# Thread: Defining Specialized Logical Functions by Gulenko

1. ## Defining Specialized Logical Functions by Gulenko

Recognizing same-founded both of these approaches to the placement of signs, will try to carry out their synthesis. For this we take a combination of a dichotomy pravost / levost with the dichotomy of positivism / negativism. Obtain four groups sociotypes who are carriers of the four classes of special logics.

2.1. Right-static positivists . Their logic is above zero twice: + + L. The first advantage of pravosti, the second plus of positivism. The influence of static / dynamics on the sign of neglect. Deterministic logic. Embodies the classic notion of logic. If something - logic. The logic of subordination, a strict hierarchy. It is typical for language instruction, laws, resolutions. Its owners - sotsiotipy IL, LF, FR, RI.

2.2. Right-dynamic negativisty . Plus-minus logic: +-L. The first advantage of pravosti, the second less of negativism. Genetic logic. Analyzes the origin, the generation of a function on the other. Reflects the continuity of development, unity and struggle of opposites. And / or - the logic. The most obscure writing style. This logic is typical for sociotypes SE, ET, TP, PS.

2.3. Left-dynamic positivists . Negative logic plus: - + L. The first of levosti minus, the second plus of positivism. Stochastic logic. The logic of probability. The logic of chance, and exceptions, mechanical sums rather than products. Violation of the hierarchy. "Conglomerate" language, as if artificially made ​​up of different styles. This class includes the logical ES, TE, PT, SP.

2.4. Left-static negativisty . Minus twice the logic: --L. The first of levosti minus the second - from the negativity. Holographic logic. Thinking holographic, are able to capture the entire structure, although no details. Compensatory logic, fill the structure with missing links. The logic of conflict resolution and error correction, while maintaining the system. Sotsiotipy with this logic differs most clear style of presentation of ideas. These include LI, FL, RF, IR.

These groups coincide with already known in Socionics rings audit. This fact confirms the assumption that the relationship reviznye have a maximum power of the structure-forming.

Extracted from:
http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/spec.html

See post # 6

2. cognitive styles + logic? yawn.

3. No fighter class? LAME.

4. Thank you for posting this ESC, but I'm having a mighty hard time deciphering what this says.

From my broken and approximated impression, I can guess this is Cognitive Styles expanded upon. As a Right-Static-Positivist, I suppose I am prone to having a deterministic line of reasoning, but I don't know whether my definition of determinism is the same as Gulenko's.

5. These are just like the cognitive styles renamed.

6. my own comments are in [] brackets.

Specialized logical functions

General logic, structuring, will be denoted by function L. Its varieties will then be called specialized logical functions. If one considers that not a single sociotype is same as the other in its logical thinking, from this follows that there must be as many specialized functions as there are sociotypes - sixteen. Specialized functions I will denote with + and - signs as well as make use of operations from propositional logic. In this article when the word "logic" carries the meaning of structural logic rather than business logic.

1. Sign dichotomies

Originally I have assigned the positive and negative signs of communicative functions, including logic, to the dichotomy "left/right" [also known as process/result]. "Right" logic I have denoted with symbol +L and left logic by -L. What is the difference between these two logic types?

Right logic: straight and absolute, has no reverse feedback. This type of logic as if delineates contours of forms on some background that is then discarded as insignificant. It is characterized by absence of context and is categorical, explicit in judgements.

Left logic: inversive, derived from straight logic using the operation of subtraction. It is reflexive and considers not the upfront side as much as the back side of the coin. It underlines the background, contextual dependencies of judgements.

However, there is another way of assign + and - signs that is no less substantiated: using the dichotomy of negativism/positivism. Then +L will denote the logic of positivists while -L will denote the logic of negativists.

Positivist logic: unified, accordant in all parts. This kind of logic comes closest to what is known as formal logic. An example of this kind of logic is syllogism - inferential sequence of arguments described by Aristotle in "Organon".

Negativist logic: logic of contradictions. Dialectic, containing in itself oppositions and contradictions. This logical instrument works best when analyzing complicated multilayered systems.

For further in depth analysis of logical processes of different types we will also need another dichotomy that differentiates static logic from dynamic logic.

Static logic: logic of fixed structures, frozen logic. Logic of the evolved i.e. final state of system.

Dynamic logic: logic of becoming. This kind of logic deals with transitions that exist within the process of transformation of structures.

Right logic (process): ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII
Left logic (result): ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI

Positivists: ILE, ESE, LSI, IEI, SEE, LIE, EII, SLI
Negativists: SEI, LII, EIE, SLE, ILI, ESI, LSE, IEE

Static logic: ILE, LII, EII, IEE, ESI, SEE, LSI, SLE
Dynamic logic: SEI, ESE, LSE, SLI, ILI, EIE, IEI

2. Four classes of logic

Recognizing that both of these assignments of plus and minus signs are equally valid, lets try to combine them. If we combine the left/right dichotomy with dichotomy of positivism/negativism, we will get four groups of sociotypes each possessing its own specialized logic. Lets omit the static/dynamic factor out of sign denotation.

Right-static positivists: Their logic is assigned two plus signs ++L. First plus sign corresponds to "right", second - to "positivist". Deterministic logic. It embodies the classical notion of logic. If-then logic. Logic of subordination, strict hierarchy. This logic is characteristic for written instructions, laws, resolutions. This logic is characteristic for sociotypes ILE, LSI, SEE, EII.

Right-dynamic negativists: Plus-minus logic +-L. Logic of genesis. It analyzes conception, the birth of one function from another. Reflects continuity of development, unity and struggle of the opposites. And-or logic. Has the most obfuscated style of expression. This logic is characteristic for sociotypes SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE.

Left-dynamic positivists: Minus-plus logic -+L. Stochastic logic. Logic of probabilities, contingencies and exceptions, of mechanical sums rather than derivatives. Violation of hierarchy. Expression is "conglomerative" as if artificially composed from different styles. This logic is characteristic for sociotypes ESE, LIE, SLI, IEI.

Left-static negativists: Minus-minus logic --L. Holographic logic. Types that think holographically are able to encompass the entire structure as whole but without specifics. This logic is compensatory - it fills in missing links in a structure. Logic of resolution of contradictions, of correction of mistakes while the system is kept intact. This logic is characteristic for sociotypes LII, SLE, ESI, IEE.

These groups coincide with already known in socionics rings of revision [supervision]. This fact confirms the assumption that relations of revision have the maximum structure-forming capacity.

3. Analysis of individual logic functions

Deterministic Logic:
- ILE: Logic of isomorphism, analogies, transfer of structures from one area to another. Lets denote this logic function with sign of identity: =
- LSI: The logic of being subordinate, of strict hierarchy. The logic of progression, of implication: if A, then must be B. Lets denote this logic function with arrow pointing to the right: ->
- SEE: The logic of co-subordination. It carries over the equivalence of two objects: if A, then B, and vice versa. Lets denote this logic function with arrow pointing both ways: <->
- EII: Logic of subordination. Inclusion of some elements into some class. Following the goals of oversystem. Logic of reverse implication: A, because B. Lets denote this logic function with arrow pointing to the left: <-

Genesis Logic:
- SEI: Logic of synthesis. It extinguishes differences and underlines similarities. Union of the opposites. Operation of conjunction. Lets denote this logic with sign /\
[Conjunction: The statement A /\ B is true if A and B are both true; else it is false.]
- EIE: The logic of differentiation, of discovery of derivative functions. Convergence to the limit. Measurement of rate of change of a variable. Isolation of constants in that which is changing. Lets denote this logic with sign >-
- ILI: Logic of parallel progression. Branching. Disjunctive logic that separates the opposites. Logic of safeguards, of spare exits. Lets denote this logic with sign \/
[Disjunction: The statement A \/ B is true if A or B (or both) are true; if both are false, the statement is false.]
- LSE: The logic of integration, of discovery of the original, archetypal function. The logic of propulsion. The changing constantly. Lets denote this logic with sign -<

Stochastic Logic:
- IEI: Logic of chance, lack of causalities. Anti-determinism. Natural violations of the hierarchy. Logic of associations. Function of anti-implication. Lets denote it as <+
- ESE: The logic of inequalities, of lack of analogies and correspondences. Logic of heterogeneity that expresses the separateness of the two classes of phenomena. Lets denote this logical function with sign of crossed identities =/=
- SLI: Logic of insubordination, lack of inclusion into the system. Exit from subordination. Violation of the hierarchy from the bottom. The logic of independence. Lets denote this logical function with sign of crossed reverse implication +>
- LIE: Logic of choice between two alternatives. Mutual exclusion. Risk, which leads to success. The logic of finding a way into oversystem, formation of emergent properties. Or-or logic. Strict disjunction. Lets denote it with <+>

Holographic Logic:
- ESI: The logic of self-preservation, of avoidance of collision. Movement via anti-parallel courses. Or-not function. Lets denote it by downwards arrow (Peirce arrow) ↓
- SLE: The logic of negation of differentiation. Overcoming of the limit, of the barrier. Concentration, contraction. Focus on that which is least stable, most fragile. The logic of elimination, of destruction. Lets denote it by >+
- LII: Logic of anti-synthesis, of finalized stable systems. Finding the counterweight, the opposite pole. Isolation of "pure", non-overlapping parts. Anti-conjuction. And-not function. Denoted by upwards arrow ↑
- IEE: Logic of anti-intergration. Dysfunctionality. Lets denote it by +<

7. Gulenko uses the same dichotomies to produce the same groups, right, but it's for a different purpose.

I thought it provided some refinement, nothing groundbreaking, but just enough to probably correct something.

Originally Posted by Crow
Thank you for posting this ESC, but I'm having a mighty hard time deciphering what this says.

From my broken and approximated impression, I can guess this is Cognitive Styles expanded upon. As a Right-Static-Positivist, I suppose I am prone to having a deterministic line of reasoning, but I don't know whether my definition of determinism is the same as Gulenko's.
Gulenko's Determinism produced from Positivist + Process refers to sequential convergence. Noticing and emphasizing where processes link up, effectively taking the 'rear mirror view' of pre-destined compulsion. The other attribute is that it is an absolutist and authoritative way of thinking that produces imperatives to 'naturally' move forward.

That's my interpretation, there are others, but this is probably as direct as you will get. Gulenko talks much but always leaves something missing.

I think this is an example of it in action:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...71&postcount=1

8. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Gulenko's Determinism produced from Positivist + Process refers to sequential convergence. Noticing and emphasizing where processes link up, effectively taking the 'rear mirror view' of pre-destined compulsion. The other attribute is that it is an absolutist and authoritative way of thinking that produces imperatives to 'naturally' move forward.

That's my interpretation, there are others, but this is probably as direct as you will get. Gulenko talks much but always leaves something missing.
Makes sense.

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
I think this is an example of it in action:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...71&postcount=1
Hey, cool. Thank you. Would you have examples that characterize the other three styles? (Just to contrast.)

9. Three years after this prototype Gulenko published the release version of it. It became known as "cognitive styles" thanks to Ashton's and Krig's translation.

EOT

10. Originally Posted by Crow

Makes sense.

Hey, cool. Thank you. Would you have examples that characterize the other three styles? (Just to contrast.)
Diaclectical Algorithmic and Causal-Determinist are ones I almost 100% think I have evidence for, but I think I'm kind of biased and just a hobbyist so I can't be too sure. The other two make little sense to me practically, but some like Ashton claim Chaos Theory fits Vortical-Synergetic. DA though seems pretty clear in that it entails a processing of opposite and contradictory lines of sequences, the original article explains it well already, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Aiss
Three years after this prototype Gulenko published the release version of it. It became known as "cognitive styles" thanks to Ashton's and Krig's translation.

EOT
Aiss, did you bother to read my last post? "I thought it provided some refinement, nothing groundbreaking, but just enough to probably correct something." In other words, I knew it wasn't much, but I thought the article had something the Cognitive Styles/Forms of Thinking article lacked.

11. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Aiss, did you bother to read my last post? "I thought it provided some refinement, nothing groundbreaking, but just enough to probably correct something." In other words, I knew it wasn't much, but I thought the article had something the Cognitive Styles/Forms of Thinking article lacked.
"Refinement" and "expanding" (something mentioned earlier) imply this article improves on or adds to cog styles one. While it's possible Gulenko's theory actually degraded along the way, it's more likely he refined *this* later and dropped some stuff from final version for a reason. If you think something important was lost along the way, it's one thing, but without pointing it out you're just going the way of implying it's important simply because some early draft contained it.

12. Originally Posted by Aiss
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Aiss, did you bother to read my last post? "I thought it provided some refinement, nothing groundbreaking, but just enough to probably correct something." In other words, I knew it wasn't much, but I thought the article had something the Cognitive Styles/Forms of Thinking article lacked.
"Refinement" and "expanding" (something mentioned earlier) imply this article improves on or adds to cog styles one. While it's possible Gulenko's theory actually degraded along the way, it's more likely he refined *this* later and dropped some stuff from final version for a reason. If you think something important was lost along the way, it's one thing, but without pointing it out you're just going the way of implying it's important simply because some early draft contained it.
Well, Aiss, if you couldn't discern where the refinement was, wouldn't it have been more respectable of you to ask instead of stroking your all-informed ego? Or perhaps that was out of the question, and you're just adding that in after-the-fact because you didn't bother after the first post of the thread. Jumping to conclusions helps no one.

As to the refinement:

2.1. Right-static positivists . Their logic is above zero twice: + + L. The first advantage of pravosti, the second plus of positivism. The influence of static / dynamics on the sign of neglect. Deterministic logic. Embodies the classic notion of logic. If something - logic. The logic of subordination, a strict hierarchy. It is typical for language instruction, laws, resolutions. Its owners - sotsiotipy IL, LF, FR, RI.

2.2. Right-dynamic negativisty . Plus-minus logic: +-L. The first advantage of pravosti, the second less of negativism. Genetic logic. Analyzes the origin, the generation of a function on the other. Reflects the continuity of development, unity and struggle of opposites. And / or - the logic. The most obscure writing style. This logic is typical for sociotypes SE, ET, TP, PS.

2.3. Left-dynamic positivists . Negative logic plus: - + L. The first of levosti minus, the second plus of positivism. Stochastic logic. The logic of probability. The logic of chance, and exceptions, mechanical sums rather than products. Violation of the hierarchy. "Conglomerate" language, as if artificially made ​​up of different styles. This class includes the logical ES, TE, PT, SP.

2.4. Left-static negativisty . Minus twice the logic: --L. The first of levosti minus the second - from the negativity. Holographic logic. Thinking holographic, are able to capture the entire structure, although no details. Compensatory logic, fill the structure with missing links. The logic of conflict resolution and error correction, while maintaining the system. Sotsiotipy with this logic differs most clear style of presentation of ideas. These include LI, FL, RF, IR.
Where Forms of Thinking/Cog Style kind of bounces around how these actually manifest, I thought Gulenko was pretty direct here in terms of explaining what is what.

13. Translated version is up. I didn't translate the very last section of this article as it contains an empty table and I really have no idea what Gulenko was trying to derive there.

Originally Posted by Aiss
Three years after this prototype Gulenko published the release version of it. It became known as "cognitive styles" thanks to Ashton's and Krig's translation.

EOT
In the Cognitive Styles, Gulenko doesn't address type-specific nuances. He clumps four types that go into same supervision ring together and makes very few comments about any cognitive style differences between them. This article fills in some of that void. In addition, it is interesting to inspect Gulenko's chain of reasoning that led him to the final product.

14. Originally Posted by siuntal
Translated version is up. I didn't translate the very last section of this article as it contains an empty table and I really have no idea what Gulenko was trying to derive there.
Thanks siuntal, it's much better now.