Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Causal Determinist Cognition and You

  1. #1
    Arachno-mammal (reproductive mule) A Moderator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Mod Box
    TIM
    LSI- Se C 6
    Posts
    1,181
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Causal Determinist Cognition and You

    Are you an ILE, LSI, SEE, or EII?

    If so, how does this form of cognition manifest in your thinking?

    From Gulenko:

    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.
    Santa Claus: That probably comes from the inherent profit motive of the bourgeoisie mentality.
    Santa Claus: Even on a cold day, a Coke is refreshing.

  2. #2
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,653
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A lot of X so Y kinds of formulations in my speech and thinking. I've noticed this myself after-the-fact in a lot of my posts. That propensity to use knowns to deduce unknowns ie If this and this are true, mightn't this follow? or Take what we know about this, and this, and that means this other thing. Basically, how things are linked together towards a conclusion.

    ...
    However, although I do see this style of thinking in myself, I am of the opinion that people do think in more than one mode, and the kind of switching can depend on mindframe. Since the 3 poles of Gulenko's thinking styles are static/dynamic, convergent/divergent and process/result, it's around those that imo people move towards the other styles. If you're very being very static-minded, trying to see a picture as it is now you may switch between HP and CD, but you won't easily be able to switch into the dynamic thinking styles of DA and VS. If you're very singular-focused, trying to sum everything up and come to a single conclusion you may switch between VS and CD, but not into the divergent thinking styles of DA and HP. And if you're focused on reasoning something out, following that line of reasoning to it's endpoint (aka process) you might switch between CD and DA, but not into the holistic, gestalt, or overview type of result thinking that HP and VS have.


    edit to add: DA may be the hardest to switch into for me since it's both dynamic and divergent and since I'm probably more strongly static than anything else it feels like I'm trying to go multiple directions at once with some kind of split-brain thing going on (the divergence), whereas VS even though it's also dynamic is more like fishing something out of the soup and so is not as taxing. And HP's divergence also isn't as hard since it's still static, so it's a matter of exploding the current picture to encompass more angles.
    Last edited by squark; 11-09-2018 at 03:06 AM.

  3. #3
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    4,555
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    However, although I do see this style of thinking in myself, I am of the opinion that people do think in more than one mode, and the kind of switching can depend on mindframe. Since the 3 poles of Gulenko's thinking styles are static/dynamic, convergent/divergent and process/result, it's around those that imo people move towards the other styles. If you're very being very static-minded, trying to see a picture as it is now you may switch between HP and CD, but you won't easily be able to switch into the dynamic thinking styles of DA and VS. If you're very singular-focused, trying to sum everything up and come to a single conclusion you may switch between VS and CD, but not into the divergent thinking styles of DA and HP. And if you're focused on reasoning something out, following that line of reasoning to it's endpoint (aka process) you might switch between CD and DA, but not into the holistic, gestalt, or overview type of result thinking that HP and VS have.
    I'm of opinion that it's the dual cognitive styles that are complimentary and have to be applied as a pair. This is based on reasoning that one style is non-viable without the other i.e. DA would be forever stuck in indecision without CD and CD would be too rigid without DA. If a anyone was 100% static and only used the static thinking styles, they wouldn't be able to function in this world or even form sentences. The mind needs to be able to combine both static & dynamic styles of thinking and perception. The static frames have to be connected in some way, which means any static type also employs some type of dynamic thinking. Based on this, any type has to use at least two styles: either CD-DA complimentary pair or HP-VS pair - and the proportion between them is influenced by subtype. An ILE-Ne applies more DA style of thinking than an ILE-Ti but that is compensated by SEI-Si falling on CD style in speech more often than SEI-Fe (from observation).

    However, I don't think switching between Process styles and Result styles is possible. Even attempting to think and write things in the manner of Process styles if one is Result is rather difficult and creates a lot of mental tension - I've tried this in the past.
    ... Which brings up another question: what is the "magic bridge" between Process and Result types and these two pairs of cognitive styles? None of the socionics articles on cognitive styles seem to cover this. They highlight the differences and the gap between them, yet process and result types are still somehow able to understand each other even if not completely.

  4. #4
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    In the Trash
    TIM
    Bold and Brash
    Posts
    1,826
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Meh, this thinking style stuff is where socionics pushes too far into convoluted and baseless territory. Better to stick with the simpler stuff imo.

  5. #5
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,653
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke View Post
    I'm of opinion that it's the dual cognitive styles that are complimentary and have to be applied as a pair. This is based on reasoning that one style is non-viable without the other i.e. DA would be forever stuck in indecision without CD and CD would be too rigid without DA. If a anyone was 100% static and only used the static thinking styles, they wouldn't be able to function in this world or even form sentences. The mind needs to be able to combine both static & dynamic styles of thinking and perception. The static frames have to be connected in some way, which means any static type also employs some type of dynamic thinking. Based on this, any type has to use at least two styles: either CD-DA complimentary pair or HP-VS pair - and the proportion between them is influenced by subtype. An ILE-Ne applies more DA style of thinking than an ILE-Ti but that is compensated by SEI-Si falling on CD style in speech more often than SEI-Fe (from observation).

    However, I don't think switching between Process styles and Result styles is possible. Even attempting to think and write things in the manner of Process styles if one is Result is rather difficult and creates a lot of mental tension - I've tried this in the past.
    ... Which brings up another question: what is the "magic bridge" between Process and Result types and these two pairs of cognitive styles? None of the socionics articles on cognitive styles seem to cover this. They highlight the differences and the gap between them, yet process and result types are still somehow able to understand each other even if not completely.
    How is it possible to think statically and dynamically at the same time? Process chains create a form of dynamic thinking in a way because you're moving along them, but it's still from one present link to the next, there's no motion or change happening, know what I mean? You can't really freeze a video into a still frame and also continue watching it at the same time. You either freeze a series of pictures and then link them together, or you watch it in motion.

    You also can't converge on a single solution to a problem, while going back and forth between different options. So, while the thought processes are complementary, I don't think they can be combined to be used simultaneously by one person since they are going opposite directions in every way except process/result.

    As for switching from process to result, the way I see it is that you stop and let ideas emerge without tracing the steps, and it's possible to do, though maybe not identical to the way the result type goes about it. As soon as the process type starts talking or explaining things, almost immediately they go back to process though. From the other end . . . well you end up with something like stratievskaya I suppose, and I commented before that it helps to read her in a semi-VS sort of mode, filter all the excess and let the actual ideas float to the surface. I think that's how the cognitive styles are complimentary though, using them to interpret or clarify or direct, expand, or sort through the information from the other. DA adds dimensions to CD, and CD clarifies DA. HP expands VS and VS directs HP. But you'd have to have a very unusual brain imo to use the complimentary styles simultaneously.

  6. #6
    Arachno-mammal (reproductive mule) A Moderator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Mod Box
    TIM
    LSI- Se C 6
    Posts
    1,181
    Mentioned
    72 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silke View Post
    I'm of opinion that it's the dual cognitive styles that are complimentary and have to be applied as a pair. This is based on reasoning that one style is non-viable without the other i.e. DA would be forever stuck in indecision without CD and CD would be too rigid without DA. If a anyone was 100% static and only used the static thinking styles, they wouldn't be able to function in this world or even form sentences. The mind needs to be able to combine both static & dynamic styles of thinking and perception. The static frames have to be connected in some way, which means any static type also employs some type of dynamic thinking. Based on this, any type has to use at least two styles: either CD-DA complimentary pair or HP-VS pair - and the proportion between them is influenced by subtype. An ILE-Ne applies more DA style of thinking than an ILE-Ti but that is compensated by SEI-Si falling on CD style in speech more often than SEI-Fe (from observation).
    Santa Claus: That probably comes from the inherent profit motive of the bourgeoisie mentality.
    Santa Claus: Even on a cold day, a Coke is refreshing.

  7. #7
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    4,555
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    How is it possible to think statically and dynamically at the same time? Process chains create a form of dynamic thinking in a way because you're moving along them, but it's still from one present link to the next, there's no motion or change happening, know what I mean? You can't really freeze a video into a still frame and also continue watching it at the same time. You either freeze a series of pictures and then link them together, or you watch it in motion.
    Every type is composed of both static and dynamic information elements (link) so it turns out by Model A we have to employ both dynamic and static judgement and perception styles. The ego block for an LSI is fully static, but both your super-id and id blocks are filled out with dynamic elements. So then if you're not engaging in any dynamic thinking, how would you be able to implement those blocks, use Fe & Ni, etc.? That doesn't seem to be possible.

    I think dynamic mental processing might be too unconscious almost to the point of being invisible for Ij types. There is still motion embedded in this sentence: "Process chains create a form of dynamic thinking in a way because you're moving along them, but it's still from one present link to the next, there's no motion or change happening, know what I mean?" ie "from one link to the next", so it's a matter of recognizing how the movement happens - that's the overlooked dynamic part. It's more conscious for Ips and I can feel myself switching between the two modes: dynamic Fe flow of events or static Ti analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    You also can't converge on a single solution to a problem, while going back and forth between different options. So, while the thought processes are complementary, I don't think they can be combined to be used simultaneously by one person since they are going opposite directions in every way except process/result.
    Yes, one mental process has to have a precedence. But you can't converge on anything if you don't have any options in the first place. So something has to provide those options ie supply material for CD to choose from, and given that you're not spending every waking moment with someone who has a complimentary style you have to self-supply. That is accomplished by a subconscious dynamic process that is happening in the super-id and id blocks for static types. But I think there is significant difficulty in recognizing it because it's so in the back of the mind and out of one's conscious awareness.

    It also doesn't seem congruent with LSI being a "tactical" type to say that this type doesn't really generate options. They maybe concrete options, based on changing actions and physical objects, but these are options nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    As for switching from process to result, the way I see it is that you stop and let ideas emerge without tracing the steps, and it's possible to do, though maybe not identical to the way the result type goes about it. As soon as the process type starts talking or explaining things, almost immediately they go back to process though. From the other end . . . well you end up with something like stratievskaya I suppose, and I commented before that it helps to read her in a semi-VS sort of mode, filter all the excess and let the actual ideas float to the surface. I think that's how the cognitive styles are complimentary though, using them to interpret or clarify or direct, expand, or sort through the information from the other. DA adds dimensions to CD, and CD clarifies DA. HP expands VS and VS directs HP. But you'd have to have a very unusual brain imo to use the complimentary styles simultaneously.
    Yeah the barrier seems to be higher in switching between Process and Result styles. I've tried writing a short story in a CD style building up to some specific conclusion but it felt artificial and forced, and kind of disorienting within a few minutes. While HP cog seems to happen naturally in the background - I don't have to artificially force it. So it's possible that people are capable of all 4 thinking styles, however, the barrier between the "dual" styles seems to be much lower and their interaction is much more complimentary as you have described, while switching between process and result requires a lot of conscious effort, and in the absence of previous practice it creates a lot of uncertainty.

  8. #8
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,653
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're still switching between modes, not using them simultaneously - how easily and quickly that happens imo depends on which traits are more strongly pronounced

    When looking at any of the reinin traits there are some that are much easier to distinguish between for yourself and others that are harder where you could go either way depending on circumstances, and while the basis of the cognitive styles are modified versions of some of the reinin traits, I still think it applies. While you might find process/result the largest barrier, that doesn't mean that will be true for everyone. I can't think of a good reason why it would be. Or why this couldn't vary over time/place/circumstance.

    Quote Originally Posted by silke
    Yes, one mental process has to have a precedence. But you can't converge on anything if you don't have any options in the first place. So something has to provide those options ie supply material for CD to choose from
    The process of convergence is elimination and merging of options. The process of divergence is not to notice options, but to split them apart into new ones. You can't split and merge things at the same time. If convergence is a simple line drawing of a house, divergence is a 4D abstract sculpture of that house. Both see the options, but they are using them in opposite ways. It's like the "splitters" and "lumpers" of phylogenetics, both can see two birds (two options) but the lumpers (the convergers) say they belong to the same species, and the splitters (the divergers) say that they're two different species because of a minute difference between the two of them. It's either/or in these thinking styles, not both together.

    It's like the static and dynamic again - laying a series of pictures on a table does not create a movie. Just because they are linked and in order does not turn it into a dynamic picture. Pausing a movie only momentarily turns it into a still picture. The still pictures may be embedded in the movie, but you can only turn your conscious focus to one or the other at any given time. You can't both stop a movie and play it simultaneously, but you can switch back and forth between stopping it and playing it.

  9. #9
    spiritual aggressor/volcel Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-C 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,485
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    CD is very straight forward. I see this in my SEE sister as well. It is like we both attack problem using similar approach: to tackle it down based on certain conditionals.

    SEI's get stuck how to see point B from point A. That said it is like the point B could be point B.2 but it is close enough.

    So for example SEI gets stuck and then I say this is what you are reaching for and there is an analogy between this method and that method that might bridge it.

    It can be bit hard for me to handle small "fluid" details.
    You can suggest an alternative type based on video found in HERE

    extrospection > introspection



  10. #10
    fka Avebury
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,131
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is the cogntive style I relate to least. Linear, unambiguous thinking.


  11. #11
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LIE ENTj
    Posts
    386
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am this. This is my main trait, so yeah, if you feel like talking to me to understand what it is like, feel free.

    As a note, I tend to not use any of said words very commonly, because they are trite, and over used. Actually, I tend to spam 'as a note' quite frequently, as that is how I mentally process things. A translation would be WRITE THAT DOWN WRITE THAT DOWN. Again, I feel this to be epcetionally noteworthy because I have eidetic memory, so yeah.
    If I stop responding or posting, I've probably taken a break from posting stuff. This really taxes me for whatever reason. Said break could last anywhere from a month to a year. I will likely be back, as socionics is one of my interests. If I'm not on here, you can contact me on steam.

    I got a new computer, so I'll not type on mobile as much any more.

  12. #12
    spiritual aggressor/volcel Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    ILE-C 7(93?)
    Posts
    3,485
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Well, I think I tend to slow everything down when I get into the zone. Like reading for tests doing them this rings a bell.

    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.
    True but once something is proven wrong a search for new should begin which in turn can correct previous ones. As for holographic people it seems like they get stuck on their view (NOTE: a rule does not mean a view).
    You can suggest an alternative type based on video found in HERE

    extrospection > introspection



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •