Thinking styles and patterns of self-typing

[Creepy-male]

Any possible relationship?

[Ave]

I dont understand the question

[consentingadult]

Any possible relationship?

yes, any possible relationship. So impossible relationships should not be considered.

[Ave]

yes, any possible relationship. So impossible relationships should not be considered.

Wah? Am I the only one who forgot to take acid before reading this thread?

[Jarno]

I dont understand the question

I'm not sure too.

[Ave]

I'm not sure too.

Maybe theres nothing to understand?

[Jarno]

maybe he wants to know if one can type himself by examining his thinking style, whatever that may be.

[Ave]

yeah I guess thats it, lol.

[Aiss]

Or maybe how people with different thinking styles approach self-typing.

[Brilliand]

I think he's asking whether Holographic/Vortex/Algorithmic/Cause-Effect manifests in self-typing patterns. If they do, then that would assist greatly in typing people who keep changing their types.

[Creepy-male]

Or maybe how different thinking styles approach self-typing.

That's the ticket.

Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?

[Jarno]

That's the ticket.

Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?

I don't know what style I have, but I used dichotomies and descriptions for my selftyping.

[Ave]

That's the ticket.

Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?

You lost me again

[Aiss]

Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?

I've thought for a while that Se-ego holographic thinkers (SLE and ESI) are likely to mistype as Ne-egos. Especially the latter type. The reason for that would be stereotypes, which rule supreme here. Someone shoving their opinions down others' throats? Probably Ne-PoLR. Someone always looking at the issue from many sides? Must be Ne-valuing. Etc. Basically there's this stereotype of Ne equaling open-mindedness or considering many aspects rather than going with what's most obvious, which, needless to say, fails for the two types I've mentioned. They're probably likely to mistype for ILE and EII (the latter more commonly, I suspect), two types which do have Ne in their ego, yet use cause-effect thinking stereotypically associated with devalued Ne. I would even go as far as to say that the nature of Ne is lost in this common perception.

/rant over

To be honest, I can't see at this point how each style would approach self-typing, though it makes sense that it would influence it. For me - in context of dialectical-algorithmic thinking - it is considering several types simultaneously and how they suit me, as if there always a "what if". Even up to now, I sometimes explore this other-type-branch, consider how what I do, think, how I am, would go with it and if it all doesn't make more sense this way. I'm not sure how to explain it better nor how applicable it is for other types with this style - for example LSE or SEI. Doubts seem to be inherently connected with it, but they're usually associated with ILI rather than a common denominator for several types. So maybe it's different with them.

[DividedsGhost]

Any possible relationship?

I doubt it is anything clearly obvious.

Why? What did you have in mind?

[Krig the Viking]

I've thought for a while that Se-ego holographic thinkers (SLE and ESI) are likely to mistype as Ne-egos. Especially the latter type. The reason for that would be stereotypes, which rule supreme here. Someone shoving their opinions down others' throats? Probably Ne-PoLR. Someone always looking at the issue from many sides? Must be Ne-valuing. Etc. Basically there's this stereotype of Ne equaling open-mindedness or considering many aspects rather than going with what's most obvious, which, needless to say, fails for the two types I've mentioned. They're probably likely to mistype for ILE and EII (the latter more commonly, I suspect), two types which do have Ne in their ego, yet use cause-effect thinking stereotypically associated with devalued Ne. I would even go as far as to say that the nature of Ne is lost in this common perception.

I agree that this is a concern, especially with ESI/EII.

As a Holographic thinker, the way I type (both myself and others) is to "try on" different types, like hats, trying to see which one fits best. They're not considered simultaneously, like Aiss described -- I take off one "hat", put on another, see if it fits, then go back to the first one and see if it fits better. If it's a particularly difficult case, I'll go back and forth between different hats many times before I finally decide which one fits best. Consequently, even when I do come to a conclusion as to which hypothesis is correct, it's still just "the hat that fits best", and can be changed if new data comes to light.

I think Vortex thinkers would be the most likely to frequently change their self typing, followed by Holographic types, then Dialectical-Algorithmic, and then Cause-Effect would be the least likely to change their self-typing once they've decided -- even if their self-typing is wrong.

[Creepy-male]

Haha Krig. I think my problem when I started with Socionics was having my head crushed by wearing too many hats at once.



Anyway, as for Cause-effect, I recall a post by Isha describing how she basically went from typing to typing by "reconstructing" each old one, and salvaging what made sense and reincorporating that into a new, more sense-making typing (paraphrase, not quote). That's why if you look at the unholy trail of typings she's left strewn about in her wake, anything more than a single step doesn't make much sense, but each individual retyping is at least reasonable (imo).

[Aiss]

Anyway, as for Cause-effect, I recall a post by Isha describing how she basically went from typing to typing by "reconstructing" each old one, and salvaging what made sense and reincorporating that into a new, more sense-making typing (paraphrase, not quote). That's why if you look at the unholy trail of typings she's left strewn about in her wake, anything more than a single step doesn't make much sense, but each individual retyping is at least reasonable (imo).

That's the sort of plot I like - where every part is perfectly possible, but the whole seems impossibly improbable. Not saying anything about that person's type, just about the idea. Maybe it's because dialectical-algorithmic is "complimentary" to cause-effect, so I enjoy it. (I use "" as duals always have this or the other pair, but it doesn't mean it always is, like in contraries.)

Out of curiosity, do you relate to any thinking style in particular and if so, how strongly?

[Azeroffs]

That's the ticket.

Like, would each of dialectical-algorithmic, cause-effect, holographic, and vortex have consistent patterns in how they approach self-typing?

What are these?

[Aiss]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...g-gulenko.html

[Creepy-male]

What are these?

It's a Gulenko thing that links thinking style with Dynamic/Static + Negativist/Positivist + Process/Result.

@Aiss: short answer is dialectal-algorithmic. Long answer is short answer + elaboratin, but I'm playing WoW with hitta right now

[Brilliand]

Here's what I'm thinking at present (after reading Krig's post)...

Process: Consider many types simultaneously
Result: Consider one type at a time
Positivist: Comes to a final answer
Negativist: Constantly reconsidering

Static/Dynamic just seems like the Reininization of those dichotomies at this point. Dynamic is when the initial spread matches the final spread (many-many or one-one), whereas Static is where it doesn't (holographic - considering one type at a time to arrive at a set of probabilities, cause-effect - considering many types at once to come to one conclusion).

(The effect of Krig's post here was the process/result distinction)

EDIT: The Positivist/Negativist distinction here is uncomfortably similar to the "I know I don't really understand the theory"/"I understand the theory well" distinction.

[krieger]

I think the impact of thinking style should not be overstated. It is a relatively difficult to quantify phenomenon compared to several other things in socionics. I would expect temperament and club to have a far greater impact on the way a person reaches their self-typing than thinking style.