Summoning help for determining my sociotype

[Creepy-ssss]

I said i couldn't digest it. But not because it was extremely Ti but because i generally don't digest long posts that people write about themselves.(that's just me, i hope you're fine with that) That was my point.

I see. OK, no problem

[Absurd]

I did not say "in Socionics".

Fair enough, I lose, you win.

[Creepy-Snaps]

hiperactive

I found a spelling error in reading that post!

Nah seriously, if English is really your 2nd language, that was very easy to follow.

Lastly.... YAYYYYY FOR HAVING ANOTHER DUAL ON 16TYPES!!!!

[woofwoofl]

Lastly.... YAYYYYY FOR HAVING ANOTHER DUAL ON 16TYPES!!!!

Congrats!

I got the impression of LII due to the type interactions on the thread - MSM and The Ineffable are having a really great connection in the thread and it's cool to see

I've tried to read a lot of the posts, and they melted my brain over like only Alpha NT is able to do

[Creepy-ssss]

I found a spelling error in reading that post!

Lastly.... YAYYYYY FOR HAVING ANOTHER DUAL ON 16TYPES!!!!

... or conflictor...

[Creepy-ssss]

Congrats!

I got the impression of LII due to the type interactions on the thread - MSM and The Ineffable are having a really great connection in the thread and it's cool to see

I've tried to read a lot of the posts, and they melted my brain over like only Alpha NT is able to do

Take a look to the last posts. It has been an increasing clash between us, what could fit in contrary relationships or could be acually a coincidence.

I'm not sure, labcoat has presented to me Ti in such way... If really some people could work in that way I'm not one of them, and I see it absolutely illogical (from my point of view, at least). Begoner has made also interesting observations.

Maybe I will never be enough sure about my type but hey, that was not my initial objective. Good if I do it but if I don't it's not too relevant. I'm sure about not working in "Labcoat's Ti mode", so I have now a refined, improved vision about how my psyche works. Being it cannonical Augusta's Ti, MBTI's Ti, etc, is interesting but not is not the key, all of this are simply conventions, different intepretations for a supposed same phenomenon. Mutiple POVs for being considered.

[silke]

I'm not sure, labcoat has presented to me Ti in such way... If really some people could work in that way I'm not one of them, and I see it absolutely illogical (from my point of view, at least). Begoner has made also interesting observations.

Labcoat is Ne-LII afaik so his descriptions of LIIs will naturally put more emphasis on workings of Ne, while you sound like a Ti-LII. He is actually not describing Ti alone but rather Ne->Ti flow of information:

in INTjs' minds, ideas and beliefs form more or less spontaneously through an interface with the subject matter (Ne) ... it is only after the belief system is formed that logical implication chains are asserted. (Ti)

I would disagree with him that your "exhaustiveness" of reasoning is indicative of ILI but rather I think it is indicative of the difference between your subtypes. Ti-LIIs who place focus on Ti and Si seem to be given into engaging in more extensive and detailed analyses than Ne-LIIs like labcoat.

[The Ineffable]

Despite you rewrite with a different style, the basic idea is still the same. Rhetoric did not change this. I understand well your "binary array" analogy, but I see it as an attempt of presenting your reasoning as something different. If it's simply a binary array, you would not insist so much in the dichotomy. I saw no relativization in your words, so I do not trust that it were only a "way of presenting the idea". I think that you said what apparently you said, and now you're trying to prove that you didn't say it.

Man, you're so prone to equivocation, but I have the feeling you're doing it intentionally this time to get away with your mistake... REGARGLESS, you have no justification to suggest that I meant true/false thinking in this case - which is in fact the only way I used the term binary previously -, that would imply I don't acknowledge relative thinking can acknowledge sets of two options, which was never the case. You just try to profit from the fact that "binary" is not so well defined to imply only 2 exclusive/opposite options in order to win the argument, but still if we get back to what I said (true/false) you don't earn it.

I insist in the same analogy. You can, outside typology, invent a system of rules and make calculations with them. If the system is not based, not model, reality, you can still make evaluations, but they would be... meaningless. Unless some degree of correlation with reality exist, this system will have nothing to say about "real/unreal". I see Maths and Logic as nature-based in certain way so I put entity in them. What I simply disagree with you is that a pure "theoretical" system, as you said, could make evaluations about reality.

All personality types systems are modelled on reality, that doesn't make them the same. Do you intend to use Socionics or to make your own system?

Your argumentation presupposes that the usage of epistemiology you're doing is valid. I undsterstand what you're trying to say, but I simply disagree.

If we consult a dictionary, it says that epistemology is a branch of PHILOSOPHY. Is Philosophy a Science? Has it the property of falsiability? I guess not. Therefore, how can you prove the tools you're using are correct?

That's a totally different story! I was just communicating you an idea, if you're intellectually unprepard for understanding it - rejecting epistemology - that doesn't make it a tautology and I'm not wrong per se.

Something you don't know... and I suppose you know it better than me, and your interpretation is the correct one, etc. What you still don't undertsand is that your interpretation of the same phenomenon is your interpretation. Unless you can prove your interpretation is the correct one, it would be only an opinion of many.

My arguments were a demosntration, not a "proof". What kind of proof do you want, being written on Wikipedia word-by-word?

I insist to you that if you're insterested in simply memorizing a set of rules and applying it without questioning their validity, I'm not. Maybe I'm a Ni using your method, but I don't care it. I'm not interested in seeing if I fit in the definition of geen or blue, but how much real blue or green are, and the implications of this. And I really can't understand (well it is a way of speaking, I can) why some person would be interested in applying a set of rues simply for applying them, or putting so much emphasis in this instead working with the part of this that it's seen as close to real.

Exactly your problem. If you don't know what green and blue are defined, you can't find how much blue or green there is, not the same as established, simply because you're using rogue definitions. Similarly, if you don't know what Socionics LII and ILI are using the definitions, you'll end up having your different types, therefore you're not using Socionics. The problem is that you're not using Socionics Ni but your personal definition of Ni.
Q.E.D.

(You said above that you're using "scientific reasoning", not philosophy. But science without definitions is not science, rejecting the definitions in order to freely replace them with your beliefs is what they call "mental masturbation". )

I know they're these systems are not the same. I simply said, and I thought I was enough clear, that unless you can objectively prove the more correctness of one of them, all of these interpretations of the same phenomenon are equally valid by default. I insist I'm interested in knowing myself, not discussing if my height is better expressed in metric units or imperial units (well... metric of course ).

Oh but don't take apple for oranges - well ok, not your fault, your Ni base takes its toll - we were discussing what's your type in Socionics, not whether Socionics is teh sh*t.

Just curious: jumping from one thing to another without even noticing, isn't this Intuitive Irrational (Perceiving) in your book, too?

Anyway, do you really think I'm insterested in applying a set of rules for the simple sake of applying them?

What I see is that you are in a hurry to present yourself as LII instead of knowing what this means.

And who are you (us in your sentence)? The Magisters (Dixit) of Socionics? I laugh about this, and I laugh because... you're usually alone against other "magisters".

The difference between us is that I'm asking for correctness while you're asking for freedom of speech .

As arbitrariy as any opinion about any issue which cannot be proven.
Claiming to "Scientific reasoning" (what you undestand as it) in something that it's not a Science...

No science falls from the sky, it is developed by people. Scientific reasoning is required before the science. This scientific reasoning includes being capable to understand and stick to premises, what you appear to lack.

I'll say to you: Socionics is not a Science.
Again, repeat with me: Socionics is not a Science.

Socionics is not a Science.

Now you repeat after me: Socionics is a set of definitions and axioms.

You still don't understand my point of view. As Socionics ideas cannot be proven, (it is not a Science) you cannot use what you understand as "Scientific reasoning". Thre is no REAL laws here, there is no falsiability. Therefore applying perfectly "the rules" will produce "an accurate type" but VOID. I'm not interested in this. Capisci?

I understand this, but if you're unwilling to accept the rules, go do something else... What are you doing here, playing an RPG, building your character the way you like? (maybe this means "MensSuperMateriam") In this case, I have a wish: redefine yourself as Super Man and free N Korea, will you?

It was supposed ILEs are "big picture" type...

Big picture is not a synonym for delusion.

The rule man attacks again... I'm not interested in my sociotype as you understand the issue. I've said it more than once.

So why are you asking for your type on a Socionics board?

I said "rely heavily" not "are exclusively based". They use "Ti calculations", so to speak, with scientific knowledge whose validity has been tested.
See upper about what I said of "Ti+Te combination" in Science.

Hello, we were talking about the validity of pure logic, which you initially rejected. You were checkmate, now you try to distort the premises to get away with it. Be honest, at least, that you're playing a game.

All that was not tested - eg. the design of a large bridge - is built with the mind, still correct. There are (absolute) correct rules of logic which one can't defy, unless he/she is not using logic. Man can know a priori whether something - including of physical nature - is possible or impossible, without testing it. Do you agree with it? (if not, I will give you an example like the ones with the architects and you'll be checkmate again, so think well about it)

Yes you can't resist to offer your opinion as evidence simply because "you know more...". Don't make the same fault you put in others and IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, for "god's" sake. Magister Dixit everywhere.

Please stop bullshitting, all I said is that I'm closer to the definitions. If you compare my ramblings and your ramblings to the reference, you can see this for yourself. Also, it's unlikely someone like you, who reserves the right to define the types anything his heart desires, to be more accurate than me, who try to be correct regarding the Socionics reference.

That kind of fallacy (Argumentum ad populum) is only commited if you use it as the main source of opinion against other evidences.
The question is that your supposed understanding about this is IRRELEVANT because YOU CANNOT PROVE that your particular vision is the correct one, because this is not a Science theferore there is no falsiability.

That's clarified by my arguments, not by my assertion. But since you ignore all arguments and take everything just as "his opinion is ILI" vs "some others said I'm LII", then yes, you are committing that fallacy.

If there would be objective proofs then I would agree with you about this.

What kind of proofs? Give me an example, and also tell me what proofs of that "objective" nature do you have to reject ILI and embrace LII?

Don't "digitalize" or "dichotomize" my vision. I see reality as a set of probabilities in a issue "composed" by probabilities, and I see this issue in that way.
The analogy is valid.
Do you undertand QM? If I'm going to calculate a sum there's no probability question, you do it well or you don't, for example.

Do you have a winning lottery right now in your ownership? yes/no - easy. There's no probability involved, reality is not composed from whether you "could be" a winner or not, but if you are. If you're not, you may stick your percents you now where, they won't help you getting rich .

Lottery is probability-based, and without an objective proof it's the best it could be achieved about a type, a matter of probabities (and not based in a poll, only influence by it, as a variable of many).
I see some aspects of reality as probability-based, and others don't. That's the advantage of working with fuzzy logic; 0% and 100% are also included

Man, the lottery was just an example, WTF is wrong with you? I can give you a different example, for instance whether 2+2=5. It's a fact that 2+2=4, I wouldn't give a shit about the "possibility" to make 5, because that's flatly false in any possible world. So rejecting a false proposition does not mean "refusing to consider a possibility", it simply means rejecting falsehood. DO YOU FUZZY-LOGICALLY UNDERSTAND?

You can be sure that I'm not going to commit suicide due to typology questions, or more or less knowing. Is this so important for you?

No, the discussion helps me generate ideas. Tiresome but still catchy: http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.3.rels/relsumm.html (chart 2, ILE:ILI). I have an ILI friend I chat with on IM, our record is 12h+ in a raw, IIRC it was 14h.

(also check woofwoofl's post to have an idea of what stupid things users on this forum can say, there are some retards who cover contradictions with an alleged difference given by subtypes - but this is it, this is not an academy, it's a free forum and any random internet user can say anything, one reason to listen to arguments instead of opinions)

It doesn't matter anyway. I'm sure you could offer to me a description (of many) that affirms categorically what Ne is fitting in your vision, and this still will be an strict application of rules...

You are certainly right.

Yeah I admit that this apparently would make you right, but because you underline the key words that agree with you, and in PROFILES. Profiles are profiles, you know. And that "exact thinking" you underlined again sounds like LIIs almost can't agree with fuzzy logic or relativism...
More of the same, rules rules rules... You seem more LII than LIIs!!!!

Hmm LIIs are not that assertive and IMO they don't even really see a point convincing someone else, just because they know "the truth".

In fact this is something that made me think when I tried to find out my subtype - at least figuring out whether subtyes make sense. Consider the fact that ILEs are vocal and assertive, LIIs are polite and generally immersed in themselves. Now, some ILEs are more laid back, while others are more strict and vocal. But now, if I'm the second category, is that because of Ti - being more strict - or Ne - being more vocal? It makes no sense and IMO people stick only to some superficial observations to speculate and create these hypotheses.
(I also train myself mentally for this, seeing only two options: the tough way and the ignorant way)

Anyway I hope you believe me about this: I have nothing against being an ILI, I mean, there's no "I want to be a LII" or something like than. If I'm an ILI good then. I've in fact admired (and secretely envied) some Ni properties, in MBTI days and here. I simply do not agree with your method, or the way you "behaves" about Socionics.

Well I know that the more you try to push an ILI towards a conclusion, the more you make him/her resist and dodge your arguments. However, besides being hard to get out of my way, I don't have the necessary inventory to trick them the right way.

You said I ignored other users (LIIs/ILIs), I said to you this is not true.
And now you affirm that I'm using them as an evidence... of what? Where did you read in my words that I'm using them to point that I'm a LII or whatever???

I only said that I have no data about them, does this imply that I'm saying that this imply my LII-ness? I have not used them as evidence of anything, affirming that I have not data just points that I cannot evaluate. Don't you understand? Do not affirm that I use them as evidence when I'm not doing such thing. Period.

Maybe not now, but previously you said that "ILI won" because more people said so. I can't read your mind to know what you're currently thinking .

Any of us should stop. I cannot force you to be who do this, but as I've expressed, I'm not interested more in your participation, due to various reasons (not only what you say, but also how you say it). It would be a courtesy to submit to the desires of the creator of the thread.

Consider also that this is not a generalist one, but a thread focused in MYSELF and this should have some value.

Isn't that censorship? I mean if you misrepresent me, then forbid me to have my word based on your authority in this thread? If you can live with that, and ask me to get lost, I'd perhaps have no moral alternative - except if you say something too outrageous and I'll have to protest.

[Creepy-ssss]

Bullshit

As apparently you have the uncontrollable need of saying the last word, I'll let you. I will not discuss more.

Isn't that censorship? I mean if you misrepresent me, then forbid me to have my word based on your authority in this thread? If you can live with that, and ask me to get lost, I'd perhaps have no moral alternative - except if you say something too outrageous and I'll have to protest.

Censorship Moral reasons for answering Don't mask the real reasons. If you don't say the last words, your ideas will SEEM to be defeated. And you can't tolerate this right? If you are right, then you're right; I you aren't, then you aren't. Public recognition cannot change this, but although everyone is aware of this, you need to speak the last one...

This is my opinion about you

I've explicitly said how much I disliked your behavior in this conversation. That was my reason for "censoring" you. Believe it or not, I don't care.

[Creepy-ssss]

Labcoat is Ne-LII afaik so his descriptions of LIIs will naturally put more emphasis on workings of Ne, while you sound like a Ti-LII. He is actually not describing Ti alone but rather Ne->Ti flow of information:

Regardless you could be right or not, I think your analysis should not be correct. Being a different subtype should not change the direction of the flow of information. That should happen between mirrors:

Ti leading + Ne creative = Ti -> Ne (LII)
Ne leading + Ti creative = Ne -> Ti (ILE)

If you change the flow of information, you change the "nature" of the same function. Different subtypes would be manifested, AFAIK, as different "key goals", being more focused in one aspect or the other.

I would disagree with him that your "exhaustiveness" of reasoning is indicative of ILI but rather I think it is indicative of the difference between your subtypes. Ti-LIIs who place focus on Ti and Si seem to be given into engaging in more extensive and detailed analyses than Ne-LIIs like labcoat.

This could be true, although the "exhaustiveness" was not the key of his post, IMO. He presented qualitive, not only quantitative, differences between what should be a NiTe way of reasoning and TiNe.

I'm considering if those qualitative differences could be alternatively interpreted or not.

[The Ineffable]

Don't mask the real reasons. If you don't say the last words, your ideas will SEEM to be defeated. And you can't tolerate this right? If you are right, then you're right; I you aren't, then you aren't. Public recognition cannot change this, but although everyone is aware of this, you need to speak the last one...

It's hard to tolerate being misrepresented or slandered.

[eunice]

I have attempted to read the OP, but stopped short as I could not digest through all the .

[woofwoofl]

Take a look to the last posts. It has been an increasing clash between us, what could fit in contrary relationships or could be acually a coincidence.

The Ineffable is ILE, which means, if you're LII, then the two of you value the same functions in the Ego, Super-Id, Super-ego, and Id blocks, but interpret them in wildly different ways due to one person's Accepting functions being the other person's Producing functions (and vice-versa)...

You also made a comment about him being more than you, which stuck in my mind a lot - his cognitive style (and mine, for that matter) is Causal-Determinist, and due to its directness and straightforwardness, it can make a person come off more "T" or "J" than they should... if you were LII, yours would be Holographical-Panoramic, which has the most openness and the most breathing room of them all - such differing ways to interpret such similar perspectives can be absolutely frustrating...

Whatever specific NT Intratim you are, you certainly have a good command of your Id functions

[Creepy-ssss]

The Ineffable is ILE, which means, if you're LII, then the two of you value the same functions in the Ego, Super-Id, Super-ego, and Id blocks, but interpret them in wildly different ways due to one person's Accepting functions being the other person's Producing functions (and vice-versa)...

Well, you're right, Ti leading and accepting should be different in essence despite the global result would be similar. It's not the same "understanding" reality through Ti than deducing "logical rules" (internal consistency) from it.

But this still does not explain accularety our big disagreement, which is more in method than in conclusion. For example, he tends to seek for a single valid solution whereas I consider the existence of multiple valid solutions. This is better explained, IMO, by the negative (divergent thinking) Vs positive (convergent thinking), which correspond to Holographical-Panoramic (LII, etc) and Dialectical-Algorithmic (ILI, etc) cognititions; Causal-Determinist (ILE, etc) and Vortical (LIE, etc) cognitions. This fits in him being ILE (CD) and me LII or ILI (HP or DA).

You also made a comment about him being more than you, which stuck in my mind a lot - his cognitive style (and mine, for that matter) is Causal-Determinist, and due to its directness and straightforwardness, it can make a person come off more "T" or "J" than they should... if you were LII, yours would be Holographical-Panoramic, which has the most openness and the most breathing room of them all - such differing ways to interpret such similar perspectives can be absolutely frustrating...

Your analysis seems to be a bit conditioned by your positive opinion of HP cognition . The fact that HP "sees" from diferent point of views/angles does not make it automatically more "divergent" than DA, I mean, more capable of generating multiple solutions.

What you have probably observed in my way of reasoning is the big inclination for considering multiple options. But this is equally valid for HP or DA. The difference should not be how many options could be achieved, but HOW they're achieved.

Whatever specific NT Intratim you are, you certainly have a good command of your Id functions

Thanks. Assuming this is true, this could help for determining my subtype once I become reasonably confident about my type. But that's another question.

I'll comment about cognitive styles, which one I think better represents me and why.

[krieger]

Labcoat is Ne-LII afaik so his descriptions of LIIs will naturally put more emphasis on workings of Ne, while you sound like a Ti-LII. He is actually not describing Ti alone but rather Ne->Ti flow of information:



I would disagree with him that your "exhaustiveness" of reasoning is indicative of ILI but rather I think it is indicative of the difference between your subtypes. Ti-LIIs who place focus on Ti and Si seem to be given into engaging in more extensive and detailed analyses than Ne-LIIs like labcoat.

there are more people calling my a Ti subtype than an Ne subtype, and there are plenty of people who associate Ne with the more possibility embracing, exhaustive way of reasoning and Ti with the more quickly concluding, idiosyncratic way.

your post is on multiple levels a non-sequitur and a red herring.

[Creepy-ssss]

I've decided to consider cognitive styles after observing the effects that the three Reinin dichotomies, which are their basis, cause in the way of reasoning of different users (myself included).

ILEs seem to fit well in CD (I'm thinking in a lot of examples, this forum, other forums and real-life examples), so maybe LIIs and ILIs do the same in their corresponding HP and DA.

Holograpical-Panoramic:

• Analytic: static (spatial), stable vision of reality...
• Negative: divergent thinking (multiple solutions), minimizing negative, distrust, differences...
• Inductive: involution, simplification, result over preocess, suboptimal acceptable...

Dialectical-Algorithmic:

• Synthetic: dynamic (temporal), variable vision of reality...
• Negative: divergent thinking (multiple solutions), minimizing negative, distrust, differences...
• Deductive: evolution, complication, process over result...

(a table with the main characteristics of the four cognitive styles was made by EyeSeeCold)

The first impression after reading about CS is HP and DA are enough similar, so they could be mistaken. I could imagine an user of HP thinking in that way that he could "emulate" DA. Being HP characterized for changing the point of view, the selected angle for the managed information, with enough small changes these "static differences" could seem to be dynamic. An analogy could be a set of discrete points so similar that they resembles a line. By the other hand, in certain way "dynamic contains static": in a continuos variation you can always pass for a collection of discrete selected values, so DA could also emulate HP. The divergent thinking nature of HP and DA would make it possible. If any of these could emulate the other, how could they be accurately distinguished?



But the difference is more profound. They're different ways of thinking, not different variations of the same one. As usual, the difference was more obvious to me once I made a "mental simulation" of each process (could be this a trend of dynamic egos, making "simulations"??).

The question about static Vs dynamic is not simply "some points" Vs "all points". HP carries well, IMO, the essence of the Ti leading function, regardless the user is a Ti leading or even Ti ego. This method of thinking first takes a "snapshot" (hologram) of reality. It will contains all information needed for solving the problem. Being taken directly from reality, "it's true", so it does not need more "external confirmation" so to speak. The problem is solved analyzing this densely packed snapshots of information (dividing elements in different and well-delimited subelements) and looking at the problem form different points of views, like 2D proyection of the 3D figure. Each of these point of view correspond to a particular interpretation of the problem by particular combinations (context) of the subelements. Hence the "or-or" alias of this CS.

As static, each context would be well defined, well delimited. The capability for looking from more angles/points of views should be mainly restricted to the user's skill for identifying smaller subelements (the more subelements, the more combinations).



DA does not work in this way. It does not capture all the information in a single taken snapshot (or multiple-taken, but one in each step) of HP. DA perceives patterns (changing information) more than the information itself, which are commonly associated to algorithms (the way this information could evolve) and therefore the "IF-THEN-ELSE" alias Gulenko suggested.

If you capture a flow of information, you do not know (or implicitly have, although still undiscovered) which the value of the information (the solution of the problem) is. You need to fill that "empty pattern" with concrete information, run the algorithm with concrete values for the variables it uses.

The users of DA, being naturally aware of this dependence between the output (conclusion) with the input (initial data) will understand every solution as no much more than a particular solution, which is not by default "more correct", so to speak. Hence the trend to relativism, disliking for general conclusions, etc.

Being patterns empty of information, they can easily be combined in multiple ways, like pipelines, gererating multiple solutions for multiple (or even single) conditions. At least, the "correctness of a solutions" is seen in probabilistic terms. Using again the pipeline analogy, which carries a higher flow of water would be the more correct.



A difference should be observed in the ways HP and DA manage multiple solutions. HP does not require external confirmation, so the validity of each point of view is implicit in the same information which contains it. An HP user would evaluate potential solutions and "automatically" accept or discard them. At least, only those which have survived would be presented. They could have thought in a lot of them, but few will remain.
Every point of view will also be analyzed in a static way: you can be have this XOR that, but not both of them at the same time. Analytical thinking. Being also involutionary (result), HP users will tend to present their conclusions without the "superfluous" details of the reasoning they've made. LIIs are not very verbal, for example.

For a DA user all solutions could be correct, because it depends it depends it depends... on the conditions. Statistically they should present more of them. Different points of views/angles will be analyzed in a dynamic way: you can have this AND that at the same time. The election between two options will again depend on the particular conditions. Like in particle-wave duality of light, in a particular experiment you will observe its nature as particles, and in other experiment you will observe its nature as waves... but it is both things at the same time. Synthetic thinking. Being evolutionary (process), DA users put lot of importance in how they achieve conclusions, not only their correctness.



With all of this, IF my understanding of HP and DA cognitive styles is CORRECT, I would be much closer to DA -> ILI.

[woofwoofl]

I've decided to consider cognitive styles after observing the effects that the three Reinin dichotomies, which are their basis, causes in the way of reasoning of different users (myself included).

ILEs seem to fit well in CD (I'm thinking in a lot of examples, this forum, other forums and real-life examples), so maybe LIIs and ILIs do the same in their corresponding HP and DA.

Holograpical-Panoramic:

• Analytic: static (spatial), stable vision of reality...
• Negative: divergent thinking (multiple solutions), minimizing negative, distrust, differences...
• Inductive: involution, simplification, result over preocess, suboptimal acceptable...

Dialectical-Algorithmic:

• Synthetic: dynamic (temporal), variable vision of reality...
• Negative: divergent thinking (multiple solutions), minimizing negative, distrust, differences...
• Deductive: evolution, complication, process over result...

(a table with the main characteristics of the four cognitive styles was made by EyeSeeCold)

The first impression after reading about CS is HP and DA are enough similar, so they could be mistaken. I could imagine an user of HP thinking in that way that he could "emulate" DA. Being HP characterized for changing the point of view, the selected angle for the managed information, with enough small changes these "static differences" could seem to be dynamic. An analogy could be a set of discrete points so similar that they resembles a line. By the other hand, in certain way "dynamic contains static": in a continuos variation you can always pass for a collection of discrete selected values, so DA could also emulate HP. The divergent thinking nature of HP and DA would make it possible. If any of these could emulate the other, how could they be accurately distinguished?

I've thought about the same quite a bit myself

In your specific case, I noticed that you lean more Negativist (which I look at as more of an uncertainty/flexibility thing as opposed to the certainty/rigidness of Positivist - I'm more "positive" of things being a certain way) than either Process or Result, which, of course, leaves DA and HP... I found, when someone's mind is doing the heaviest of lifting (not the most difficult of lifting necessarily), they'll most obviously go to the style suggested by their type

My thoughts exactly

But the difference is more profound. They're different ways of thinking, not different variations of the same one. As usual, the difference was more obvious to me once I made a "mental simulation" of each process (could be this a trend of dynamic egos, making "simulations"??).

The question about static Vs dynamic is not simply "some points" Vs "all points". HP carries well, IMO, the essence of the Ti leading function, regardless the user is a Ti leading or even Ti ego. This method of thinking first takes a "snapshot" (hologram) of reality. It will contains all information needed for solving the problem. Being taken directly from reality, "it's true", so it does not need more "external confirmation" so to speak. The problem is solved analyzing this densely packed snapshots of information (dividing elements in different and well-delimited subelements) and looking at the problem form different points of views, like 2D proyection of the 3D figure. Each of these point of view correspond to a particular interpretation of the problem by particular combinations (context) of the subelements. Hence the "or-or" alias of this CS.

As static, each context would be well defined, well delimited. The capability for looking from more angles/points of views should be mainly restricted to the user's skill for identifying smaller subelements (the more subelements, the more combinations).

I wish I was a bit closer to HP at times to determine this description as a good one, but this sounds accurate to me...

DA does not work in this way. It does not capture all the information in a single taken snapshot (or multiple-taken, but one in each step) of HP. DA perceives patterns (changing information) more than the information itself, which are commonly associated to algorithms (the way this information could evolve) and therefore the "IF-THEN-ELSE" alias Gulenko suggested.

If you capture a flow of information, you do not know (or implicitly have, although still undiscovered) which the value of the information (the solution of the problem) is. You need to fill that "empty pattern" with concrete information, run the algorithm with concrete values for the variables it uses.

The users of DA, being naturally aware of this dependence between the output (conclusion) with the input (initial data) will understand every solution as no much more than a particular solution, which is not by default "more correct", so to speak. Hence the trend to relativism, disliking for general conclusions, etc.

Being patterns empty of information, they can easily be combined in multiple ways, like pipelines, gererating multiple solutions for multiple (or even single) conditions. At least, the "correctness of a solutions" is seen in probabilistic terms. Using again the pipeline analogy, which carries a higher flow of water would be the more correct.

interesting that you should use the term "flow" - I was thinking of a flowchart right now as a good depiction of the style!



Only one path down it can be followed simultaneously, and only one result can happen at a time, though the overall form remains regardless of the path chosen at any given time...

A difference should be observed in the ways HP and DA manage multiple solutions. HP does not require external confirmation, so the validity of each point of view is implicit in the same information which contains it. An HP user would evaluate potential solutions and "automatically" accept or discard them. At least, only those which have survived would be presented. They could have thought in a lot of them, but few will remain.
Every point of view will also be analyzed in a static way: you can be have this XOR that, but not both of them at the same time. Analytical thinking. Being also involutionary (result), HP users will tend to present their conclusions without the "superfluous" details of the reasoning they've made. LIIs are not very verbal, for example.

For a DA user all solutions could be correct, because it depends it depends it depends... on the conditions. Statistically they should present more of them. Different points of views/angles will be analyzed in a dynamic way: you can have this AND that at the same time. The election between two options will again depend on the particular conditions. Like in particle-wave duality of light, in a particular experiment you will observe its nature as particles, and in other experiment you will observe its nature as waves... but it is both things at the same time. Synthetic thinking. Being evolutionary (process), DA users put lot of importance in how they achieve conclusions, not only their correctness.

I wonder how much of your idea of HP is specific to that which is found in LIIs (as well as ESIs due to them being Rationals that manage Feeling much like LIIs manage , and maybe SLEs also due to the sounding hues) - the IEEs I know are more verbose about things, but go about things in that "multiple perspectives of the same object" kinda approach, and they might be the best ones to look at to see that style in action (at least for myself)...

With all of this, IF my understanding of HP and DA cognitive styles is CORRECT, I would be much closer to DA -> ILI.

It looks like you have a good grasp on things I also noticed your description of DA was much easier for me to get an understanding of...

Also, your displays of would then be due to ILIs having as a Demonstrative function, as well as your extensive time in college - academia strikes me as leaning heavily towards the Alpha quadra, which could lead to your strength and comfort in using

[Creepy-ssss]

interesting that you should use the term "flow" - I was thinking of a flowchart right now as a good depiction of the style!

Only one path down it can be followed simultaneously, and only one result can happen at a time, though the overall form remains regardless of the path chosen at any given time...

Yeah flowchart is a good way of abstracting algorithms. The only disadvantage I see with this analogy is although technically it's right that only one solution could be produced each time, the solution should still be "probabilistic". This aspect is not usually covered in this way. Hence I spoke about pipelines; the solution with the highest ratio of "truthfulness" would be represented by the pipeline which carries higher flow of fluid (information).

I wonder how much of your idea of HP is specific to that which is found in LIIs (as well as ESIs due to them being Rationals that manage Feeling much like LIIs manage , and maybe SLEs also due to the sounding hues) - the IEEs I know are more verbose about things, but go about things in that "multiple perspectives of the same object" kinda approach, and they might be the best ones to look at to see that style in action (at least for myself)...

Well I first read the description and justifications of each CS made by Gulenko, and later compared it with LIIs. It's easy associationg this way of thinking with a Ti->Ne ego (at least from my point of view), so in certain way, LIIs would be the "archetype" of HP.

Anyway you're right, each type will implement its particular version of the corresponding cognitive style. IEEs, being extroverted and irrational, should be much more verbal than LIIs, etc, but still with the same way of developing reasonings.

It looks like you have a good grasp on things I also noticed your description of DA was much easier for me to get an understanding of...

Probably each type could explain its cognitive style in a better way .

Also, your displays of would then be due to ILIs having as a Demonstrative function, as well as your extensive time in college - academia strikes me as leaning heavily towards the Alpha quadra, which could lead to your strength and comfort in using

I suppose this should be correct. Id functions are strong by default, and with appropiate training oneself could benefit from their usefulness.

[Aleksei]

I'd say LII > ILE, though on JCF:

I do not nor cannot ignore data (objective data which has proven some connection with facts) that disagree with me only for feeling comfortable. But I do not feel comfortable with contradictions, feeling them as a insufficient knowledge or concept misunderstanding. While I'm not able to solve them I do not feel that the task of "understanding" is complete.

This actually sounds like extroversion > Ti, so I'd go with ENTP over INTP.

5w6 sounds very much right.

[Creepy-ssss]

I'd say LII > ILE, though on JCF:

This actually sounds like extroversion > Ti, so I'd go with ENTP over INTP.

5w6 sounds very much right.

The ILE option was discarded very early in this thread, and your argumentation about my LIIness is superfluous compared with what it has been used here.

[InvisibleJim]

I have for a long time believed MensSuperMateriam to be an LII-Ne type. He has a natural logical inquisitiveness and need for categorisation.

The reason for this is that the he lacks what someone often described as the 'loosey goosey' appreciation of the ILI socionics type.

However, he does have a very good skill for relating his ideas in the extroverted mode and seeking explicit solutions with his environment rather than observing his internal logical compass. This would possibly suggest that he could be an ILE type.

Considering that the need for categorisation comes from Si-Ne in the Ego-Super-id and the need for dynamic understanding comes from an Se-Ni preference in the Ego-Super-id I have decided that it may be the case that a wildcard suggestion is ESTJ, Te-Si.

An honourable and worthy type for any individual if ever there was one. That is all!

Of course this is all based upon my frames of reference, as I say, the problem with typology.

[tcaudilllg]

Mens are you schedule obsessed?

If not, you are not an ILI.

[Nico1e]

I've been for a while in what some users have called JCF (jungian cognitive function, a sort of MBTI function-focused descendant).

Pardon, totally off-topic. Thanks for mentioning the letters 'JCF' again. I keep trying to remember those letters because I keep calling it MBTI when what I'm trying to say is Jungian Cognitive Functions. Anyway, back to topic. JCF, JCF, JCF, don't let me forget.

[Creepy-ssss]

Mens are you schedule obsessed?

If not, you are not an ILI.

Obsession w/ schedules = PoLR

It depends on the meaning of "obsessed". Ashton is right for the usual interpretation of the concept and presumably Tcaud was refering to the same idea, but there are alternatives.

"Obsession" would usually be what worries a user due to incompetence for dealing with, combined with disliking. In that case, we became obsessed with those things which are represented by PoLR. Schedule obsessed = Ni PoLR.

"Obsession" could also be something you focus very much because you see it as a big aspect of reality and you enjoy it. The user will try to apply "the correct way" for this aspect, improving it whenever it is observed as not working properly, because "I know better"... In this case, it's represented by leading function. Schedule obsessed = Ni leading. But as the user is always confident in his/her skills with leading, this "obsession" is always much softer than the former except in very unbalanced users. For most cases Ashton is right.

I'm not obsessed with schedules.

[InvisibleJim]

Ni leads may 'appear' routine obsessed because they fall into patterns readily. But there is a marked difference between setting a natural routine and obsessively scheduling everything.

[Creepy-ssss]

Wow ESTJ, I never imagined you would present such case. I have to disagree for multiple reasons.

I have for a long time believed MensSuperMateriam to be an LII-Ne type. He has a natural logical inquisitiveness and need for categorisation.

Guilty.

The reason for this is that the he lacks what someone often described as the 'loosey goosey' appreciation of the ILI socionics type.

I'm not sure of understanding that expression (maybe a popular proverb?). Nonnative speaker here.

However, he does have a very good skill for relating his ideas in the extroverted mode and seeking explicit solutions with his environment rather than observing his internal logical compass. This would possibly suggest that he could be an ILE type.

Considering that the need for categorisation comes from Si-Ne in the Ego-Super-id and the need for dynamic understanding comes from an Se-Ni preference in the Ego-Super-id I have decided that it may be the case that a wildcard suggestion is ESTJ, Te-Si.

I'll answer to this in probabilistic terms. It's not possible to determine even a single sociotype with complete accuracy. We have different interpretations for these phenomenons (cognitive processes, functions), different results for every of them (external behavior and internal thoughts), depending on the individual, etc. And the big question, how much of this stuff is real and in fact represents what happens in brains.

So no type could be completely discarded, neither no type could be completely attributed for any individual. We will always have contradictions that could be "solved" by alternative methods... All we can have is make a sort of "calculus" which consider every aspect with its associated relative weight. The result will point towards the direction of one type over the rest.

The are much variability in the question of extroversion, more if we consider those "introverted extratims" and "extroverted intratims". But "swapping" external attitudes is very unlikely if the average type is too polarized in this scale. ILEs (as happens with LIEs) are barely polarized. We have some of them quite socials and some of them who are happy with a more individualistic and isolated life. And it's common to observe both "moments" in the same individuals. But LSEs are usually much more "extroverted". They could be calm, quiet, but I've never seen any of them really introvertizing.

I am by all effects very introverted, regardless I'm intratim or not. And as something natural, something that "I need" (nature), not a result of shyness or similar (nurture). As this an observable phenomenon (experimental proof, if you want) it cannot be negated. E5+LSE???? I would say "impossible".

The fact that I try to refer all knowledge/ideas to the "ultimate judge" which is external reality does not make me an extratim. Extratims will not only use the world as a source of knowledge, they will interact with it much more than the average introverted. Not my case, definitely (introverted). It could be considered (at most) a proof that I'm not a weak Te user, therefore Te ego or id. Which of them? I would have said Te id until Labcoat presented his argument: I have two tools which I recognize as important, useful and necessary. But what happens when instead of working together we have a direct confrontation? What happens when I have to "take side"? Te wins as the ultimate source of truth. The discussion with Ineffable is a good example.

It cannot be denied that I'm "Ti perfectionist" but it would fit in the fact that I'm 5w6 instead the more common 5w4 for ILIs. All fives search for truth, but 5w4s introspect more whereas 5w6s need a reliable source of truth, which implies a "reliable, more depured method". As LIIs tend to be 5w6, this makes me more similar to them. Maybe something like Normalizing ILI, if we consider DCNH subtypes.

Well nothing said about strong Te is an argument against LSE. But if we add to the fact that I'm strongly introverted (E5) my core values and life goals, which are more "observable, experimental proofs" then the LSE option clearly vanishes. Hardly delta user, hardly a pragmatist (ST club). The OP expresses my particular case. I'm by no way speaking about something like intelligence, NTR. But hardly any ST will spend life "thinking so much and doing very little in the tangible world" as I do, because this does not correspond with their self-image and life goals. These things emerges from the core of nature, and IMO it's clear that my core does not fit in the ST club. Nither I share the "conservatism/inmovilism/what you want to call it/" of deltas. Innovation is my surname .

I think the most likely option should belong to the NT club, because of these "life goals" stuff and because inside a club, the types are strong and weak in the same functions.

Now theoretical argumentation. Mainstream Socionics:

You have considered SiNe as need of categorization and NiSe as need of dynamic understanding. It seems to be not correct. True that they're complementary and valued/devalued simultaneously. But despite of inside there pairs some aspects are shared, other aspects are shared by NiSi and NeSe. The need of a categorization should be a static aspect, NeSe are static whereas SiNi are dynamic. If you still consider me as a static user, then you have to discard LSE. Te and Si are both dynamic according to Socionics. Static/dynamic is a property of every whole block, not functions isolated.

LSE=Ni PoLR. Definitely not my case. No way. Fe PoLR is the most likely situation.

LSE=Te leading. Again, I focus in the world as "the last word for what is true". But altough I'm consicious about effcience and I know how to improve, I do not pay too much attention in it as LIEs and LSEs do, everyone in its particular style. It is important, but secondary for me. I'll try to change what it's not working properly for achieving my concrete/general goal, but it's always subordinated to the relevance, trascendence, of the goal itself.

LSE=Te leading=Ti ignoring. Strong but the least confortable function inside the ID because it represent the opposite attitude of leading. Considering my focus in Ti, demostrative is much more likely for Ti as an id function.

Since I've refined my understanding of Se, I would say that I'm weak in it but probably valuer. Not delta then, but I'll leave this question still in the air.

Heretic Socionics:

LSEs are aristocratic, I'm democratic by all effects.
I consider myself constructivist, whereas LSEs are emotivists.

An honourable and worthy type for any individual if ever there was one. That is all!

Of course.

Of course this is all based upon my frames of reference, as I say, the problem with typology.

As happens to everyone.

[Creepy-ssss]

I'm typable now in that spreadsheet.

[Amber]

Are you Romanian? Italian? Turkish? Middle-Eastern? Where?

lol