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.
?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Aylen
Btw I could've organized the description in that post better... I rewrote the first version of that post but then didn't have time to fix it all up after the rewrite. Sorry if that made it harder to follow it.
I really have to be a frame of mind where I want to take these tests. I score higher when I consistently challenge myself.
It took me a couple days to assimilate what you were describing, as it didn't evoke any feelings or images in my mind. So yeah, it sounded very "technical" at first. You repeated the words "logical" and "visual/spatial" a few times but I was not quite sure what that looked like from your perspective. I couldn't put myself inside you mind. I didn't have a problem following your response here though. 
. It can be extremely blunt.
I missed that the first time as it had no connection to my reality. lol Anyway I suppose I can't relate as I have seen myself supervising my ESE sister almost by the socionics bible. I have never felt supervised by a SEE. I do not get any sense of supervising you specifically either. Maybe I teased you a bit too much? There have been 2 people I actually felt supervised by on this forum and that is Ashton and Narc. It was pretty obvious what was going on when you put it in a socionics framework. I actually found ways to ease the initial tension and dismissal I felt from both of them. I find it easy to talk with both when we stick to topics of mutual interest. Same with my sister. 
Actually just by making this supervision claim shows low CD. I'm not the authority to say what is right way to perceive things. I might be dead wrong.
