Follows, a personal interpretation and a simplification rather than a simple clarification of syntax.

Gulenko discusses the cycles of supervision and their attributes.
The dichotomies that define the cycles are static-dynamic, result-process, positive-negative
He's trying to connect these to "forms of thinking" categories of cognitive psychology (I do not have extensive experience of these categories and can't really evaluate whether he succeeded)

He suggests a process of shifting between dynamic and static, negativism and positivism, process and result. (He links dynamic with doubt, and time and static with confidence and space. Something I'm not entirely happy with, though I feel I understand the reasoning behind this link and don't think entirely baseless, just... strictly speaking wrong.)

An attempt to adapt and correct his descriptions (to an extent):

Statics tend to try to define their surroundings and make things happen now. He suggests that they are more capable at intellectual analysis.
Dynamics try to control their activity and trust that their views will eventually prevail. He suggests that they are more capable at intellectual synthesis.

He claims that dynamics flit from activity to activity whereas statics are more stable, more habitual to finish what they started.
He asserts that dynamics are better at tactics but in my experience this is not the case, I'd say dynamics are better at handling "the how, the technique, the means to an end".
He asserts that statics are better at strategy but again in my experience this is not the case. Again I'd rather say that statics are better at creating the "what, focusing on what they want to reach".

Statics always know what they want. When statics act dominant, the environment has a lot of change and concentrated drive towards a single direction.
When dynamics act dominant, individual acts are effective but the social environment itself is chaotic and unfocused.

Also the emotional state of the static is more stable than that of the dynamic.

He also claims that dynamics are more likely to experience synaesthesia, to feel their environment more and react to it stronger than statics.
Also he claims that the dynamics' more extreme reactions do take physical forms as well.

........

Positivism-negativism.
Positivism : comparison, divergent thinking, directed toward volume?
Negativism: contrast, convergent thinking, directed toward accuracy

Positivism on a social level, smooth relations, social convergence
Negativisn on a social level, rough relations, social divergence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Process (involution): Simplification of object of thought, "thought of large constructs and how they divide into pieces" (not fully agreeing with the last part)
Result (evolution): Complication of thought structure, "thought with small pieces and how they connect into big ones."

Socially:
Process: Tactless. Natural, anti-social. Less caring of the general opinion, more caring of that of close ones. (again, not fully agreeing with this)
Result: Tactful. Artificial, social. More caring of general opinion, less of that of close ones. (again, not fully agreeing with this)

Result: Inability to change their situation
Process: Ability to change their situation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These he connects into:

ENTp + ISTj + ESFp + INFj (positivist, static, process)

He calls them Cause-effect thinkers. (These people will continue to search for a solution till they find one they can accept ie. until they are able to cause a desirable effect.)

Now when I use the words cause-effect thinking in daily use, I mean that one is thinking about what was the cause of a given effect. This is not the case here. This is about thinking how to cause an effect. And not necessarily a certain effect but any effect that has properties that qualify. The negative stereotype of this way of reasoning would be "wishful thinking".

His 4.1 chapter has very little interesting. Except that he talks about how 'cause-effect' thinkers are rigid. To me that doesn't really seem true in all cases. Moreso on IJs but the EPs that belong to this group, particularly the ESFps don't seem rigid to me. Direct and forceful to be sure, but rigidity doesn't seem correct. It might be a translation mistake. *shrug* His idea to suggest that cathegorical imperative is a form of this thinking is splendid though. The idea that "You can cause others to behave towards you in a certain way if you behave so towards them." Splendid.

In 4.2 he calls Aristotle the discoverer of this 'technology of thinking'. Hmm... I believe I get what he's trying to say but still, he shouldn't call it a discovery if it's a natural way for 1/4 of humanity to have used during all of history. Whatever.
His assertion that logical positivism is associated with this stuff would of course be true.

4.2 He comments that this style of thinking is the most authoritative, most convincing, "singularly correct". I am inclined to agree with this on a social level. When hearing this kind of reasonin, it is difficult to resist. The drive, the enthousiasm, the wildly positive claims are very drawing. One tends to wishe that this kind of reasoning was true. But if one really goes into the substance of the claim, this kind of reasoning is also often hollow, too far reaching and makes someone who knows a subject balk.

4.2. In here, he also claims that this is the same as the deductive-axiomatic method. It IS NOT. Logical positivism and deductive-axiomaticism are antagonistic to each other. What cause-effect thinking really is is induction. From the description of socionics 'positivism' and 'negativism' this should be self-evident. One should note the differences between logical positivism as concentrating on things that can be positively proved to be true and the idea of 'falsifiability'.

He also claims the limits of logical positivism as wrong. He claims that it does not lead to fundamentally new discoveries. This is again completely wrong. Socionics 'Positivism' has exactly the quality of leading into uncharted territory. Again, he connects this way of thinking to reductionism. Again something that is not the essence of cause-effect thinking and another error.

For whatever reason, Gulenko seems to have reversed the 'negative' and 'positive' traits in some of his reasonings.

Gulenko also talks of the necessity of this group to do things following a certain number of steps. When they fail to use one of these steps, they have difficulty in seeing how to 'circumvent' the process.

Socially he links these types to grand scale change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second group, (dialectic-algorithmic) ENFj-ISFp-ESTj-INTp

Synthetic, negative, concentrated (act by adding limits to themselves until they've reached the best reachable solution)

Quote:

5.1.
"Essential distinguishing feature of dialectical style - reflection of peace as unity and struggle of opposites. In the speech it uses syntactic construction “if- that -otherwise”, that forecasts the versions of the development of process."
Good. Important.


Quote:
The thinkers of this style are characterized by the expressed tendency toward the synthesis of oppositions, the removal of the contradictions, which they so acutely receive.
Another good part.

Quote:

Its advantages are obvious: this most flexible and thinned thinking. It capably of easily being thrown to opposite direction possesses by the predictability. The effective type of associative memory accompanies it. Algorithmic thinking also solves well problems to the classification, since has the gift of the recognition of complex means. After the conditions of task it perceives the typical algorithm of its solution.
Hmm...

Quote:

On Aristotle, dialectical- prognostic thinking explains peace on the basis purposeful reasons. For example, the reason for the appearance of sculpture is idea about it in the head of sculptor. Main role in this case play program, intention of creator. Thus, it it is possible to consider teleologic, and it means, by the most religious in its essence thinking. Many scientists of this type sooner or later come to the faith (is compulsorily church -[konfessionalnoy]).
Relates to a real phenomenon but draws a very wrong conclusion.

In 5.2 Gulenko calls dialectical thinking the most directed thinking. This is correct. Good way to notice. A drive, a pushiness towards completion, towards some definite, yet unknown end-point. Gulenko claims that people who think this way are generally seen as intellectuals, congregating in clubs of experts, esoteric groups. Hmm... I know that it's common to see even ESTjs as nerds, withdrawn from society and more or less absolute. But still, this is too generalized. ISFps don't go to the same gatherings as INTps. Though a correct observation, this needs more work, more clarity.

Problem of dialectical thinking: lack of unique solution. Something of a problem but not necessarily. Dialectical thinking strives to advance toward a single solution, but as it proceeds from input, the input may be lacking and define not a single solution but a variety of them. In such a case a dialectical thinker may not stand by any of the answers as more correct than any of the others and may only consider their work complete if they've mapped ALL the solutions. And this requires work. This huge work-load can be circumvented by gaining more limitations to rule out a number of paths of progress. Also this style of thinking is problematic when the input is contradictory. In those cases the path of thinking may lead nowhere or has to be restarted by modifying the primary assumptions that started the process. (this works at least for ESTj, think it's somewhat different for other members of the dialectical group)

"Its one additional problem - increased criticality, which can be such high which causes spontaneous decomposition, it plunges into the danger of complete detachment from the reality, and with the presence of hereditary predisposition with the specific probability it leads to the disorders of psyche. "
Important but very easy to misunderstand. Dialectical thinking reacts to personal experience but it's not very good at controlling its input. If the input is crap, the output is crap as well. But if the input is just slightly faulty in a simple way, the output can be faulty in a completely ridiculous way. For example, if a seamstress receives an order from his boss to "sow 20 buttons", it would be entirely reasonable to go out on a field and sow those buttons. Naturally dialectic thinkers learn to correct this kind of obvious behavioural problems early in life but the problem is descriptive of the kind of trouble dialectics run into. And the problem in this case wasn't that she was deteched from reality but the exact opposite of it, she was too in contact with the stimulus and over-reacted. A separate issue is that one way to correct this overflow of input is to distance oneself from a certain amount of it.

Dialectic thinking is thus extremely suggestible.

On 5.3 Gulenko notes that it is useful for dialectics on occasion to be interrupted and slapped around a bit. This will cause them to stop their previous reaction and reorient themselves.

Quote:

The accurate, although rare sign of dialectical thinking - accident, which leads to the states like deep fainting or coma, and then to illumination or discovery of special abilities.
The second version - slow suggestion, which, mainly, is built on the cramming through vocalization and/or hearing. It is reduced to the multiple repetition of one and the same phrase with the variations. Variations in this case are especially meant. They work just as refrain in the song. Gradually is generated [transovoe] state - external weakening with the internal concentration. The greater the monotony, the rather is reached the deep trans-. Thus, some people calm down and rapidly fill up under monotonic “[bubnezh]” of television set.
Interesting, at least somewhat correct. Though slightly far-reaching. Descriptive, not definitive.

On 5.4 Gulenko seems to be completely wrong again. Dialectic thinking is NOT in conflict with the idea of rigid laws and it certainly isn't identical with probability thinking. This is not to say that it's impossible the quantum mechanics was developed by someone using this ideology, but quantum mechanics in itself is a deficient picture of dialectical thinking. Multiple parallel thinking on the other hand would be a good description of dialectic thinking. Also the concept of probability would better be understood by the concept of options. Now the cause, the number of options of course forces the estimation of probability but that is a separate process and in the strictest sense, is no longer a part of the dialectic thinking process in and of itself, (though it is a natural effect of it).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third group:
ISFj, ESTp, INTj, ENFp (negative, static, result)

"Holographic thinking". ie. describing the whole of something. Continuous twisting, turning, expanding of object of thought.

The concepts here are strange... In the lead part of the chapter 6 Gulenko connects induction with this group that is by definition 'negative'. Similarly as he connected reductionism with cause-effect thinking. He seems to have mixed up these links. From all that I know, holographic thinking works in association with cause-effect thinking and dialectic thinking in association with vortex thinking. So such an error in one's self-analysis is certainly understandable. What I don't get is how he's able to make such an obvious error. One reason I can suggest is how he analyzes the socionics system in cycles of balance and inbalance, extroversion and introversion etc. The nature of which causes that if you focus on the interim part of the cycle instead of the end and the beginning you get the opposite meaning for an issue. *shrug* Maybe.

Anyway, his introduction speech is essentially another form to define reductionism, describing the whole by describing it one view-point or piece at a time. Anyway, as a 'result' group these holographists tend to take quick glimpses at an object and accept the result quickly so as to be able to focus to another part next. Snap-judgments. Anyway, he claims this property for the 'negativism' group but obviously, it's not. Again, a strange mistake.

He characterizes the group as defined by the words: “or - or”, “or- or”, “from one side, from other side”.
I personally know that I do use this kind of thinking occasionally, but mainly as a trivial form. I believe I don't mean the same thing that Gulenko implies holographists mean when they talk this way. This just to illustrate how the external forms can easily mislead.

"It actively uses principle of menu, free election of the point of view." Very important, very characteristic.

Holographic approximation - this successive approximation to a purpose or the removal from it, accompanied by the change of foreshortenings. In the process of holographing as if sharp focusing is accomplished.

Gulenko's next supposition is funny:"Holographic thinking has the characteristic skeletal- gripping, penetrating, “X-ray” nature."
'Result' group generally states the easy things, that are the most obviously perceivable about a subject, without going into detail or getting a deeper look of a subject. He paints restraint and conservation of resources as perceptional ability. Well, it does look like it from the outside, and it certainly feels like it when one is doing it oneself, but the attempt to be penetrating doesn't make one so. No super-powers there.

"...It without the regret intercepts details, nuances. General, completely convoluted idea about the object gives..."
Yes, I get it.

Gulenko's assertion of this group's ability in a crisis seems to relate to the ability to 'always do something relevant to the situation'. To quickly grasp issues is a part of it. But that's a 'result' property, so vortex thinkers are similar in this.

Gulenko's claim that this form of thinking in particular providing a complete understanding of a subject doesn't hold water. It's a value-statement in defense of his own way of thought.
Advantages: "Simple, clear, usable knowledge." "Non-pretentious, frugal, rather reliable."

The process itself is about making snap-judgements, but within the definition they don't lead to anything but the next snap-judgment. When Gulenko talks about ability in crisis situations he's sort of misleading. Holographists are equally characterized by endless procrastination in a sea of negative thoughts that lead nowhere. From what I can see, the "ability " in crisis situations actually relates to the ability to analyze instead of synthetize, to see oneself separate from the environment and focus on the parts of the environment that one sees important oneself, to resist input. To ignore the fires and the falling debris and quickly do something useful.

"An explicit deficiency in this style of thinking in the fact that it too rough, does not pay the adequate consideration to the details, which become significant, when process proceeds exactly. It is difficult to unpack its information products. It seems strangers that in them be absent the intermediate components, which must ensure connectedness. "
Again, very important.

If I take a deeper look into this it seems like he is describing a way of thought in which the world is judged as a number of options, which are analyzed without committing oneself and tested until one of these options has been found to be "complete", "able to fulfill all the necessary wishes and requirements", "perfect for the holographist". Waiting for such a situation to arrive in which not choosing is not an option. But frankly, this looking at a thing from each and every possible side is another way to define reductionism, something Gulenko claims to oppose. I think his thinking is fuzzy here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vortex thinking

ENTj, INFp, ESFj, ISTp.
Synergic(cooperative) thinking. Continuous flow of suggestions and ideas. Finding new ways to combine things.

Finding ways to draw things along with them. To find a use for anything. To quickly grasp the easiest way to make something positive of something.
Named because the habit of drawing in any and all possible material and influences.

They have a habit of not taking responsibility or following through with their actions, since they see themselves only as the occasional supporter of a subject. They make themselves useful and move on. But their cooperation is naturally chosen by themselves and on the basis of their own needs. Since they enter a project and exit as suddenly there tends to be motion, after-effects, ripples. Not necessarily chaotic in and of itself, but erratic and reliant on the input they get.
It draws people together in ways that don't dominate, don't force structure but guide growth toward somewhat unexpected directions.

What Gulenko describes as the failure of this style of thinking (it's blindness, lack of purpose and direction) is basically missing the purpose of this form of thinking. There is no decided end-point for purpose for this kind of thinking. It creates whatever it is able to. In this sense it is not uneconomical but supremely economical since it wastes nothing, finds a use for everything. It's lack of direction is as much a strength as a failure. From the synergic thinker's pov as long as the phenomenon centered around hir keeps growing and growing there is no possibility that something desirable will not come out of it.

If there's a problem, it's more of a problem of losing the ability to be the center of the vortex, or the energy dissipating, or being burnt out.

Gulenko further mentions that synergists like to explain things through reasons of substance. This sort of the simplest positive way to frame something. "He's like that, he tends to kick dogs, it's in his nature, isn't he adorable? I guess he just likes to kick things? Funny! We should give him a soccer ball with a picture of a dog and put him on a team!" To frame a negative as something that can't be helped, should be accepted and found a use for. To frame the subject as not a fault but as raw material for creativity. (It's not a problem, it's a feature!") (And in this being the diametric opposite of the hologram thinkers who can find a problem in anything.)