Dialectic Thinkers
Per Gulenko.
Are dialectic thinkers inclined to need a tie-breaker? Like when things are too balanced, say two directions following a decision are judged by them as equally possible and beneficial, then would they be inclined to need a tie-breaker? How'd they break the tie alone or do they necessarily need outside input?
Source: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...and-TranscriptThe third piece of advice for the LII is to trust your second intuitive hunch. What Gulenko means by this, is that the LII will first think of something and then intuition will help them with the answer. The decision that intuition is telling you is still kind of raw, so you need to go back to thinking mode, and see what intuition tells you the second time. The second time your intuition will be right, and your decision will be correct.
I find this to be relatively true. After I've talked to people and read about it I'll normally have a gut intuition opinion, and then I'll go with my intuition.
If it's a true tie then that means I literally don't care which one I do, because they're both equally good. If I've made as full an exploration as I think is necessary and it's a tie, then it doesn't matter which I choose.
If it's a different type of tie, where I think X is what I ought to do and Y is what I want to do, or something like that, then I bargain with myself: "I haven't done much work today, so I should do X to make up for it. Then I can relax later in the day."
If it's a third type of tie, where I can see the merits of one person's POV and I can see the merits of another person's POV and I don't want to upset them, then... that's someone else's job. I guess the goal there is mutual respect for each other, or at least tolerance for each other, which isn't zero-sum like the other things.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
@ClownsandEntropy You know that as an LII you're not a Dialectical-Algorithmic thinker though (which I'm pretty sure is what the OP was referencing), right? You're a Holographical-Panoramic thinker.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko
DA thinkers are SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE.
IME DA thinkers can definitely temporarily get stuck in a rut like this, and they will create an experiment for each option that they will then check to see how things hold up in order to break the tie. Either that or they'll go "let's just try this" and have a contingency plan in case it doesn't pan out. EIE and ILI are more likely to do the former IME, and SEI and LSE more likely to do that latter. DA thinkers are supposed to be good at weighing out multiple chains of thought and coming to conclusions though; if anything their minds are built to handle complex problems like this. IME it's their duals, the CD thinkers that more commonly get stuck in ruts when faced with very complex problems, and DA thinkers because of their idiosyncratic and complexity-creating thinking style more commonly get stuck in ruts when faced with mundane things.
Gulenko says something like this too, like dialectic is the most "thinned out" thinking, but I'm finding it difficult seeing this irl whereas I can easily spot Synergist activity I don't really notice dialectic activity much (?)Originally Posted by niffer
Hang around ones that will verbalize their thinking process with you more, or do things with them more that require you to have dialogue to make decisions together.
Dang, just wanted to be included.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
That sounds more like the indecision associated with intuition, more likely introverted intuitives.
Pretty much any observable quality of types is not going to have anything to do with supervision rings.
Why not? Gulenko listed observable behaviours for them, and they're based on Reinins which have observable characteristics.
Just because Gulenko said something doesn't mean it's true. And many people would disagree with your second statement.
.....Oookay......so is your point then that you don't subscribe to his idea of cognitive styles at all in the first place? Is that what your presence in this thread came down to?
Many people would disagree that the world is round. Aushra subscribed to the idea of Reinins.
I don't subscribe to them, but my point was that Jungian dichotomies are more than adequate to explain this phenomenon.
That's not a fair comparison, Reinin dichotomies are extremely controversial, including in the Russian community.Many people would disagree that the world is round. Aushra subscribed to the idea of Reinins.
Augusta viewed the Reinin dichotomies as being a speculative hypothesis. She didn't use them for typing people as some do now.
http://translate.google.com/translat...aug-priz2.html
At the very least, she contributed a lot of detail to what could be described as observable traits in her hypothesizing.
Just because you think something doesn't mean it's true either, I hope you realize that.
It's usually CD types that provide them with 'points' that resolve the mental wavering, so every DA type is paired up with a CD type in dual relations. How this works is explained in this post if you can get through the Ti.
Sans the presence of any CD, DA types seem to take a long time to arrive any conclusion and are probably least decisive in life. Sometimes it feels like they never get to any end point, like it's one prolonged journey to clarify, resolve ambiguities, which of course can never be fully resolved, double-check, and counter-oppose any suggestions, a process that may stretch out to years but they seem to enjoy being in the middle of it, which drives any Result types in vicinity of them bonkers.
People don't rely on one style of thinking, which is what Gulenko's article would lead you to believe, but that's not quite what's happening. There's usually some portion of the dual cog. style present which works concurrently and together with your main one. But the process is much slower and less effective than if you had the real thing i.e. your dual around, then things speed up. So any DA thinker has some small % of CD going on, which allows them to eventually break the tie; this % is contingent on their type's subtype.
if things are perfectly balanced you don't really need a tie breaker since by definition one is not better than the other so it is inconsequential which one you pick (wasting time over picking between two truly equivalent options is the only real "bad" option)... this also presumes all the information is available which is basically never the case, so you pick the one you think is most unlikely to surprise you in a bad way, even if based on current information the two are balanced
more than likely one thing will have something subjectively preferable even if objectively the two are balanced... we'd call that a matter of style
Well I think the thing with DA is that they are comfortable with holding two contadicting beliefs, or opposing values, or whatever, without needing to subvert one, or modify it to raise the other.
I dont think they need a tie breaker, because the tie doesnt inhibit them.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
