

    Finding ways to draw things along with them. To find a use for anything. To quickly grasp the easiest way to make something positive of something.
    Named because the habit of drawing in any and all possible material and influences.

    They have a habit of not taking responsibility or following through with their actions, since they see themselves only as the occasional supporter of a subject. They make themselves useful and move on. But their cooperation is naturally chosen by themselves and on the basis of their own needs. Since they enter a project and exit as suddenly there tends to be motion, after-effects, ripples. Not necessarily chaotic in and of itself, but erratic and reliant on the input they get.
    It draws people together in ways that don't dominate, don't force structure but guide growth toward somewhat unexpected directions.

    What Gulenko describes as the failure of this style of thinking (it's blindness, lack of purpose and direction) is basically missing the purpose of this form of thinking. There is no decided end-point for purpose for this kind of thinking. It creates whatever it is able to. In this sense it is not uneconomical but supremely economical since it wastes nothing, finds a use for everything. It's lack of direction is as much a strength as a failure. From the synergic thinker's pov as long as the phenomenon centered around hir keeps growing and growing there is no possibility that something desirable will not come out of it.

    If there's a problem, it's more of a problem of losing the ability to be the center of the vortex, or the energy dissipating, or being burnt out.

    Gulenko further mentions that synergists like to explain things through reasons of substance. This sort of the simplest positive way to frame something. "He's like that, he tends to kick dogs, it's in his nature, isn't he adorable? I guess he just likes to kick things? Funny! We should give him a soccer ball with a picture of a dog and put him on a team!" To frame a negative as something that can't be helped, should be accepted and found a use for. To frame the subject as not a fault but as raw material for creativity. (It's not a problem, it's a feature!") (And in this being the diametric opposite of the hologram thinkers who can find a problem in anything.)
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some unsorted personal reflections on this extremely interesting material ...

    I think I am now slowly beginning to understand why there is still so much confusion about some of the important aspects of the differences between for example LIIs and ILIs. We might have a serious problem of mutual understanding here, and we might need to discuss more what these things should appropriately be called and how they should be correctly described.

    From my perspective I have thought that I focus on generalizations. I have associated that with simplification, clarification, and one of my working hypotheses have been that it might have something to do with inductive reasoning in contrast to deductive reasoning. That's one reason why I have thought that Sergei Ganin's INTp Uncovered profile is misleading when he describes the INTps as enemies of generalizations. Are we talking about the same thing or not? I'm not sure, and now Gulenko complicates things a bit too.

    Gulenko and I seem to agree that, in essence, an ILI's thinking is not analytic, and that it is more correctly described as synthetic. And I think that it is very important to understand that, because people confuse these things all the time. Some people have thought that my generalizations about the correlations between for example Socionics and MBTT is an expression of and that what they see is a system. That is altogether false, and people should make an effort to understand why they are wrong about it.

    ILIs are, in essence, synthesizers. I try to explain a synthesis when I say that, despite their apparent differences between how the types are described in Socionics and MBTT, they are nevertheless talking about the same referents, the same groups of people, the same empirical types. I have thought that that means that ILIs don't build deductive theories from axioms or basic assumptions -- that they try instead to explain the external information in more simple terms, but maybe that can be interpreted as almost identical to what Gulenko says about the involutionary (result) types:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive brain reduces them to the simple, purified of details diagrams and the models. Thus, involutional types in order to be dismantled at the situation, will simplify it. For them is typical the judgment in the reverse order - from the complex to the simple.
    So, according to Gulenko, that is what LIIs do -- simplify and reduce -- whereas the ILIs, belonging to the group of evolutionary (process) thinkers, would be the ones using deductive logic and building more complex theories out of simple axioms or assumptions, that is what I have associated with a the expression "a bottom-up" approach. And most people on this forum have automatically associated deductive logic with LIIs, not ILIs. How shall we understand this? Are we contradicting each other or not? What are we talking about? What is Gulenko talking about?

    To complicate things further (if that is that what I'm doing ...) Gulenko also mentions in his article that for the involutionary types "is characteristic the accomplishment of backward motions - from the end at the beginning, from below - upward." I have thought that that is exactly what I have bee noticing in my own behaviour. That I almost always prefer to start with the conclusion, the main thesis, before I get into the details and the question how the conclusion was derived. I tend to ask: What's the point of all this? What (thesis) are you trying to argue for?

    Is Gulenko wrong about this? An apparent consequence of what he says is that he seems to be contradicting a rather common understanding of LIIs as prone to use deductive logic and reasoning. I have always objected when people say that that is an indication of leading , because if we take a look at reality we can see that ILIs are usually better than LIIs at (or at least more focused on) conceptual logic and deductive reasoning. So, I seem to have Gulenko on my side in this controversy. But on the other hand Gulenko seems to associate ILIs with a "bottom-up" approach, whereas I have called it a "top-down" approach. I'm not sure what the correct name for this phenomenon is anymore.

    Gulenko says about the evolutionary types:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Judgment flows in the direction from the simple to the complex. Evolutionary types, therefore, mentally complicate situation.
    Do I really complicate things mentally? Is that how ILIs are perceived? Maybe, I don't know. I could perhaps accept that, it's no very big deal, but I want to clarify these things so that we can hopefully reach a consensus on how to describe the differences.

    One thing is clear. LIIs are essentially analytic in their thinking, whereas ILIs are essentially synthetic. My working hypothesis was that the LII's thinking can be called primarily deductive, and that the ILI's thinking can be called primarily inductive. Maybe it should be the other way around if Gulenko is right, and that would also be in line with my claim that ILIs are better at conceptual, deductive, logical thinking than LIIs, but this might need to be discussed some more. We should keep in mind that both types can think both deductively and inductively, but it is definitely the case that I use deductive logic when I focus on logical errors in other people's reasoning. And I definitely act like a typical ILI in those situations.

    Maybe Gulenko and I are focusing on two different parts of the same process. What about this way of putting it?

    The LIIs try to simplify, to reduce a complex reality into a few axioms and assumptions, and the theory of the functions in Socionics is an example of that kind of thinking.

    The ILIs try to see reality in all its complexity before they even begin to think about reducing things to basic assumptions. So, at least in the initial stage of the investigating process, the ILIs seem to complicate things further and further. But their ultimate goal is to arrive at an all-encompassing understanding of the world that can be captured in a theory.

    Gulenko seems to focus on the first stage of an ILI's thinking, whereas I have previously focussed on the ultimate goal -- to explain the complex puzzle as simply and accurately as possible. Seen from my perspective, the LIIs seem to get there too fast, so quickly that they seem to dismiss important pieces of information as irrelevant and simply assume things uncritically. And then they immediately seem to start building subjective theories from those assumptions.

    Gulenko also seems to focus on the first stage of an LII's approach, whereas I, as said, have focussed on the later stages. Is that a possible dissolution of our apparent differences in views? Do we actually agree on this?

    I'm not convinced that Gulenko is entirely right in his grouping of the types along these dimensions, but there must be some truth to it, because I fit perfectly as an ILI in Gulenkos framework of cognitive styles. Like my namesake Phaedrus in Robert M. Pirsig's auto-biographical and highly philosophical novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance my thinking is Dialectical-Algorithmic. Gulenko summarizes it perfectly when he says that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    The thinkers of this style are characterized by the expressed tendency toward the synthesis of oppositions, the removal of the contradictions, which they so acutely receive.
    In all my thinking and writing this is my attitude, my quintessential approach to fundamental problems in philosophy and science. If people would understand what this is about, they would see clearly that it is also my approach to the 16 types and everything I say about Socionics and its relation to other typologies. This is my way, this is Phaedrus's (Pirsig's) way, this is the quintessential way of my (sub)type of ILI.

    An important aspect of this kind of thinking is the tendency to classify, or as Gulenko puts it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Algorithmic thinking also solves well problems to the classification, since has the gift of the recognition of complex means.
    It was probably this aspect of our thinking that an ENTp friend of mine said he had noticed clearly in me, his INTp brother, and a few other INTps that he has worked with. Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and you'll see what I am talking about. It can manifest itself as a preference for using dichotomies. Phaedrus in Pirsig's book is constantly thinking in dichotomies and comes up with new ones, for example the one between Classical (Intellectual) Quality and Romantic (Emotional) Quality. The ultimate aim, however, is to unify, to reduce the dichotomies into the ONE -- the ulitmate essence, the final synthesis that will explain the secret that is hidden underneath the surface level.

    I am not at all convinced that Gulenko is right about quantum mechanics being a good example of dialectical thinking, and I am also skeptical of putting Niels Bohr in that category. Maybe Hegel's thinking was dialectical in a sense, but he was definitely not an ILI -- though perhaps an EIE. Roger Penrose is probably close to a charlatan in essence, and I think that a much better example of this kind of thinking -- or at least an example that I personally can identify with -- is Douglas R. Hofstadter and his book Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Further thoughts on forms of thought ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    He asserts that dynamics are better at tactics but in my experience this is not the case, I'd say dynamics are better at handling "the how, the technique, the means to an end".
    He asserts that statics are better at strategy but again in my experience this is not the case. Again I'd rather say that statics are better at creating the "what, focusing on what they want to reach".
    The concepts tactics and strategy are somewhat problematic and might mean different things in different contexts. But at least in chess, which is one of my special areas, what you say here about dynamics and statics coincide with how the words "tactics" and "strategy" should be understood and used to characterize what different types of chess players are good at. So, a possible interpretation might be that you and Gulenko actually agree on this.

    But there are other problems. One such problem is the confusion that is now created about the relations between Statics/Dynamics and Tacticians/Strategists in respect to how good the types are at tactics and strategy in yours and/or Gulenko's sense. Here is the problem:

    1. Tactical types are NPs and SJs, strategic types are NJs and SPs.
    2. Statics are IJs and EPs, Dynamics are IPs and EJs.

    How shall we understand this exactly?

    I have noticed that in chess ENTjs tend to be good at strategy. They have no equals when it comes to preparations for a game, and they are good at calculating variations.

    ISTjs are somewhat more problematic. Take Anatoly Karpov, for example. He is foremost a technician, and he also have a natural positional sense (more so than the ENTjs) that makes it possible for him to make decisions intuitively at the board. He is often said to be a supreme strategist, but that is not really the case. He performs "mini operations", planning the next step, but he often does not have an overall strategy to guide his actions. That was very clear in his early days, anyway. Karpovs tries to solve the problems as they arise, but his (early) playing style was lacking in strategic depth. However, he has never been particularly good at seeing tactical (in the sense combinatorial) solutions and he has never preferred them over positional solutions. To be a good positional player is not the same thing as being a good strategist, but it is rather common to confuse these concepts.

    I am myself better at tactics than at strategy. I have a better sense for the dynamics in a position than every ISTj chess player I know of about the same playing strenghth. That's the main difference between us. We both have a highly developed positional sense, but the ISTjs tend to ignore, or not see, the dynamic aspects in a position as clearly as I do. They are usually better technicians, though. My worst area in chess is systematic planning of my operations far ahead, but I am good at seeing and judging chess strategies in a very general meta-perspective.

    I would say that Garri Kasparov is a good example of a strategist and so is Alexander Alekhine -- two masters of attack that preferred tactical solutions over positional, but both of them planned their attacks in depth. Capablanca, on the other hand, was much more of a technician and an intuitive player of the same sort as Anatoly Karpov. A similar type of player is Viswanathan Anand -- a very good intuitive tactician and a good calculator (but not as good as Kasparov), but he definitely lacks the strategic depth of Kasparov. Like Capablanca and Karpov, Anand is much more of a pragmatist.

    Bobby Fischer was a good tactician but much worse at strategy. He thought very concretely, calculating variations almost like a computer. He was also a supreme technician. Based on V.I. and some other things I have thought that he could be an INTj, but we might also interpret his aggressiveness (much more outside the chess board than on it) and other aspects of his behaviour as a sign of PoLR. Fischer was not very good in dynamic positions, always preferring the safe course over the more uncertain outcome, and in that respect he was similar to Karpov and Capablanca. All three of them shared a rational, objective attitude, and they were good at defense, not at all attacking furiously like Aljechin or Kasparov.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Someone please translate this to Te so I can read it without forming suicidal thoughts.

  8. #8
    Resident WOP FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,473
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Vortex thinking! Yes that is what I am!!!
    fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am progressing slowly here ... Since I am convinced that there is at least some truth in Gulenko's little "theory", I will not try to falsify it. Instead I will start by assuming that it is correct and see where it leads us. If there are major flaws in it, they will probably be more visable sooner or later in the process, but until then ...

    I don't think I can explain holographic thinking if someone asked me, because that kind of thinking is alien to me. I probably don't understand it properly. At least I now know where I can read more about it and thus some day understand better how LIIs really think, which is one of the secrets of nature I have been hoping to reveal. But I can tell for sure that my father's thinking is holographic in essence. That much is obvious from his writings and our many discussions over the years. So, if Gulenko is right about the types possessing this kind of thinking, my hypothesis that my father really is an LII is now definitely confirmed, because I know for sure that he is a rational type and that he is a logical type. Of the four types mentioned by Gulenko in relation to holographic thinking only the LII is a possible type for my father. Ergo, my father is an LII, just as I thought ...

    An important aspect of holographic thinking is thinking in systems, especially open systems -- a point my father often stresses. Another key word mentioned in Gulenko's text is, I think, reframing. The models created by a holographic thinker like my father are recursive, where you can always, at any time, jump to a higher level -- a meta level. It's a system of models of models of models of models of models ... Somewhere in this complex "mess" I think we can begin to understand why LIIs tend to be relativists.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Vortex thinking! Yes that is what I am!!!
    If you are sure that you are an LIE, maybe I can now put you off the list of anomalies in the early bird/night owl divide -- or what do you say ...? :wink:

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Your early-bird/night-owl idea assumes that's everyone's schedule would allow for "normal" sleeping patterns, I don't see that it is really all that useful.
    If you don't see it, you don't see it.

  11. #11
    Resident WOP FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,473
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder
    Your early-bird/night-owl idea assumes that's everyone's schedule would allow for "normal" sleeping patterns, I don't see that it is really all that useful.
    If you don't see it, you don't see it.
    Provided that you take into account Thunder objection (that is, that the dichtomy is only applicable when optimal sleeping conditions are achievable), then yes, you can delete me from the list of your anomalies.ù

    In regards to the article:

    4. Thinking geniuses, most likely, - this is the aggravated, maximum version of dialectical- algorithmic intellect. Its uniqueness consists in the free game of mind, the indefatigable imagination, the daring synthesis of oppositions. Practically always it accompanies [negativistskaya] with respect to the public opinion position. Mysticism frequently is present. But if western [tipologi] consider that the brilliant thinkers belonged to the type OR, then my opinion - to [EIE]. The unbalanced nervous system, is hotter heart and the [myatushchiysya], overfilled by associative means reason - here is that material, from which nature models geniuses.
    There are some logical errors in this positions, but now I can't be bothered.
    fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Provided that you take into account Thunder objection (that is, that the dichtomy is only applicable when optimal sleeping conditions are achievable), then yes, you can delete me from the list of your anomalies.
    Thanks. So, Slacker Mom was right ... You and I belong to the same quadra after all ...

  13. #13
    Resident WOP FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,473
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Provided that you take into account Thunder objection (that is, that the dichtomy is only applicable when optimal sleeping conditions are achievable), then yes, you can delete me from the list of your anomalies.
    Thanks. So, Slacker Mom was right ... You and I belong to the same quadra after all ...
    This doesn't avoid me reprimanding your lack of social skills in presenting your arguments, though
    fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Provided that you take into account Thunder objection (that is, that the dichtomy is only applicable when optimal sleeping conditions are achievable), then yes, you can delete me from the list of your anomalies.
    Thanks. So, Slacker Mom was right ... You and I belong to the same quadra after all ...
    This doesn't avoid me reprimanding your lack of social skills in presenting your arguments, though
    I know that I lack social skills, not only in presenting my arguments. Your reprimands will probably not change that fact overnight.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Back to Gulenko ...

    Initially I didn't pay close enough attention to an important little fact that Gulenko explains in his article. When he uses the terms "deductive" and "inductive" he does it in a very special sense that is not the same as the meaining those terms have when we talk about deductive/inductive logic and reasoning. This is very important to keep in mind, so let's do that. My first instinct is to say that Gulenko should not have chosen those terms to describe the differences between the types in this context, but maybe there is a point to it that will be more clearly seen eventually, so I will not insist on it -- at least not yet.

    But wait a minute ... First Gulenko says that he is going to use the terms in a non-standard way (the second sense he tries to explain), but later, when he is discussing how the polarity evolution/involution manifests itself at the intellectual level, he nevertheless is using them in the standard way (Gulenko's first sense) in this passage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Not excess it will note that the deductive thinking in society always had a priority before the inductive. To explain phenomenon, after building its noncontradictory deductive theory, was always considered the affair of the honor of researcher.
    So, Gulenko is not consistent in his use of terms here, and that is unlucky, because it adds some irritating confusion to all this.

  16. #16
    Resident WOP FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,473
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think we should use the definition he refers to when he applies the inductive/deductive dichotomy, rather than the one which is explained at the start of the article, also given that it is machine translated and thus some meaning is lost in the process.
    fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    132
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: "Forms of Thinking" by Gulenko

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Gulenko further mentions that synergists like to explain things through reasons of substance. This sort of the simplest positive way to frame something. "He's like that, he tends to kick dogs, it's in his nature, isn't he adorable? I guess he just likes to kick things? Funny! We should give him a soccer ball with a picture of a dog and put him on a team!" To frame a negative as something that can't be helped, should be accepted and found a use for. To frame the subject as not a fault but as raw material for creativity. (It's not a problem, it's a feature!") (And in this being the diametric opposite of the hologram thinkers who can find a problem in anything.)
    Wow, I think almost exactly like this. Haha, that's funny.

  18. #18
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Some unsorted personal reflections on this extremely interesting material ...
    One of the best things to surface in a while, sure.

    From my perspective I have thought that I focus on generalizations. I have associated that with simplification, clarification, and one of my working hypotheses have been that it might have something to do with inductive reasoning in contrast to deductive reasoning. That's one reason why I have thought that Sergei Ganin's INTp Uncovered profile is misleading when he describes the INTps as enemies of generalizations. Are we talking about the same thing or not? I'm not sure, and now Gulenko complicates things a bit too.
    It's not so simple. INTp is Ni to begin with. Ni is less specific than Si for example. It's also an internal function to begin with. As a starting point it is already a rule, of something generally happening. It's the end-point of inductive assumption for an IP type. (Whereas for the EJ it's the end-point of trying to deduct something to non-existence.) So an INTp is someone who tries to condense his general knowledge into simple packages of Te. From large vague knowledge to powerful simple assertions.

    ILIs are, in essence, synthesizers. I try to explain a synthesis when I say that, despite their apparent differences between how the types are described in Socionics and MBTT, they are nevertheless talking about the same referents, the same groups of people, the same empirical types. I have thought that that means that ILIs don't build deductive theories from axioms or basic assumptions -- that they try instead to explain the external information in more simple terms, but maybe that can be interpreted as almost identical to what Gulenko says about the involutionary (result) types:
    Gulenko has a problem here though. He uses analyst as a substitute for Static and synthesizer as code-word for dynamic. I'm dynamic and so I'm a synthesizer, but I also use axioms and deduce stuff out of that. What is critical to understand here that Gulenko refers particularly to analysis of perceiving functions (extrovert-perceiving functions, introvert judging functions). I analyze judging functions, but my nature to the environment, to the actual events in the world is still as a synthesizer, while on a social level, I'm an analyst. (Judging-perceiving difference). Or to put it another way, not every taciturn type is static.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive brain reduces them to the simple, purified of details diagrams and the models. Thus, involutional types in order to be dismantled at the situation, will simplify it. For them is typical the judgment in the reverse order - from the complex to the simple.
    So, according to Gulenko, that is what LIIs do -- simplify and reduce -- whereas the ILIs, belonging to the group of evolutionary (process) thinkers, would be the ones using deductive logic and building more complex theories out of simple axioms or assumptions, that is what I have associated with a the expression "a bottom-up" approach. And most people on this forum have automatically associated deductive logic with LIIs, not ILIs. How shall we understand this? Are we contradicting each other or not? What are we talking about? What is Gulenko talking about?
    We must understand the difference between process-result and negative-positive. Both INTp and INTj are negativist. They close out ideas and in such a manner proceed from larger to smaller. Neither one is induction-related. But INTj is 'result'. They see things as simple, believe that their first idea of a subject is the totality of the subject, no need to go deep into it. Or if they do, another quick glimpse from another point of view will do the trick. They will not pause to examine it deeply, they will not go into depth, they will not proceed step by step and wait for the result to emerge only at the end-point of a long pondering. This is what it means when it is said that INTps over-complicate and INTjs over-simplify. It is about whether they handle the search of truth as a quick drive-by or a long trek. So INTjs will quickly produce good results in simple matters but will rarely reach the correct end in complex matters while INTps will take a long time to produce answers even to simple questions whereas they remain more capable in producing correct answers to complicated ones.

    To complicate things further (if that is that what I'm doing ...) Gulenko also mentions in his article that for the involutionary types "is characteristic the accomplishment of backward motions - from the end at the beginning, from below - upward." I have thought that that is exactly what I have bee noticing in my own behaviour. That I almost always prefer to start with the conclusion, the main thesis, before I get into the details and the question how the conclusion was derived. I tend to ask: What's the point of all this? What (thesis) are you trying to argue for?
    Then, you have a problem

    Is Gulenko wrong about this?
    No. But as I've asserted ad nauseam, no one behaves according to a single type every time. And you say you've only noticed it. So it's a recent phenomenon. Anyway, from what I've seen dialectic thinking works in unison with vortex thinking, so if you do a little bit of that, it's fine.

    The LIIs try to simplify, to reduce a complex reality into a few axioms and assumptions, and the theory of the functions in Socionics is an example of that kind of thinking.

    The ILIs try to see reality in all its complexity before they even begin to think about reducing things to basic assumptions. So, at least in the initial stage of the investigating process, the ILIs seem to complicate things further and further. But their ultimate goal is to arrive at an all-encompassing understanding of the world that can be captured in a theory.
    Let me put it like this... LIIs reduce by discarding unneeded parts. ILIs reduce by connecting threads. Connecting threads is complex because it has to be done in a correct way whereas anything can be discarded and discarding is simple.

    Gulenko also seems to focus on the first stage of an LII's approach, whereas I, as said, have focussed on the later stages. Is that a possible dissolution of our apparent differences in views? Do we actually agree on this?
    Possible.

    An important aspect of this kind of thinking is the tendency to classify, or as Gulenko puts it:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Algorithmic thinking also solves well problems to the classification, since has the gift of the recognition of complex means.
    I'm not entirely sure what Gulenko means with this but I think it might actually be a mistake. Another example of missing the importance of narrative-taciturn dichotomy. ENTjs are pretty good at classifying things and they're not algorithmic thinkers. But I'm not really sure what he means with this. Perhaps he means the way algorithmic thinkers reduce things to the smallest possible form that contains all the relevant information? But the end-result isn't always a class. It can be a process. Hmm... Anyway, I think he's made an error in this.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    So an INTp is someone who tries to condense his general knowledge into simple packages of Te. From large vague knowledge to powerful simple assertions.
    Yes, that is definitely correct and a very accurate way of putting it. And you wouldn't call that "making generalizations"? How exactly shall we understand the difference between "condensing general knowledge into simple packages of Te" and the kind of generalizations Ganin claims we are enemies of?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    INTj is 'result'. They see things as simple, believe that their first idea of a subject is the totality of the subject, no need to go deep into it. Or if they do, another quick glimpse from another point of view will do the trick. They will not pause to examine it deeply, they will not go into depth, they will not proceed step by step and wait for the result to emerge only at the end-point of a long pondering. This is what it means when it is said that INTps over-complicate and INTjs over-simplify. It is about whether they handle the search of truth as a quick drive-by or a long trek. So INTjs will quickly produce good results in simple matters but will rarely reach the correct end in complex matters while INTps will take a long time to produce answers even to simple questions whereas they remain more capable in producing correct answers to complicated ones.
    This is extremely well put, I think. When phrasing it like this, things that were somewhat blurry before now become very clear. This is exactly how I see the differences in behaviour between the two types, and it helps to decide with more certainty the types of some famous persons I have still had some slight doubts about. The exact borders between INTjs and INTps are now even more visable and distinct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    Anyway, from what I've seen dialectic thinking works in unison with vortex thinking, so if you do a little bit of that, it's fine.
    I'll have to figure out what vortex thinking really is first ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
    LIIs reduce by discarding unneeded parts. ILIs reduce by connecting threads. Connecting threads is complex because it has to be done in a correct way whereas anything can be discarded and discarding is simple.
    Yes, that's good. I agree with that.

    This material will take some time to digest. I am probably not done with it yet ...

  20. #20
    Resident WOP FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,473
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    I'll have to figure out what vortex thinking really is first ...
    Look at SE's first old thread on smilexian socionics
    fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

  21. #21
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just mentioning that my description of vortex thinking in this thread is somewhat flawed, as it's centered on the EJ version of it, but I need to think a bit before I'm able to mold it into an IP-friendly version.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  22. #22
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not all of what was writting about INTj's is entirely unbiased. If I considered the search for the truth a "quick drive by" I wouldn't be here today, still trying to figure out what ties this whole socionics' mess together at the molecular level after having studied it for longer than a year. Also, while it is a simple to eliminate parts that are not needed, it is an intricate task to judge which way one should go to reach an answer that does meet ones standards... In general, an INTj doesn't stop at saying "This isn't good enough". He proceeds to add "the correct answer is closer to...".

  23. #23
    Smilingeyes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,228
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat
    Not all of what was writting about INTj's is entirely unbiased. If I considered the search for the truth a "quick drive by" I wouldn't be here today, still trying to figure out what ties this whole socionics' mess together at the molecular level after having studied it for longer than a year. Also, while it is a simple to eliminate parts that are not needed, it is an intricate task to judge which way one should go to reach an answer that does meet ones standards... In general, an INTj doesn't stop at saying "This isn't good enough". He proceeds to add "the correct answer is closer to...".
    I was talking about the theoretical archetype of INTj. You are not it. You are an example of what falls within the range of "being closer to INTj than anything else" My description was of the extreme peak of INTjness, of the equibalance of Ne and Ti. You're far more Ti. If you want to define a type, you can't use yourself as a measuring stick. If I said something not correct, it was not because of bias, but because I was unable to put my words better. INTj is defined by 'result', which is to seek quick solutions. 'Process' is to push through with ideas of looking and pushing deeper into a subject. This difference can not be ignored. Your example of what you do, is of course reasonable, that is what should happen next, to try to go a step better, but that is the change from what is INTj to what is NOT.

    Socionics has only four types for people of the NT club, people who try to define knowledge. And it's quite natural that one will find oneself somewhat disappointed by what can be described by two bits of information.

    And it's not uncommon at all to meet INTjs who discard the whole for a small error. Anyway, I hope you did pause to read the other descriptions as well. I don't think I handled any of them with kid gloves.

    For a nice view on how this throw-away thing of hologrammists works, one can watch the series "Sex and the city" In which at least three of the four main characters show repeatedly their ability to discard things, in this case men, based on the most trivial notions and errors (and in some cases not so trivial).

    ...

    By the definition of dialectic thinking I should have proceeded to a depth of self-control and asceticism of extreme proportions and be off spending three hours a day washing my hands (knowing that somewhere there's still a microbe of impurity left). Clearly I do not do that. That's because I'm sane and not constricted to using this style of thought to everything.
    First eliminate every possible source of error. Thence success is inevitable.

  24. #24
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,334
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Cause-effect thinking rocks!

    It's only been 16 minutes since I checked the time, but it feels like hours have gone by.

  25. #25
    Creepy-male

    Default

    whats that supposed to mean?

  26. #26
    Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,862
    Mentioned
    113 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your cause-effect thinking fails miserably. . . at the quantum level.

  27. #27
    Creepy-male

    Default

    who me or jxtres?

  28. #28
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The thing to realize about Positive/Process types is that they are negative and critical at the moment they first come in contact with a situation. They first see a problem and only then manifest fanatical optimism towards solving the problem.

    Negative/Result types are the opposite. They go out of their way to find a way to interpret their first contact with a situation in a positive light, but they formulate their deeper reflections of it in terms of a problem.

  29. #29
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    The thing to realize about Positive/Process types is that they are negative and critical at the moment they first come in contact with a situation. They first see a problem and only then manifest fanatical optimism towards solving the problem.

    Negative/Result types are the opposite. They go out of their way to find a way to interpret their first contact with a situation in a positive light, but they formulate their deeper reflections of it in terms of a problem.
    Without even getting caught up too much with the socionics details, that's a very useful dichotomy to see in interactions between people. I know I heavily identity with seeing a problem then manifesting fanatical optimism towards solving it... in fact I'm constantly doing this, sometimes it's "potential problems".... I'll see it and feel compelled to point these out.... I find to some people this is the grand offenses of all offenses.... they get mad at me and I'm left without any sense of movement towards a resolution, and usually I drudge along for a while feeling low becoming obsessed with the problem until I feel some hope. It's horrible really, gahh..... but I'd think if people started to just realize these differences between each other it could be better.

  30. #30
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,700
    Mentioned
    227 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like algorithmic thinkers. They're easy to understand.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  31. #31
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    this article is a very cool part of socionics theory. i wish someone could translate it better. can it be stickied?

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  32. #32
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Result pairs of types are all about identifying oppurtunities first and then choosing between them. I think this last thing is what smilingeyes means by "discarding". It was mainly the omission of the first part of the process, without which the latter part makes no sense whatsoever, that made me not recognize it. What I think the description doesn't do justice to is the fact that the discarding is done with a purpose. The discarding approach is the only way to make use of combinations of oppurtunities. You try to combine as many of them as you can, but there is always something that remains left out. In a sense, he only describes a fringe aspect of the process. It's probably the most visible part of the process, though. The "we can't include that oppurtunity without giving up a better combination" decision point is kind of like a goal that one tries to reach. An Negative/Result type who is very sure of himself can manifest that attitude for long times on end.

    ( A really important thing to realize about the socionics functions, in my opinion, is that the Static functions always work through and/or "on top of" the dynamic functions. This is how discarding oppurtunities follows up on finding oppurtunities, and how identifying obstacles (Negative/Process) is followed by manifesting optimism towards overcoming these (Positive/Process). )

  33. #33
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze View Post
    this article is a very cool part of socionics theory. i wish someone could translate it better. can it be stickied?
    I was working on an improved translation a while ago, but it's a bloody long article. Should I post what I have?
    Quaero Veritas.

  34. #34
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krig the Viking View Post
    I was working on an improved translation a while ago, but it's a bloody long article. Should I post what I have?
    that would be great....post what you have and add when you can?

    i like smilingeye's comments, but it would be cool to just have it in english and make my own interpretation.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  35. #35
    jughead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NC
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    883
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    2.4. Physical level.
    The arrangement of collocutors plays large role in the communication on the contrary or next. To the significance in the contact of this factor, as the three-dimensional arrangement of [kommunikantov] indicated already Sullivan. Presence opposite the partner in the communication gives advantage to [negativistam]. Positivists better associate, being located by a number or at angle to the collocutor - in such a way that their views would be directed to one side.
    A involuntary decrease in confrontation level because of the juxtaposition - the usual method, which use the psychologists in the work with the conjugal pairs experiencing problems. Sitting next and being alternately turned only to the imaginary third collocutor, husbands gradually decrease the sharpness of the sore conflict.
    Practical psychologists, who study nonverbal signals, separate the entire class of the gestures of critical relation to the collocutor. For example, hand in mouth. Such gestures treat usually as closed. From the point of view of [sotsioniki], this is explained faster not by intro-version, but by negativism.
    Negativism it implies the perceptible solid tension. If we draw for the comparison this pair of oppositions as charging/discharging, then for [negativistov] the first pole is the automatically started process. The negatively charged types easily overswing (especially, if they still and the dynamics). Therefore for purposes of the compensation to [negativistam] physical exercises to the weakening, the smoothing of internal potential are recommended. A to the positivists it is better to carry out the complex of physical exercises for the purpose to be excited, to aggravate its physiological processes.

    Is this basically saying negatavist types should exercise to tired themselves out to smooth out their responses, relax them? To stop "overswing" and lession the "percetible solid tension" they give off?
    And that positivists should exercise to excite themselves?
    The translation is hard to understand.

  36. #36
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    jxrtes and I have been working on an improved translation. Here's what we have for that section:

    2.4. Physical level.

    The way collocutors are arranged -- either opposite each other or next to each other -- plays an important role in communication. The importance in communication of such factors as the spatial arrangement of the communicators was explained by Sullivan. Being opposite the partner in communication is advantageous to negativists. Positivists communicate better when located beside or at an angle to the collocutor - in such a way that their gazes are directed off to one side.

    An involuntary decrease in the level of confrontation due to being seated side by side is a standard method used by psychologists when working with married couples experiencing problems. By sitting side by side and addressing an imaginary third collocutor, spouses gradually decrease the severity of the conflict.

    Practical psychologists, who study nonverbal signals, identify an entire class of gestures demonstrating a critical attitude toward the collocutor. For example, hand at mouth. Such gestures are usually treated as closed. From the socionics point of view, this is better explained not by introversion, but by negativism.

    Negativism brings with it palpable bodily tension. If we depict (for comparison) this pair of opposites as charging/discharging, then for negativists the first dichotomy is an automatically started process. Negatively charged types are easily over-excited (especially if they are also dynamics). Therefore, to compensate for negativism, physical exercises are recommended for relaxation, smoothening the internal capacity. But for positivists it is better to perform a system of physical exercises to excite and aggravate their physiological processes.

    Negativists tend to be quite tense, and should practice relaxation exercises. Positivists, on the other hand, are recommended to exercise to "wake themselves up", as it were.
    Quaero Veritas.

  37. #37
    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.

  38. #38
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    I've been sporadically editing/formatting parts of it as I read, using Google Translate and regexps to get a better readout. The article is quite fascinating and among one of the most useful Socionics things I've read to date.

    Here's what I have so far: http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3855...nitive-styles/
    Thanks, Ashton. I've been wishing someone would take this on.

    I wish I had more background on how Gulenko initially observed these different approaches to thinking, etc.

  39. #39
    Contrarian Traditionalist Krig the Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada's Prairie Farmland
    TIM
    C-LII
    Posts
    2,647
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    I've been sporadically editing/formatting parts of it as I read, using Google Translate and regexps to get a better readout. The article is quite fascinating and among one of the most useful Socionics things I've read to date.

    Here's what I have so far: http://forum.socionix.com/topic/3855...nitive-styles/

    It's such a long article though, it'd take forever to do it all.
    Do you want to join forces? I've got significant portions of the article translated. I was working with jxrtes, but I think we've both allowed the task to fall into the limbo of procrastination...
    Quaero Veritas.

  40. #40
    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.

Page 1 of 4 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
  •