So this is this vortex ananke was speaking of.
So this is this vortex ananke was speaking of.
Negative/Result/Static (Holography) basically wants the world to be a vortex and itself to be the rationally directing force within it.
I'm trying to figure out the best way to go about it. I could just send you what I have, but that would be difficult to manage as we both continued to work. What if I post a new thread here with what I have translated so far, and then you and whoever else can post your improved translations in the thread and I'll edit the OP to include them?
Alternatively, we could just use Wikisocion.
Quaero Veritas.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:20 AM.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:20 AM.
Coolbeans! I'll take a look at it and suggest any alternate/improved translations from my version.
Quaero Veritas.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 02-02-2011 at 08:13 AM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:21 AM.
otgranichivaniya - "delimination".
nezombiruemaya - something like "resistant to external influences"?
polnoopisatelnoe - my guess is "fully descriptive", too.
polnookhvatnostyu - something like "fully enclosing". "Full coverage" could work, I guess.
poluplavniki-polukryla - "half-flipper, half-wing" [in animals]
polukopyta - "half-ungulate" (or "half-hoofed") - this and the above are aimed at showing non-existent transitional forms, of course.
invotendentsiyu - looks like a term Gulenko made up.
samoupravlyaemost - "self-determination", probably.
this is great, though why change the names? ("Causal-Determinist" instead of "Cause-Effect", and "Vortical" instead of "Vortex") seems possibly confusing to introduce brand-new names when those who are already familiar with the thinking styles have been using "Cause-Effect" and "Vortex" for years.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:20 AM.
I updated the wikisocion article with some of my own translations, up to the end of the "Cause-Effect" section. Here are some highlights of the particularly tricky sections I managed to untangle (which I am quite proud of, as I had to get into obscure details of Russian words and grammar to figure them out ):
Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail, and went down it mentally, successively laying out along the road the statements which would be presented before the audience. When speaking, they mentally set out in this way again, “raising” the key concepts they had laid there previously.Modern advertising cleverly strikes at the dynamic pole of human thinking.
At this level, the Negative/Positive polarity manifests as the identification of similarities or differences when comparing several objects. In the cognitive process of Negativists contrast prevails, while in Positivists comparison prevails. This means that Positivists can easily hold a holistic object in their field of attention, without considering the internal divisions. Conversely, Negativists distinguish the extreme points of the object of thought, they contrast opposing points of view.How does this process of internal centering proceed? It is observed that in Positivists there is pull toward its opposite, which contributes to the overal cohesion of the group, in particular because of the ease of intragroup role distribution. Negativists, paradoxically, have an inherent attraction to those similar to themselves. But the nearer that similarly charged elements converge, the more difficult it is to implement their mutual actions. Repulsive forces rapidly appear. Then a fracture appears in the group.The way collocutors are arranged -- either opposite each other or next to each other -- plays an important role in communication. The importance in communication of such factors as the spatial arrangement of the communicators was explained by Sullivan. Being opposite the partner in communication is advantageous to Negativists. Positivists communicate better when located beside or at an angle to the collocutor - in such a way that their gazes are directed off to one side.There is a habit in Involutionary types to abruptly wind up a conversation. They do not simply cut off communication, but specifically wind it up, quickly finish, summarize what has been said.The full-scale model of cause-effect thinking - this is the representation of information in the form of a chart or realistic illustration. It is made using a straight perspective. Nearby objects are depicted in this technique as larger, and distant objects are accordingly depicted on a smaller scale, in proportion to their distance from the observer. By drawing in this way, following strict instructions, it is easy to depict any object.
Quaero Veritas.
I looked at the original Russian, and I think "Cause-Effect" is a more accurate translation. And although you're right that "Vortical" would be a more accurate translation of the Russian, in my opinion its meaning in plain English is not as clear as "Vortex". But if you feel strongly enough about it, feel free to go back and change it.
Quaero Veritas.
otgranichivaniya (отграничивания) - Delineation maybe.
nezombiruemaya (незомбируемая) - Well, "зомбирования" means "zombifying", which is probably a colloquialism for "brainwashing". Given the context in which it's used, I would guess it means something like "unzombifiable" or "unbrainwashable".
polnoopisatelnoe (полноописательное) - The only Google hit for this is from this article. Given the context, perhaps something like "total-descriptive" or "all-describing"?
polnookhvatnostyu (полноохватностью) - Perhaps something like "all-encompassing"? That's what I would guess.
poluplavniki (полуплавники) - What Aiss said. Or "semi-fin".
polukopyta (полукопыта) - What Aiss said, or "semi-hoof".
invotendentsiyu (инвотенденцию) - invo-tendency.
samoupravlyaemost (самоуправляемость) - self-controlability.
Quaero Veritas.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:21 AM.
I updated the "Dialectical-Algorithmic" section.
You make some compelling arguments. And I'm not sure what I was looking at before, because having double-checked, the original Russian actually supports that view.
As much as I'll be annoyed at having to retrain my brain to use the new term, if we're ever going to change it, now would be the time.
All right, all right. But I'm guessing most people will continue to refer to it casually as "Vortex".
Quaero Veritas.
Obviously I'm not a native speaker, but dictionaries available to me claim "self-controlability" is not, in a fact, an English word. I think it's a very good reason to avoid using it here, since its meaning isn't in any way obvious - and if it is supposed to be close to "self-control ability", which is the first association that comes to mind, it isn't accurate either. The original Russian word самоуправляемость is used in legal or official context, referring to sovereignty, autonomy or self-governance of individuals/institutions/regions etc. As far as I know, it isn't used for "self-control" at all. It simply doesn't refer to controlling one's impulses, which it implies, but is much closer to "self-determination", the meaning being "deciding one's course" (in face of external circumstances), as opposed to "going with the flow".
The entire fragment ofTriggered rule: the lower the rate, the worse samoupravlyaemost as the management plane. If the pressure of the oncoming air at the aerodynamic control surfaces decreases, the plane is much worse than listening to them.meansWorking pattern: the lower the speed, the less independence, like in controlling an aircraft. If the pressure of the air decreases, it's less precisely steered. (literally: the plane is worse at listening to [the pilot])and refers to synergetic thinkers' increased autonomy in response to external pressure, as opposed to being thrown around by weaker winds, so to speak.
And yes, управлении самолетом literally means "flying/steering/controlling an aircraft", not "management plane" (which might be the literal word-by-word translation, but the term translated as "plane" only refers to "aircraft" in Russian). I realize you probably have been trying to remove the aircraft metaphor altogether, but by mixing parts of it and mistranslated "self-control", you're changing the meaning here.
Are you sure that it refers to autonomy? Could it be related to performance (i.e. the whole comparison being metaphorical)?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I used to think that Static roughly meant "autonomous", but these days I prefer to associate Dynamic (Je) and Static (Ji) respectively with adaptation and control. When we're talking about J functions there is another influence provided by Accepting/Creating, though. Accepting functions are Focal when Dynamic, so they are in a sense also adaptive (vice versa for Creating functions being Focal when Static).
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:22 AM.
Hmm. I notice that a lot of the changes I made have been switched back, for example, using digits instead of words for numbers ("1st" instead of "first"). What's up with that? In a long-form essay like this, numbers should be written out in word form.
I agree, Evolution/Involution is much better than Process/Result or Right/Left. However, I don't see any particular need to modify it to Evolutory/Involutory. If anything, I think Evolutory/Involutory would be more confusing, since they're not commonly used words. If Evolutionary/Involutionary catches on, people will pretty quickly learn what they mean. It's certainly no more confusing than, say, the phrase "judging types".
"Holographic-All-Seeing"? "Holographic-Omniscient"?
All I can think of right now is something like "overview". If something comes to me I'll let you know.
I'll see what I can do when I get to that part.
Also, it would be nice to be able to replace "polarity" with "dichotomy", which is a bit of a looser translation but more commonly used in English socionics. However, there are a few places that refer to "poles" which would need to be reworked in order to be understandable if we did that.
Quaero Veritas.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:22 AM.
That was a great read. Some assertions were generalizations(e.g. ILIs are prominent intellectuals) but the explanations were excellent.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
For some reason, I relate most to dialectical-algorithmic and least to vortex as described. Actually, I do all of four of these thinking styles from time to time. Sounds kind of absurd that we would be limited to just one of these.
I also find myself relating much more to process than result the way its described in the article.
So much for an LII fitting neatly into the system.
Unless I'm really an ILI...... A couple of tests have came up that way but I don't see myself as being Ni base or as gamma.
What would be helpful is to have a real-life scenario or problem, then give examples of the way each thinking style would approach it.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
There's a tiny issue with "real-life scenario or problem" and examples of it being solved - the thinking style doesn't guarantee every single human using them arriving at the exact same solution. So yes, if that's how they were interpreted it, it would seem absurd that people would be "limited" to one of these.
Examples as such can be found, but they are often a matter of interpretation - like when Ashton was talking the other day about "patterns emergent from chaos" and vortex thinking, he attempted to explain our disagreements about society and state (and let it not lead to another debate on the topic, that's *not* the point) in these terms, and completely misinterpreted my supposed use of dialectical-algorithmic thinking. For him the example worked, because he focused on "emergent patterns" which were positive, while I "couldn't see" them. The problem was, from my point of view, he was the one ignoring the "emergent patterns" that I clearly saw, i.e. it was exactly the emergence of negative patterns that caused my disagreement; if I didn't see them, I wouldn't have reacted to it. Also, the types of people who agree or disagree with these ideas don't support the correlation with thinking styles.
The moral of the story being, the examples focusing on "what" tend to suck. Now "how" is probably a better indicator, and I'm not saying you can't see these styles manifest in real-life exchanges, but it's not a measure you can apply to a single solution and read the result. Although, a project similar to vocabulary section on wikisocion, with examples of what someone thinks is use of a certain thinking style, might be worth a try, to offer a perspective on differences between the approaches. The problem with it is that people tend to take these things far too literally (you said 'efficient', you must be Te!) and so they'll probably end up comparing a specific reasoning rather than the style of it (you agree with X, you must be [insert thinking style here], [insert other style] would have disagreed!).
The thinking styles are pretty heterogeneous groups... Negative/Result IJ and Negative/Result EP are really only superficially similar. Same goes for other thinking style convergences across a temperament difference.
The funny thing is that when you take the two types that share both the temperament and the thinking style, the clubs of the two types are opposite, so you still have only very scant basis for a comparison.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:22 AM.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:24 AM.
Out of the above list I'd go with synoptical, just due to how well the meaning of the term syncs up with that word Gulenko used.
I'm getting to thinking that if this cognitive styles theory has merit to it, then there should be expanded definitions of all the IEs to account for them. So both a holographic and causal/determinist description for all the static IEs, and a vortical plus a dialetical expansion on the dynamic ones. I find that my understandings of both Fi and Ne are very holographic in nature, which may result in some discrepancies in terms of describing either of them to someone with shared IE values but different cognitive styles (ENTp, INFj, etc). As such, I think it would also be a good idea to find out what kind of information process is shared between the two cognitive variants of any given IE to make sure there's some definite common ground to go off of.
Ooh, I like "panoramic". It's the closest I've seen to a word that translates "all-describing" or "total-viewing", and has the added advantage of giving the reader an instant mental picture. I vote for "Holographic-Panoramic".
Actually, I just looked it up -- panorama literally means "all" (pan-) "view" (horama), from the Greek.
Anyway, I've updated the Holographic section. All the changes I made are based on my interpretation the original Russian grammar and vocabulary, in an attempt to improve accuracy.
For one thing, I found that the word we've been translating "full-scale" actually means something more like "real-life". This makes much more sense.
I resolved the issues we were having with the trickier words in the following ways:
"незомбируемая" -- "un-zombie-fiable". I googled the word and found some other uses of it, and it does appear to refer to the ability to resist brainwashing. It figures that the Russians would have a word for that. I translated the sentence thus: "Holographical cognition corresponds to a stable psyche, resistant to programming."
"полноописательное" -- I just updated it to "Panoramic", for now.
"полноохватностью" -- "full-coverage" I translated the sentence: "All-encompassing, which allows a periodic change of perspective on the subject."
One of these days I'll get around to properly wiki-formatting the article.
Quaero Veritas.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:24 AM.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:25 AM.
Does anyone use these? The justification, based on a few Reinin dichotomies, seems fairly weak, and it doesn't mesh in my head well. Why do SEEs think in a fashion reminiscent of formal logic? Why don't LIEs? What on Earth would is the Dialectical-Algorithmic description trying to describe? It seems that either I'm missing something important, or this is major crap.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:25 AM.
Yep. That's the one.
That's possible. However, it seems that I can follow the Reinin arguments, but am not sure of their validity. They appear to speculate too far on only a few bits of information, and I haven't been able to observe these styles in practice.
"Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature."
Straight out of the article you referenced. I can't really see irrationals doing this.
"I define LIEs as having Vortical-Synergetic cognitive style, therefore LIEs have Vortical-Synergetic cognitive style," does not qualify as a reason. I was basically asking why they have the style= they do and not some other one.
Great! What is it?
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:25 AM.
Positive/Result/Dynamic: opportunity taking types
Negative/Result/Static: rejecting/selecting types
Negative/Process/Dynamic: criticizing types
Positive/Process/Static: headlong problem-confronting types
Process: obstacle-minded
Result: opportunity-minded
Yeah, I'm aware of the terms rational/irrational having specialized meanings, but descriptions on both rationality and the causal-determinist style seem to heavily focus on rigidity.I'm not saying irrational types are "irrational" in the ordinary sense and unable to understand formal logic for that reason, it just seems like they wouldn't prefer it, as it requires a rather heavy focus on using accumulated past knowledge with which to deduce conclusions from.
The main issue is that it doesn't seem that merely being static/dynamic, positivist/negativist, and process/result should be sufficient to deduce so complex and specific a cognitive style as any one of those described. I don't insist that this doesn't work, but just don't see enough proof, theoretical or evidential, to go for it.
Labcoat, your descriptions don't seem strongly related to those in the article, although they seem like they might work anyway.
I do like the idea of process = obstacle minded & result = opportunity minded, could you elaborate on that a bit?