Cognitive Styles

[WVBRY]

What do you think about cognitive styles? http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...gnitive_Styles

Are they accurate for you?

Do you relate to yours?

Are there other cogntive styles you relate to? (Other than the one corresponding to your type)

Do you think they should, or at least could, be used in self-typing?

What about in typing other people?

[para]

Very interesting read. I will say that there are many descriptors of thinking that i identify with on some level.

''IEI as if in a kaleidoscope sees whimsical iridescent imagery, dissolving then receding in flux.''
''LII grasps the problem from opposite sides, mentally rotating the situation in three dimensions around its semantic axes''

These two specifically are... frighteningly accurate.

[para]

"My thinking is alike mucking about in puddles - randomized, but following some sort of direction. Playing some music, my head clicks together properly and thoughts come into focused torrents. Headwise, I live in a world of organized chaos."

Another bulls-eye, lol

[Singu]

I think it's laughable. Gulenko adds a barrage of tidbits of philosophical doctrines and scientific findings, but it's not explained how those things have anything to do with Socionics types or functions or just about anything (if you speak so much, you'd be bound to relate to at least some of them). You might be impressed with all the scientific, philosophical and technical sounding things, but if you're even a little bit knowledgeable in them, then you'll see that they are extremely shallow and superficial, and that Gulenko doesn't show any kind of deep understanding of those topics. It's extremely shallow and basic.

So you might be impressed with them, if you're incredibly shallow or ignorant in those topics. It really is the case of "Emperor has no clothes". Pretentious hogwash.

[domr]

Crap.

[Bertrand]

lol I no shit clicked on this thread in order to post what an underestimated genius I think gulenko is and particularly this article and Singu beat me to the punch

[The Reality Denialist]

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

As Dynamics, these types synthesize associational images. As Evolutionary types, they increase deductive complexity of them. As Negativists, they work well with contradictions and paradoxes.

These are personally the best.

[para]

I think we're speaking on two different levels of 'usefulness' here. While it is unclear how it relates to Socionics as a unified whole, i'll still defend the article on the basis that it comes from the same place as the apparently more 'valid' Socionics. It seems that there is a certain expectation regarding Socionics that it doesn't fill?

[Bertrand]

its just a plea for someone to explain it to them, and until that happens they consider it appropriate to slander it as useless, because it happens to be a subjectively true thing. this is how they motivate people to "work" for them. you can imagine, I think, LII being susceptible to this sort of thing. I wonder how gulenko himself would respond. I bet he's aware of these dynamics so it would be interesting to see how he handles it

[WVBRY]

I expected Singu's response to be along those lines and tone.

The only thing that's missing is Sol to come in here and say that the article is heresy and my prophecy will be complete.

[Singu]

its just a plea for someone to explain it to them, and until that happens they consider it appropriate to slander it as useless, because it happens to be a subjectively true thing. this is how they motivate people to "work" for them. you can imagine, I think, LII being susceptible to this sort of thing. I wonder how gulenko himself would respond. I bet he's aware of these dynamics so it would be interesting to see how he handles it

lol, so naive. Ironic as you display no understanding of much of anything. It's like you don't even understand what you're even agreeing or disagreeing with half of the time.

It must suck to have no logical or rational understanding of things.

[domr]

I think we're speaking on two different levels of 'usefulness' here. While it is unclear how it relates to Socionics as a unified whole, i'll still defend the article on the basis that it comes from the same place as the apparently more 'valid' Socionics. It seems that there is a certain expectation regarding Socionics that it doesn't fill?

That's called cult of personality.

Most of Socionics is shit. @Singu hit the nail on the head. Unless you can trace your work to Model A (which traces back to Jung), your work is not analytical psychology. The big problem is these NT types want to shove every single wild speculation they think of into the model and it just makes the system as a whole weaker.

[WVBRY]

That's called cult of personality.

Most of Socionics is shit. @Singu hit the nail on the head. Unless you can trace your work to Model A (which traces back to Jung), your work is not analytical psychology. The big problem is these NT types want to shove every single wild speculation they think of into the model and it just makes the system as a whole weaker.

I think it's ironic that you're criticizing "the cult all personality" all the while saying everyone should trace their work back to Jung.

Also, while some of Singu's critiques are valid, I think, he's not saying people should trace their work back to analytical psychology. That's not his criticism of it.

Lastly, you're saying that only analytical psychology is a valid system? That everything else is "shit"?

Geez...I really dislike the tone this thread has taken...

[Tigerfadder]

I do not think it is a big deal. They put all the types into 4 groups, probably with help of some dichotomies, and found these difference in how people find solution to their problems cognitively. Since Socionics and cognitive functions deal with cognition it is probably a good direction to explore more into. All in all I find it a bit blurry, I havent made much use of it personally.

[para]

That's called cult of personality.

Most of Socionics is shit. @Singu hit the nail on the head. Unless you can trace your work to Model A (which traces back to Jung), your work is not analytical psychology. The big problem is these NT types want to shove every single wild speculation they think of into the model and it just makes the system as a whole weaker.

The point, to me at least, is not whether or not the work is 'analytical psychology' or not. It is that by examining these different types of awareness of our own cognition, we can gain a deeper understanding of how we think. A sort of meta-typology, if you will. I think whether or not the system is valid in itself is irrelevant when you fail to consider why the system is or isn't valid. It says something about us in the fact that the system is as it is. That's what i mean by two different levels, because i completely see where you are coming from. I just believe that discarding it as 'shit' because it's invalid on one particular level is short-sighted.

[domr]

The point, to me at least, is not whether or not the work is 'analytical psychology' or not. It is that by examining these different types of awareness of our own cognition, we can gain a deeper understanding of how we think. A sort of meta-typology, if you will. I think whether or not the system is valid in itself is irrelevant when you fail to consider why the system is or isn't valid. It says something about us in the fact that the system is as it is. That's what i mean by two different levels, because i completely see where you are coming from. I just believe that discarding it as 'shit' because it's invalid on one particular level is short-sighted.

The entire reason why this system for typology is better than every other system is because of the logic.

1. The pysche handles data-acquisition and decision-making.
2. There are 2 functions to acquire data: sensation and intuition.
....

The strength of this system is in the logic and the way this logic can be used to explain reality. Model A is just that, a model.
If someone wants to do their own work then they are free to do that but don't use Model A or the personality types unless your work is casually linked to this system.

[para]

The entire reason why this system for typology is better than every other system is because of the logic.

1. The pysche handles data-acquisition and decision-making.
2. There are 2 functions to acquire data: sensation and intuition.
....

The strength of this system is in the logic and the way this logic can be used to explain reality. Model A is just that, a model.
If someone wants to do their own work then they are free to do that but don't use Model A or the personality types unless your work is casually linked to this system.

Why do you assume that the system can be used to 'explain' reality? Is it because the way we've assigned and given it form fits into certain trends in the world around us? Does that explain reality? Most things can, by your definition of reality at least, explain reality. But isn't that explanation temporary or unstable in nature? Is constantly redefining and warping systems to fit what is the current 'consensus' of reality really explaining reality?

You're still arguing about whether or not the logical consistency of the system is important, i'm not, in one sense at least.

I'm saying that the article in the OP still, whether or not it casually links to the system, springs from the same roots as the 'system'. It still tells us something about how we examine ourselves, which isn't 'shit' by any means IMO.

[domr]

Why do you assume that the system can be used to 'explain' reality? Is it because the way we've assigned and given it form fits into certain trends in the world around us?

Yes, correct.

Does that explain reality? Most things can, by your definition of reality at least, explain reality. But isn't that explanation temporary or unstable in nature? Is constantly redefining and warping systems to fit what is the current 'consensus' of reality really explaining reality?

Quantify can. R squared correct? This system does an amazing job compared to all the other systems. If we could measure the r-squared or some other standard metric than Socionics would be far above the other systems.

I'm saying that the article in the OP still, whether or not it casually links to the system, springs from the same roots as the 'system'. It still tells us something about how we examine ourselves, which isn't 'shit' by any means IMO.

I don't see anything that isn't wild speculation.

[Singu]

Well as a system of inductivism, Socionics can't "explain" reality. Rather, it's a "summary" of observations. And you can't explain reality with just summaries of observations. Explanations are not summaries, they are theories, bold conjectures of how things might work. Theories are not just summaries of observations.

So what is Gulenko doing? He's just adding more details to the observations. He's refining the observations by making more "subtypes", etc., he's refining the types by making them more detailed. But adding more details don't solve the problem that it's an inductivist system at its core. I'd say it's all relatively pointless.

Do you ever wonder, "How do types work? How do functions work? How does Model A work?"? None of them are explained, and of course they aren't, for they're all just collections of observations.

So Socionics is actually all just a collection of big data, of observations, of statistics to be analyzed, to be interpreted by a potential theory. Right now, it's just data, like Big 5 is just data.

[para]

Yes, correct.


Quantify can. R squared correct? This system does an amazing job compared to all the other systems. If we could measure the r-squared or some other standard metric than Socionics would be far above the other systems.


I don't see anything that isn't wild speculation.

No, what i mean that the way it is formed in writing or thought tells us how we examine ourselves, on some level at least. I'm still opposed to the idea that a system that does a 'better' job really is 'more real', as this is just an argument based on inductive observations. I agree that Socionics is more comprehensive, and IS 'better' in that it is more consistent, but i think it would be dangerous to call this 'explaining reality'. The fact that it doesn't clearly fit with Socionics doesn't make it useless when contemplating various aspects of Socionics. Seperating the creation of these descriptions of how we percieve the world can't be seperated from the product, be it Socionics or some 'disparate, vague nonsense' on some website.

[The Reality Denialist]

All I can say that my brain does not function in HP/VS way.

I always and I mean always want to see roots of information. I just can not go around and be happy what there is it to me personally (this is what this article calls holistic). Chaos in this sense makes my head spin. Well, holistic is just happy to function by breaking through layers. It won't never explain anything perfectly.

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" sounds extremely illogical to me. It just that different layers approximate something well sometimes. Sure the real explanation is: we do not know to deal with it so we resort to hand waving which in turn produces good results in some of these cases.

[niffer]

The cognitive styles match up fairly well with my experiences. No problems have shown up for me pitting it against irl so far.

[falsehope]

I think this Gulenko guy is LII. It is because he produces so much logic but very little of it is real or useful. Especially these weird comparisons. There's some information but very little. I'd edit it and leave just what can be possibly true, then verify what is actually true, so it would be 20 sentences at maximum. That's how it usually is with LII people. They just produce a lot but upon consideration it can be stripped to bare minimum. And here that could be done.
It would be a lot better if that would contain a lists of things for each group clearly specified, and for each item there would be one corresponding in each group.
I think if I would reduce it to minimum, there would be visible mess and non-completenesses.

[squark]

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" sounds extremely illogical to me.

?How so? Take a simple machine and break it down into its parts, gears, handle, levers etc. That pile of parts does you no good whatsoever. It's only when the parts are put together in such a way that they work off of one another that they become anything useful. The machine is something you can use in a way that you cannot use a pile of parts. That is all that is meant by "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

[FDG]

I like them and I´ve seen them at work in real life.

You can create a quick and useful typing test based on them (each thinking style is only based on 3 dichotmies static-dynamic, pos-neg and and evolution-involution, then you ask for E/I or T/F preference and voila´ you get a fairly accurate typing).

[The Reality Denialist]

Functionality does not necessarily incrementally decrease or increase (just matter of how presicely we define function and it is probably not linear). Did we think function or just process? Something that interrupts a signal travelling from a to b for instance will surely disturb the function but from totally idontgiveaf perspective = nah.