Discussion of Gulenko's Cognitive Styles

[Creepy-male]

I don't understand why Gulenko only bases it on three Reinin dichotomies... I thought that the purpose of type itself was to describe how people process information. Isn't this what cognition is?

Socionics derives its name from cybernetics, and is heavily influenced by it. Describing cognition is only a step in what it actually seeks to describe and predict, which is human relationships. It's easier to think of Socionics as describing people in terms of input (Base function--how we see the world and live as people) and output (Creative function--how we seek to interact with people socially, whether it be by creating a context for involving others (introverted creative functions), or by providing something of social worth (extraverted creative functions)).

[ArchonAlarion]

Socionics derives its name from cybernetics, and is heavily influenced by it. Describing cognition is only a step in what it actually seeks to describe and predict, which is human relationships. It's easier to think of Socionics as describing people in terms of input (Base function--how we see the world and live as people) and output (Creative function--how we seek to interact with people socially, whether it be by creating a context for involving others (introverted creative functions), or by providing something of social worth (extraverted creative functions)).

CAUSAL-DETERMINISTIC STYLE MANIFESTS IN GUL'S POST^^^

"derives, only a step, describe and predict, input - output"

[woofwoofl]

Though I'm saying some of this again, it seems that I should

I was initially shocked at how much of this lined up with my experiences as an SEE, and it would make sense that this form of reasoning would be the most potent in an LSI (and gives me even more confidence in Judge Judy as LSI):

[Creepy-male]

CAUSAL-DETERMINISTIC STYLE MANIFESTS IN GUL'S POST^^^

"derives, only a step, describe and predict, input - output"

No.

http://www.facebook.com/ghostyTricks...27998817276390

Dialectical-algorithmic, motherfucker. Read it and weep bitter tears of you're a fucknut

Cliff's notes:

Look at the sudden lightbulb moment where I go "Splat!" and change the way I understand something. "Aha, but not quite."

Also look at how I frame everything as a question-and-answer session. This is what my ongoing internal monologue looks like. Splatty starbursts and ongoing dialectical arguments against invisible question- and challenge-posers.

IT ISN'T COMPLICATED.

[ArchonAlarion]

No.

http://www.facebook.com/ghostyTricks...27998817276390

Dialectical-algorithmic, motherfucker. Read it and weep bitter tears of you're a fucknut

Cliff's notes:

Look at the sudden lightbulb moment where I go "Splat!" and change the way I understand something. "Aha, but not quite."

Also look at how I frame everything as a question-and-answer session. This is what my ongoing internal monologue looks like. Splatty starbursts and ongoing dialectical arguments against invisible question- and challenge-posers.

IT ISN'T COMPLICATED.

lol that was a fun read. So, do you relate more to the "asker" or "declarer" dichotomy?

.


.



...




..................





.................................................. ........................................

[Creepy-male]

Already demonstrated not to be what it says on the tin.

Try again.

And anyway that pretty clearly demonstrated a Declarer EPIC RAMBLE. And guess which type is a Declarer, and which type isn't.

Hint: both of them are within the types you and I think I am.

[ArchonAlarion]

@gul: fair enough, might be a bullshit dichotomy.


might be.