Type My Cognitive Style

[isptn]

Which cognitive style is this? VS? HP? Would be helpful to have explanation as to why it is one and not the other.

I get an idea, and then I tend to think about how it could work or could be true. It's frustrating if someone immediately shoots it down by talking about all the reasons it wouldn't work, because I'm already aware of those reasons and the whole point of what I'm doing is to find the exception to the rule, the way of looking at the issue that can make it work. I tend to assume that most things can be done, that it is simply a matter of finding a way to do it.

After I've considered that side, an alternative idea/theory comes to my attention and I think about how that might work or be true instead, or how the original theory might not work. I'm essentially testing my idea against alternatives to make sure it holds up. This pattern leads to a circular motion of thought in which the same idea is revisited many times.

The advantage of my cognition is that I continually test my views by shifting to other perspectives, essentially working to eliminate anchoring bias and make sure nothing has been missed. The first conclusion that appears to fit is not necessarily the right one, nor is the second or third. Furthermore, there is often no guarantee that the right answer is present among immediate options, or that there even is a right answer. This cognitive style leads to a slow and non-linear, but quite thorough progression toward a single, holistic view.

The disadvantage is the difficulty settling on a view without continued shifting, due to lack of groundedness in systematic method. With this style of cognition, there's no way to sit down and figure it all out at once and be settled. Instead, I rely on a gradual accumulation of insights.

[WinnieW]

Hello!
I try to share my knowledge. It' s a little bit difficult for me because english is not my mother language and I'm out of practice writing in english. But it's a good opportunity to practice is.
...still sucking at grammar and using the correct tense.

I get an idea, and then I tend to think about how it could work or could be true. It's frustrating if someone immediately shoots it down by talking about all the reasons it wouldn't work, because I'm already aware of those reasons and the whole point of what I'm doing is to find the exception to the rule, the way of looking at the issue that can make it work. I tend to assume that most things can be done, that it is simply a matter of finding a way to do it.

That sounds a lot like my younger self.
I see intution and thinking. You are a NT type based on your description, just like myself.

Shifting perspectives in my oppinion Ni (Introverted Intuition); Ne is more about connecting ideas.

Logical correctness is Ti (Introverted Thinking); Ne + Ti is assembling puzzle of ideas in a way that they are deterministic linked

What perspective do you change in your mind? Another place, another time, another person?


After I've considered that side, an alternative idea/theory comes to my attention and I think about how that might work or be true instead, or how the original theory might not work. I'm essentially testing my idea against alternatives to make sure it holds up. This pattern leads to a circular motion of thought in which the same idea is revisited many times.

The advantage of my cognition is that I continually test my views by shifting to other perspectives, essentially working to eliminate anchoring bias and make sure nothing has been missed. The first conclusion that appears to fit is not necessarily the right one, nor is the second or third. Furthermore, there is often no guarantee that the right answer is present among immediate options, or that there even is a right answer. This cognitive style leads to a slow and non-linear, but quite thorough progression toward a single, holistic view.

The disadvantage is the difficulty settling on a view without continued shifting, due to lack of groundedness in systematic method. With this style of cognition, there's no way to sit down and figure it all out at once and be settled. Instead, I rely on a gradual accumulation of insights.[/QUOTE]

[isptn]

What perspective do you change in your mind? Another place, another time, another person?

The perspective change is more like something that happens, not so much something I do. The mind is always shifting, in terms of focus, thoughts, associations, etc. If I think about the same concept multiple times, I will experience different insights each time. So I don't think "Let's look at this in a different way," there is no conscious perspective shifting. I do, however, go back and forth between looking for supporting evidence and looking for contrary evidence.

[Pookie]

I see alot of what info, but not alot of how info. Without how you think being made explicit, we can only guess the elements.

[isptn]

I see alot of what info, but not alot of how info. Without how you think being made explicit, we can only guess the elements.

I was asking about my cognitive style, as in vortical-synergetic, holographic-panoramic, etc., not my elements. I believe it is VS, but I wanted a second opinion since those descriptions can be a bit vague. I'm aware that the elements are ultimately more important, but right now I'm more interested in understanding Gulenko's cognitive styles and their dichotomies for how that can add to my overall understanding of types.

[Pookie]

I was asking about my cognitive style, as in vortical-synergetic, holographic-panoramic, etc., not my elements. I believe it is VS, but I wanted a second opinion since those descriptions can be a bit vague. I'm aware that the elements are ultimately more important, but right now I'm more interested in understanding Gulenko's cognitive styles and their dichotomies for how that can add to my overall understanding of types.

I completely understood what you were asking. I meant that the info you provided is the wrong type of information. You mentioned what you do. What you think about. Cognitive style is how you think about it. You provided information that we could derive element info from, not Cognitive styles, unless we worked backwards and tried to wing it from the elements.

TL;DR - You're detailing information that is not useful for your objective.

[WinnieW]

...I will experience different insights each time. So I don't think "Let's look at this in a different way," there is no conscious perspective shifting. I do, however, go back and forth between looking for supporting evidence and looking for contrary evidence.

Are you comfortable with that multiple perspectives can coexist or do you dislike any inconsistency in your perspectives?

Is your perspective more transforming in multiple ways or more about developing in a specific direction?

For now I say you have Ne and Ti in your ego, we share the same type - LII.

[isptn]

I completely understood what you were asking. I meant that the info you provided is the wrong type of information. You mentioned what you do. What you think about. Cognitive style is how you think about it. You provided information that we could derive element info from, not Cognitive styles, unless we worked backwards and tried to wing it from the elements.

TL;DR - You're detailing information that is not useful for your objective.

I believe the information I provided was about how I think, not what I think about. When solving problems or trying to understand or do something, no matter what type of information it is, I show a pattern of focusing on the positive (what is present, what can be done, etc.) initially, then introducing doubt and exploring alternatives. This suggests positivism, it contrasts with negativist types who focus on the ways in which something is not working in order to prevent negative outcomes. I was initially unsure of this because descriptions make it sound like positivists don't focus on alternatives, but I think the distinction may be more about a preference to infer the non-present side ("if not heads, then tails") vs. perceiving the non-present side as an unknown not to be assumed. I think this may be what the VS description means when it says VS types don't assume the system is counterbalanced ("what if there's heads on both sides?"). When I explore alternatives, it's akin to flipping the coin over to check what's there, which is still positivism.

I also described my cognition as non-linear and non-systematic, with thoughts and insights coming to my attention over time, which further suggests VS cognition (synthetic rather than analytic, involution rather than evolution).

Let me know if this is clearer, or if a different type of information is needed.

[isptn]

Are you comfortable with that multiple perspectives can coexist or do you dislike any inconsistency in your perspectives?

Is your perspective more transforming in multiple ways or more about developing in a specific direction?

For now I say you have Ne and Ti in your ego, we share the same type - LII.

Multiple perspectives can coexist, but I prefer to converge toward a single, holistic view. Mostly it's the organization of concepts that is flexible, people can define and label things differently, but the underlying phenomena are universal.

I believe it's too soon to type me as LII. At the moment it looks to me that I likely have VS cognition, and LII is not VS.

[Aylen]

This is from a comment made on the cog styles article. How do you relate to these examples?


Vortical-Synergetic Cognition (V-S): IEI, LIE, ESE, SLI

• "We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers - people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely." - SLI (E. O. Wilson)
• http://tinyurl.com/5vegfyn - Tim Harford's (SLI) TED talk that demonstrates trial-and-error intrinsic to V-S cognitive style
• "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. I live in a world of organized chaos, headwise." - IEI, forum poster
• "Sometimes the connections and perceptions in my mind are so abstract there are no words to explain. A lot of times I just know something and can’t explain it—a premonition that’s hard to articulate. If it’s strong I usually say something or explore where it’s coming from, but I will keep it to myself if people don’t seem to understand. Informed decisions require lots of information and looking at a situation from as many different points of view as possible. I find it amusing, the absurdity in everyday situations." - IEI, forum poster
• "I love to deconstruct complex concepts, organize ideas, form conclusions or arguments by looking at it through several different lenses. I love that "Aha!" moment when everything clicks together for me." - IEI, forum poster
• "To be blunt, I arrived at this typing out of gestalt. Since I know myself better than anybody else, and since I am the common denominator in all of my inter-type relations, my self typing becomes the focal point around my understanding of socionics coalesces. Imagining myself to be different types is akin to playing around with the focus on a pair of binoculars. Everything comes out blurry at all focal settings other than this one. At this point, everything snaps into focus and I am taken aback by how well socionics premises appear to jive with my own experiences. Every other focal setting produces a jumbled mess of incoherence from which nothing of value can be gleaned." - IEI, forum poster
• "Vortex thinking believes the system is not perfectly counter balanced, and the connections of all the data imply the value of an unknown variable (all the information points toward its value). The value of the variable is what brings the system back into balance. That's why vortex thinking is opportunistic. Vortex thinking is searching for something." - IEI, forum poster
• "You imply that nature intends something. That's just you projecting your own human notions unto something that's utterly inhuman in every way. There is no natural equilibrium, no balanced system that we're parts of. There is no thought behind it. Nature is purposeless, mindless, violent, self consuming chaos, only it's so slow we barely notice it. It does not "hint" and it does not "intend" us to reproduce. We're completely meaningless results of a 4 billion long, automatic and completely mindless process of small random changes and sifting by natural selection. Whatever purpose you see here is made up by you." - LIE, forum poster
• "Sometimes the time gap in between Point A and Point B is so far in between that it allows me to think of all the things I could have improved upon to have a better point B (interestingly enough while this is happening my mind is also hovering over Point C). It's this point that I begin spiraling as the immensity of all the ways I could have made it better weighs on my shoulders. Somewhere in that chaos, the thought of "OMG I'm running out of time" crosses, until of course one settles. An epiphany hits and BAM you realize, "You're way ahead in time and all things are falling into place (not perfect as envisioned) but they are aligning as you've imagined." At this point, I think Point B is just about to meet you face-to-face at the exact moment you've predicted and Point C is already peaking over in the horizon." - LIE, forum poster
• An mmo game likely incepted by someone with V-S cog-style: link to trailer
• http://tinyurl.com/ycgy4uc

Here are some HP comments to contrast with:

Holographical-Panoramic Cognition (H-P): SLE, ESI, LII, IEE

• "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" - SLE, Pablo Picasso
• "I never over analyze the things that people say or do - I feel like people's intentions are always very clear to me." - ESI, 16T member
• "There are two aspects to any person: essence and behavior. Typology based on behavior improves with complexity: the more dichotomies you come up with, the more accurate it is. On the other side, typology based on essence strives for simplicity: it's about reducing personality to its minimal expression. There is no limit about how far you can go about complexity and this is why there are so many behavioral typological systems. But simplicity has a limit and that limit is probably Socionics." - IEE
• "Why the hell would I need to think about reasons? if I got them, I do stuff; if I don't, I might do stuff just the same; oftentimes the conclusion would be the same either way, but I get there faster if I just chop out a large bulk, if not all, of the deliberation" - IEE, 16T member
• "...when shit hits the fan, I stop all thinking and just do a bunch of shit and then everything goes awesome seems I'm most comfortable when all hell's breaking loose" - IEE
• "I don't really focus on what they're doing or why. It's just not important to me. I'll meet someone for the first time and pay hardly any attention to what they're doing, tbh. Usually people say the wrong things or look awkward at first because they're nervous, shy, or just not open to me yet—I'm not going to analyze the things they say. It just isn't of much significance to me. However, I do tend to gather impressions of people when I first meet them, but it's by observing something else. I suppose you could call it a person's undertone? Like if you meet some girl who acts extroverted and bubbly, it's not hard for me to look past that and see one general face to her—a more solid, internal, static thing that serves as a core despite her outward expressions. I guess it's like spotting depression in someone even if they act like they're on top of the world. And yeah, if I do meet someone that looks like they're acting against who they are, it feels obvious to me. That sort of impression tends to last too, and I'll wonder if they'll ever start showing who [I think] they are. And even though I'm not going to really judge them for it, I still can't get over the sense of internal friction they give off, and I feel like I can't get close to people like that. I do trust my impressions, though. How I feel about them can and probably will change over time, but who I think they are pretty much stays the same." - ESI, 16T member
• "Lets say you're in a room that has no walls, no floor, and no roof. This room is completely free of conventional rules except for those of your own choosing (rules such as gravity for example). Now in this room, the focus of your attention is an object that you are dissecting or even expanding upon. You don't have to come into direct contact with the object in order to move it in anyway. However you choose to view the object will allow you to view in this way. You could choose to inverse the object in anyway shape or form to accurately/properly analyze it from your desired perspective." - LII, , forum poster
• "My frame of perception is constantly shifting, or I'm layering one on top of the other." - LII, , forum poster
• "Ti delves into possible realities. First, a schema appears before the mind's eye, then the facts are filled in depending on the context, but the facts are never given value. there is no seeking of facts for their own sake." - LII, 16T member
• "I just started writing it and kept writing, and it evolved and evolved. It’s like filling in a crossword puzzle. You know that word has got to be abracadabra, right? Because there’s no other word it can be until you get halfway through and you see that the word down the middle has a P in the middle of abracadabra and there is no P. So therefore, one of them has to be wrong. They can’t both be right. And the same thing is true about structuring a drama. You go along and say, “I know this has got to happen at the end of the second act,” until you realize you’ve spent two years, and it doesn’t work. So something’s wrong. Either the first and third acts are wrong or the second act is wrong. How am I going to fix it? The structure is the whole thing — getting the movie to eat up 15 lines on a sheet of paper so you can write it." - SLE, David Mamet (notice how similar Mamet's description is to what LII poster said above - he sees the puzzles as a whole, then he simply proceeds to fill the blanks in)
• "Well, you can’t help but make a distinct movie. If you give yourself up to the form, it’s going to be distinctively your own because the form’s going to tell you what’s needed. That’s one of the great things I find about working in drama is you’re always learning from the form. You’re always getting humbled by it. It’s exactly like analyzing a dream. You’re trying to analyze your dreams. You say, “I know what that means; I know exactly what that means; why am I still unsettled?” You say, “Let me look a little harder at this little thing over here. But that’s not important; that’s not important; that’s not important. The part where I kill the monster — that’s the important part, and I know that means my father this and da da da da da. But what about this little part over here about the bunny rabbit? Why is the bunny rabbit hopping across the thing? Oh, that’s not important; that’s not important.” Making up a drama is almost exactly analogous to analyzing your dreams" - SLE, David Mamet (From main article: According to Aristotle, Holographic cognition corresponds to explanation by structural or formative causes. Aristotle called it the structure of form. Returning to the sculptor example, the cause of the sculpture is its latent form, which the sculptor merely sets free by cutting away excess marble.)
• http://imgur.com/SUM1e
• http://tinyurl.com/zw8le

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Victor-Gulenko

*I can't relate much to the LIE posters but I do relate to the IEI posters comments. I looked at some of the comments from other styles and just could not relate enough to the rest to say this is how I see things. I don't even know if these people are typed correctly but the IEI were the ones who spoke my language.

I thought I could relate to DA because it was the only other style that felt sort of familiar but the comments made me realize I do not have DA style. I am just getting into this after 4 years here. I had not even read how it related to dichotomies until recently when it all kind of clicked and made sense. I was ready to understand it only after understanding other things. I think mu made a good point when he said:

"Forms of cognition are kind of a advanced topic that requires a bit of philosophical background. The terms used to describe the forms are quite descriptive, I recommend familiarizing oneself with the philosophical concepts first and then see how it applies to individual thought. "

Edit: I don't consciously explore things from every angle. They are just there and I see them but I am pulled toward higher probability when forming conclusions. I can read other people's perspectives and take them into account but my own is final but subject to change with new information.

[isptn]

This is from a comment made on the cog styles article. How do you relate to these examples?

Vortical-Synergetic Cognition (V-S): IEI, LIE, ESE, SLI

• "We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers - people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely." - SLI (E. O. Wilson) I understand what the quote means but I don't like the implication that synthesizers are better or have more potential than others. I don't feel inclined to put potential/talent on a pedestal to begin with, it's nice but I don't feel like it's what makes the world run.
• http://tinyurl.com/5vegfyn - Tim Harford's (SLI) TED talk that demonstrates trial-and-error intrinsic to V-S cognitive style Will watch later.
• "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. I live in a world of organized chaos, headwise." - IEI, forum poster Yes, my thoughts seem to be aimless or unorganized until something clicks together and then I experience a focused flow of insights.
• "Sometimes the connections and perceptions in my mind are so abstract there are no words to explain. A lot of times I just know something and can’t explain it—a premonition that’s hard to articulate. If it’s strong I usually say something or explore where it’s coming from, but I will keep it to myself if people don’t seem to understand. Informed decisions require lots of information and looking at a situation from as many different points of view as possible. I find it amusing, the absurdity in everyday situations." - IEI, forum poster I have perceptions that are hard to communicate, but I wouldn't call them premonitions. I don't see things before they happen or predict the future. The perceptions I have are kind of mental imagery or linking together of ideas/phenomena. For example, I was trying to understand the positivist/negativist dichotomy, and I pictured a coin and then understood how it worked.
• "I love to deconstruct complex concepts, organize ideas, form conclusions or arguments by looking at it through several different lenses. I love that "Aha!" moment when everything clicks together for me." - IEI, forum poster I don't know about looking at it through lenses. I do end up perceiving things in new ways but like I explained, it's not something I can compare to a conscious decision to look through another lens. It's more like some new understanding just comes to me and then I see it differently.
• "To be blunt, I arrived at this typing out of gestalt. Since I know myself better than anybody else, and since I am the common denominator in all of my inter-type relations, my self typing becomes the focal point around my understanding of socionics coalesces. Imagining myself to be different types is akin to playing around with the focus on a pair of binoculars. Everything comes out blurry at all focal settings other than this one. At this point, everything snaps into focus and I am taken aback by how well socionics premises appear to jive with my own experiences. Every other focal setting produces a jumbled mess of incoherence from which nothing of value can be gleaned." - IEI, forum poster Yes, I understand type through myself, so how I type myself affects my typing of everyone else and how I understand the elements.
• "Vortex thinking believes the system is not perfectly counter balanced, and the connections of all the data imply the value of an unknown variable (all the information points toward its value). The value of the variable is what brings the system back into balance. That's why vortex thinking is opportunistic. Vortex thinking is searching for something." - IEI, forum poster Yes, I see that the data points toward some unknown, and I set out to find whether the unknown is truly there.
• "You imply that nature intends something. That's just you projecting your own human notions unto something that's utterly inhuman in every way. There is no natural equilibrium, no balanced system that we're parts of. There is no thought behind it. Nature is purposeless, mindless, violent, self consuming chaos, only it's so slow we barely notice it. It does not "hint" and it does not "intend" us to reproduce. We're completely meaningless results of a 4 billion long, automatic and completely mindless process of small random changes and sifting by natural selection. Whatever purpose you see here is made up by you." - LIE, forum poster I believe there may be some deeper meaning, purpose, or answers within the universe.
• "Sometimes the time gap in between Point A and Point B is so far in between that it allows me to think of all the things I could have improved upon to have a better point B (interestingly enough while this is happening my mind is also hovering over Point C). It's this point that I begin spiraling as the immensity of all the ways I could have made it better weighs on my shoulders. Somewhere in that chaos, the thought of "OMG I'm running out of time" crosses, until of course one settles. An epiphany hits and BAM you realize, "You're way ahead in time and all things are falling into place (not perfect as envisioned) but they are aligning as you've imagined." At this point, I think Point B is just about to meet you face-to-face at the exact moment you've predicted and Point C is already peaking over in the horizon." - LIE, forum poster I'm no perfectionist, I rarely consciously focus on how I could have improved.
• An mmo game likely incepted by someone with V-S cog-style: link to trailer
• http://tinyurl.com/ycgy4uc

Here are some HP comments to contrast with:

Holographical-Panoramic Cognition (H-P): SLE, ESI, LII, IEE

• "Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" - SLE, Pablo Picasso Never thought of it like that.
• "I never over analyze the things that people say or do - I feel like people's intentions are always very clear to me." - ESI, 16T member Not sure if it fits or not.
• "There are two aspects to any person: essence and behavior. Typology based on behavior improves with complexity: the more dichotomies you come up with, the more accurate it is. On the other side, typology based on essence strives for simplicity: it's about reducing personality to its minimal expression. There is no limit about how far you can go about complexity and this is why there are so many behavioral typological systems. But simplicity has a limit and that limit is probably Socionics." - IEE I understand what was said, but I don't see a cognitive style being described here.
• "Why the hell would I need to think about reasons? if I got them, I do stuff; if I don't, I might do stuff just the same; oftentimes the conclusion would be the same either way, but I get there faster if I just chop out a large bulk, if not all, of the deliberation" - IEE, 16T member Doesn't fit.
• "...when shit hits the fan, I stop all thinking and just do a bunch of shit and then everything goes awesome seems I'm most comfortable when all hell's breaking loose" - IEE Nope.
• "I don't really focus on what they're doing or why. It's just not important to me. I'll meet someone for the first time and pay hardly any attention to what they're doing, tbh. Usually people say the wrong things or look awkward at first because they're nervous, shy, or just not open to me yet—I'm not going to analyze the things they say. It just isn't of much significance to me. However, I do tend to gather impressions of people when I first meet them, but it's by observing something else. I suppose you could call it a person's undertone? Like if you meet some girl who acts extroverted and bubbly, it's not hard for me to look past that and see one general face to her—a more solid, internal, static thing that serves as a core despite her outward expressions. I guess it's like spotting depression in someone even if they act like they're on top of the world. And yeah, if I do meet someone that looks like they're acting against who they are, it feels obvious to me. That sort of impression tends to last too, and I'll wonder if they'll ever start showing who [I think] they are. And even though I'm not going to really judge them for it, I still can't get over the sense of internal friction they give off, and I feel like I can't get close to people like that. I do trust my impressions, though. How I feel about them can and probably will change over time, but who I think they are pretty much stays the same." - ESI, 16T member Can't tell if it fits or not.
• "Lets say you're in a room that has no walls, no floor, and no roof. This room is completely free of conventional rules except for those of your own choosing (rules such as gravity for example). Now in this room, the focus of your attention is an object that you are dissecting or even expanding upon. You don't have to come into direct contact with the object in order to move it in anyway. However you choose to view the object will allow you to view in this way. You could choose to inverse the object in anyway shape or form to accurately/properly analyze it from your desired perspective." - LII, , forum poster This is unfamiliar to me at this point.
• "My frame of perception is constantly shifting, or I'm layering one on top of the other." - LII, , forum poster Vague, can't tell.
• "Ti delves into possible realities. First, a schema appears before the mind's eye, then the facts are filled in depending on the context, but the facts are never given value. there is no seeking of facts for their own sake." - LII, 16T member Unfamiliar.
• "I just started writing it and kept writing, and it evolved and evolved. It’s like filling in a crossword puzzle. You know that word has got to be abracadabra, right? Because there’s no other word it can be until you get halfway through and you see that the word down the middle has a P in the middle of abracadabra and there is no P. So therefore, one of them has to be wrong. They can’t both be right. And the same thing is true about structuring a drama. You go along and say, “I know this has got to happen at the end of the second act,” until you realize you’ve spent two years, and it doesn’t work. So something’s wrong. Either the first and third acts are wrong or the second act is wrong. How am I going to fix it? The structure is the whole thing — getting the movie to eat up 15 lines on a sheet of paper so you can write it." - SLE, David Mamet (notice how similar Mamet's description is to what LII poster said above - he sees the puzzles as a whole, then he simply proceeds to fill the blanks in) That's me trying to solve a rubik's cube. Feels familiar, I have used similar analogies. Crossword puzzle is very HP.
• "Well, you can’t help but make a distinct movie. If you give yourself up to the form, it’s going to be distinctively your own because the form’s going to tell you what’s needed. That’s one of the great things I find about working in drama is you’re always learning from the form. You’re always getting humbled by it. It’s exactly like analyzing a dream. You’re trying to analyze your dreams. You say, “I know what that means; I know exactly what that means; why am I still unsettled?” You say, “Let me look a little harder at this little thing over here. But that’s not important; that’s not important; that’s not important. The part where I kill the monster — that’s the important part, and I know that means my father this and da da da da da. But what about this little part over here about the bunny rabbit? Why is the bunny rabbit hopping across the thing? Oh, that’s not important; that’s not important.” Making up a drama is almost exactly analogous to analyzing your dreams" - SLE, David Mamet (From main article: According to Aristotle, Holographic cognition corresponds to explanation by structural or formative causes. Aristotle called it the structure of form. Returning to the sculptor example, the cause of the sculpture is its latent form, which the sculptor merely sets free by cutting away excess marble.) Love the analogies.
• http://imgur.com/SUM1e
• http://tinyurl.com/zw8le

Well that's interesting. IEI, I kind of expected, but I wasn't expecting to relate to SLE. Duality, perhaps? Anyways, will consider IEI but I need more time to understand socionics.

[Myst]

Which cognitive style is this? VS? HP? Would be helpful to have explanation as to why it is one and not the other.

I get an idea, and then I tend to think about how it could work or could be true. It's frustrating if someone immediately shoots it down by talking about all the reasons it wouldn't work, because I'm already aware of those reasons and the whole point of what I'm doing is to find the exception to the rule, the way of looking at the issue that can make it work. I tend to assume that most things can be done, that it is simply a matter of finding a way to do it.

After I've considered that side, an alternative idea/theory comes to my attention and I think about how that might work or be true instead, or how the original theory might not work. I'm essentially testing my idea against alternatives to make sure it holds up. This pattern leads to a circular motion of thought in which the same idea is revisited many times.

The advantage of my cognition is that I continually test my views by shifting to other perspectives, essentially working to eliminate anchoring bias and make sure nothing has been missed. The first conclusion that appears to fit is not necessarily the right one, nor is the second or third. Furthermore, there is often no guarantee that the right answer is present among immediate options, or that there even is a right answer. This cognitive style leads to a slow and non-linear, but quite thorough progression toward a single, holistic view.

The disadvantage is the difficulty settling on a view without continued shifting, due to lack of groundedness in systematic method. With this style of cognition, there's no way to sit down and figure it all out at once and be settled. Instead, I rely on a gradual accumulation of insights.

V-S. Switching around and testing rapidly, trial-and-error almost

The Dynamicness of it hurts my head lolol