I'd like any input people have on what they see as the basis of the forms of cognition for each of the 16 types being what they are.

My understanding at this point is that these are based on Reinin dichotomies, and so they are as good as the dichotomies that comprise them in accurately depicting a given type's cognition. Here is the problematic area, the theoretical basis of the process/result (evolutionary/involutionary) dichotomy:

Quote Originally Posted by wikisocion

  • Process IM types are either intuitive-logical, logical-sensing, sensing-ethical, or ethical-intuitive.
  • Result IM types are either ethical-sensing, sensing-logical, logical-intuitive, or intuitive-ethical.

The use of plus and minus IM elements is not supported by all socionists. Many see them as being logically superfluous.

I can't for one come up with a good explanation without the +/- of what the theoretical basis of the assignment of a given involution/evolution status to a type would be. The idea that intuitive-logical are evolutionary types for instance just says ILE, ILI are evolutionary types, but this seems like +Ni or +Ne is the real underlying cause. There are two intuitive-logical types, and there's no reason I can think, apart from the quadras they happen to fall in, that they would be awarded the evolutionary style fundamentally.
In other words, the first listed theoretical properties seem arbitrary, and not really explained, if you don't take into account the second. I am perfectly capable of wild speculation and have done so, but it seems ultimately baseless, random, and so forth, what my speculations could possibly discern, for they are mere extrapolations from patterns without rhyme or reason.

I find less of a problem with the dynamic/static dichotomy here, because at least that has a somewhat more solid basis - you can assume there is such a thing as static intuition and dynamic intuition, and so forth, and can see why a static approach to cognition leads to a cognitive style less akin to a synthesis of mental imagery and more akin to laying out various boundaries in space. In the time-oriented cognition, any discrete point is not emphasized, as time is perceived as flowing, hence the thoughts from any given moment flow into the ones of another. It sees implications through in terms of the flow of leading one thought into the other in time, hence e.g. Te is viewed as algorithmic activity.

Positivist/Negativist - well, surprise surprise

Quote Originally Posted by wikisocion
Plus and minus IM elements are not accepted by many socionists.

  • Positivist types have either a static plus element or a dynamic minus element in base function.
  • Negativist types have either a dynamic plus element or a static minus element in base function.
Same warning.

Basically, forms of cognition is an interesting tool to understand types, but I'm finding that it's clearer at delineating its ideas than in providing a credible link in how those ideas link to the 16 types, and wonder if there's something I'm missing.

If no answer to this question comes, perhaps it isn't unwise to encourage people to treat the type-to-forms correlations as loose, apart from static/dynamic. This leads to HP ILEs and CD LIIs, and DA IEIs. Abbreviations are for the four forms.

Also note that since there are only four forms, you can get by with two of the Reinin dichotomies I think.