Vortical Synergetic Cognition

[jughead]

Whats the deal. What are some current fields of study or occupations where vortex cognition is useful?

http://pages.citebite.com/m5p8c6g7mtwx

Creating a vortex?

[mfckr]

.

[krieger]

they're best at acting on opportunities; making use of anything that happens to cross their path.

[IBTL]

they're best at acting on opportunities; making use of anything that happens to cross their path.

Precisely lecter. (And to be quite honest, I had to learn to become comfortable with this style of cognition even before I knew what VS cognition was.)

For whatever reason, some VS cogs already know to act in this way while others still must learn; those who have a good handle on this form of cognition will judiciously allow events to unfold without needing to contrive anything.

The benefits to living through opportunities are lowered stress levels, lowered expectations inherently associated with fewer disappointments, and greater flexibility.
The drawback is aimlessness, which can be overcome so long as "Synergetics do not confuse temporary setbacks with error."


Lyric examples:

"I can't help it, the road just rolls out behind me" - Fiona Apple IEI

"And your old tricks no longer work" - Amy Winehouse SLI

"Look, if you had one shot, or one opportunity - Eminem SLI
To seize everything you ever wanted in one moment
Would you capture it or just let it slip?"
...
"You better lose yourself in the music, the moment
You own it, you better never let it go
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime yo"

[rat1]

Compare it to dialectical-algorithmic, which operates as if all things are evenly counterbalanced against eachother. In this way the system is closed, & completed. Navigating the system is a matter of pairing opposites, all defined by their positions within the algorithm. This gives it the deductive & negative quality. 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 positive and inductive. That's also why it's opportunistic.
Vortex thinking is searching for something.
If you want a good example of these two processes clashing look at the debate on the existence of UFOs. Vortex thinking is the hallmark of conspiracy theorists. Dialectical-algorithmic thinkers (mainly ILIs in the thread) will insist it's weather balloons or whatever, alien enthusiasts (mostly IEIs) will say there's something missing, and aliens are the best explanation.
I wouldn't mind if we renamed it positive inductive thinking. That would be alot simpler.

[woofwoofl]

I'm a bit bad at the theoretical words at times, but if I'm getting this correct, would that type of reasoning consist of building a big mountain of , and going with whatever goes along with a large majority of it?

If so, then I do this from time to time, though I wouldn't call it my main go-to

[mfckr]

.

[woofwoofl]

Not necessarily. 'Opportunistic' is probably a good keyword—it has a knack for rapidly acting upon and exploiting breaches in dynamical conditions. Here's a good example of vortical cognition in action à la ENTj:

U.S. Army General George S. Patton, Jr. referred to the "rock soup method" of acquiring resources for attacks in the face of official disapproval by his superiors for offensive operations. In the military context, he sent units forward ostensibly on reconnaissance missions, to later reinforce them when resistance was met and eventually turned small scale probes into all out attacks; he notably did this during the Battle of Sicily in the advance on Palermo and again in the campaign in northwest Europe, notably near Metz when his 3rd US Army was officially halted during Operation Market Garden.[2]

SEEs fall under Causal-Determinist style.

Thanks would/could the LIE and SLI being Carefree types make them even more potent in that style of doing things? Just the thought of being on the business end of that type of all-going-on-at-once offensive, I don't think I could make sense of it all fast enough (I wonder how many of my many Starcraft defeats were at the hands of an LIE)

Also, would/could Causal-Determinists be prone to placing a higher value on mathematics than the other types? I find myself crunching the numbers a bit more than I would expect an irrational ethical type to, and that would explain lots of that...

[mfckr]

.

[FDG]

Compare it to dialectical-algorithmic, which operates as if all things are evenly counterbalanced against eachother. In this way the system is closed, & completed. Navigating the system is a matter of pairing opposites, all defined by their positions within the algorithm. This gives it the deductive & negative quality. 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 positive and inductive. That's also why it's opportunistic.
Vortex thinking is searching for something.
If you want a good example of these two processes clashing look at the debate on the existence of UFOs. Vortex thinking is the hallmark of conspiracy theorists. Dialectical-algorithmic thinkers (mainly ILIs in the thread) will insist it's weather balloons or whatever, alien enthusiasts (mostly IEIs) will say there's something missing, and aliens are the best explanation.
I wouldn't mind if we renamed it positive inductive thinking. That would be alot simpler.

I definitely don't think your example makes any sense, tbh.

[FDG]

Yeah well I know I'm right, so whatever. Say something substantial or fuck off.

Sorry lol I was going to bed, didn't feel like adding something substantial. Anyway, I believe vortex cognition is well-suited for intellectual matters such as:

- meteorology / climatology
- macroeconomics
- computational complexity
- learning languages
- statistical physics

many of whom do fit the first part of your reasoning, namely the presence of hidden variables which need to be discovered by a process of synergy, yet are slightly more testable / "scientific" (pardon me the buzzword) than UFOs. So any debate between algorithmers and synergists can in principle be settled definitively, thus it can be said that vortex cognition is good at that style of thinking.

I like Ashton's quote on Patton's style. I recognize my own way of executing a "strategy" in that description (ofc not on the battlefield but for example when I'm partecipating in a cycling race).

[jughead]

Your listing the more obvious NT ones that have very particular T classifications. SF and NF would be sales, argumentation, image control, art/music/writing, swaying the crowd. The particular names or genres for esfjs and infps I don't know. PR person, radio host seem good for esfj. For SLI perhaps musician, athlete, synergistic tuners and tweakers of all kinds. (race cars, instruments, anything mechanical.) SLIs would seem to me to make good body/kinesthetic doctors/trainers.

[FDG]

Your listing the more obvious NT ones that have very particular T classifications. SF and NF would be sales, argumentation, image control, art/music/writing, swaying the crowd. The particular names or genres for esfjs and infps I don't know. PR person, radio host seem good for esfj. For SLI perhaps musician, athlete, synergistic tuners and tweakers of all kinds. (race cars, instruments, anything mechanical.) SLIs would seem to me to make good body/kinesthetic doctors/trainers.

Sure, I agree.

[Gilly]

This makes a lot of sense. Dialectical fits my natural approach to the T, and I have the easiest time apprehending things expressed in the Causal-Determinist/formal logic styles.

[mfckr]

.

[mfckr]

.

[Sir Knight]

I'll try to come up with other examples. Ask questions.

From what I understand of it, VS is basically just looking at complex, fundamentally irreducible systems and generating a holistic vision of how that system works? Or is that how VS views all systems and not just the complex ones?

Like, a VS could look at economics, a fundamentally organic system where some kind of stability manifests out of continuous, chaotic changes brought both by the actions of people within the system and by global events out of control of anyone (earthquakes, for instance). From this observation of this system, what kind of conclusions would a VS type draw from it?

Also, what are the hallmarks of VS thought? From what I understand of it, it just seems to be all about a completely unstructured projectile vomiting of stream of consciousness thought, constantly skipping back to previously made points to mention things that might be relevant but could have been forgotten when one was first making that point and constantly going on tangents that are only tenuously related to the main point. Is that about right?

Also, would happen to know of any videos featuring a VS type just thinking out loud? That might be more elucidating than anything.

[mfckr]

.

[Sir Knight]

Another video example, this one from Milton Friedman (Te-ISTp)

I love that video. ISTp, huh? I thought he'd been pegged as Gamma.

Each of the cognitive syles engenders a tendency to conceptualize reality colored from a certain sort of orientation (further modulated by a type's IEs). So with VS comes the tendency, as you put it, to apprehend phenomena holistically in fundamental irreducible complexity. I should probably point out that no type is bound to any prescribed limitations (IMO) by their cognitve style—all we're talking about is a characteristic orientation that can often be observed thematically underpinning a person's worldview(s).

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you here, this would mean that a VS type isn't necessarily locked and bound into seeing the world and the phenomena that make it up as irreducibly complex, but they prefer to see and interact with them that way?

Also, would this produce a natural skepticism of overly-simplistic explanations?

Of the most pivotally frustrating aspects of VS cognition, is that it frequently culminates in very generalized inferences of an incredibly non-demonstrable kind

Sort of like, "I know how this works. I have no idea how to articulate it to you in a way you'll understand implicitly, but... you know, I mean, I understand it. I know it works." This I can see would contribute to Ni-VS type's feeling of being the "voice in the wilderness" with their insight.

plagued by appeals to chronic indeterminism

Not sure I understand this bit, but to have a go at it, it would mean that VS types think that systems work essentially because people will them to?

The article also mentioned the use of substantive reasoning. Would that essentially look like, "It's there. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be there, so obviously it works" ?

I'd say that description applies pretty well to any Involutory (Result) type—that is, both HP and VS cognition. The main difference being that HP construals will be more geared towards prescribing some structural representation, whereas VS construals will be more about describing some functional operation.

So that's how VS' dynamism fills in for HP's staticness and vice-versa. VS describes how a system works and HP describes why. But how do their respective positivity and negativity fill in for one another?

[mfckr]

.

[mfckr]

.

[ashlesha]

??

The story is almost too good to be true: While shooting the pilot, David Lynch was so struck by the image of a crew member crouched behind Laura Palmer's bed that he insisted on filming it, despite having no idea what he could possibly use it for. Later, while shooting Sarah Palmer awakening from a nightmarish vision, he discovered he's accidentally captured that same crew member's reflection in a mirror seen in that very shot. The rest – the identity of Laura Palmer's murderer and the single most frightening character ever to appear on TV – is history.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists...#ixzz3GWqNMl7r
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[IBTL]

Subtle, fine action is preferred over labored, crude action.

[krieger]

recognition yes, but utilization in an impactful non-trivial sense is typically a break from the style. it is something vortex thinkers can do but vortex thinking can't. understand that distinction and you do fine.

[IBTL]

recognition yes, but utilization in an impactful non-trivial sense is typically a break from the style.

Utilization deviates from the norm for all types of cognition...

valuing precision and avoiding fallout is more of a dialectical/algoritmic thing (negative/process). positive/result avoids a sense of missing out. it doesnt care about quality in a primary sense, more about volume.

you probably use & value your adjacent negative/process styles (isfp & intp) more than you realize.

To be honest, I've been 'collecting' from all types for quite a while now.

[IBTL]

recognition yes, but utilization in an impactful non-trivial sense is typically a break from the style. it is something vortex thinkers can do but vortex thinking can't. understand that distinction and you do fine.

Without exquisite precision, this becomes your result:



"Wrecking Ball"

"I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me

I put you high up in the sky
And now, you're not coming down
It slowly turned, you let me burn
And now, [I am] ashes on the ground

...

I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me

I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
And instead of using force
I guess I should've let you win"

[krieger]

valuing precision and avoiding fallout is more of a dialectical/algoritmic thing (negative/process). positive/result avoids a sense of missing out. it doesnt care about quality in a primary sense, more about volume.

you probably use & value your adjacent negative/process styles (isfp & intp) more than you realize.

[FDG]

valuing precision and avoiding fallout is more of a dialectical/algoritmic thing (negative/process). positive/result avoids a sense of missing out. it doesnt care about quality in a primary sense, more about volume.

Yes, that's correct imho.

[IBTL]

"This particular scene really resonates with me. It's like you go through high school and university, not even that for many, and then BOOM, you're on your own, life changes completely almost overnight. Suddenly you go from being a kid to being expected to be a success by everyone around you. If, like me, you're still single at that point, suddenly the race is on to find a partner on top of it all. You're likely not even 22 years old, but suddenly everything you've ever known has gone out the window and you are under immense pressure to succeed on your own two feet, when really there are many who only want to be in the position of least possible responsibility until they can figure out what it is they want from life because they genuinely are not ready for what's suddenly befallen them. For some, this extends into mid life, or even late life. This pressure to be a success or to please those around you is incredibly damaging for some people. It's that pressure that killed my best friend ultimately. He wasn't ready for it, and neither was I. I don't plan on following the same path that he did, but I understand why he did it." - Youtube comment by Yella Dart

[IBTL]

valuing precision and avoiding fallout is more of a dialectical/algoritmic thing (negative/process). positive/result avoids a sense of missing out. it doesnt care about quality in a primary sense, more about volume.

Yes, that's correct imho.

nope ... wrong emphasis ... deductive vs inductive

[silke]

Possible examples of V-S thinking style:

Summary by V. Gulenko: This is imprecise, but holistic, single-course style of thinking. It works according to principles of natural selection - method of trial and error. This style of thinking is the most natural one. It can successfully solve the problems of self-organization. It is stimulated by competition. The society it is often rejected due to its random, chaotic nature.

Quotes:

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"For inspiration I look to those great players who consistently found original ways to shock their opponents. None did this better than the eighth world champion, Mikhail Tal. The "Magician of Riga" rose to become champion in 1960 at age twenty-three and became famous for his aggressive, volatile play." - LIE-Te

"Interviewer: You do mention in part of your book about the part of creativity is to do sort of the back-of-the-napkin sort of experiment. You just have an idea, you're not going to even make notes about it, you're not going to keep track of it, you're just going to try something.
Respondent: Yeah, glad you brought that up, Ira. I didn't use the expression, but I'm in it, and that's the value of dirty experiments. The image of doing good science, that is the popular, the public image, is the scientist conducting careful experiment after careful experiment, taking abundant notes - time of day, every condition used and making an advance into a subject. But the best way to do it is - to make discoveries - is to make short imperfect experiments. Don't worry about taking notes, in most cases, but just try things out. Shove nature around a little bit. Disturb it. Disturb an organism, disturb a small system and find out - to see if anything happens." - 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.

"Having spent a lifetime analyzing the game of chess and comparing the capacity of computers to the capacity of the human brain, I've often wondered, where does our success come from? The answer is synthesis, the ability to combine creativity and calculation, art and science, into a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. Chess is a unique cognitive nexus, a place where art and science come together in the human mind, and are then refined and improved by experience." - LIE-Te

Tim Harford's TED talk: http://tinyurl.com/5vegfyn - SLI. Presentation summary: "Economics writer Tim Harford studies complex systems — and finds a surprising link among the successful ones: they were built through trial and error. In this sparkling talk from TEDGlobal 2011, he asks us to embrace our randomness and start making better mistakes."

Possible example from a blog - https://randomgraphs.blogspot.com/20...-thinking.html


An MMO game incepted by a likely LIE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq2oxt7Nrxo


V-S section from Gulenko's article for reference:

Vortical-Synergetic Cognition

The fourth cognitive style: it is synthetic, positive, and inductive. Its most appropriate title is Vortical-Synergetic. This form flows in Sociotypes ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI.

Synergetics—the science of how order emerges from chaos. The word 'synergy' in Ancient Greek means "concerted action". The concept of synergy continues to be discussed at present. In the West, it is called 'Chaos Theory' or 'Nonlinear Dynamics' [9]. For our purposes, it is important to note that it is characterized by so-called dissipative states—non-equilibrium, nonlinear, unstable.

As Dynamics, Synergetics think fluidly with tints of one thought cascading into another. As Positivists, they converge towards a point of attraction. As Involutionary types, they frequently turn backwards and jump over previous levels, displacing the flow of their thoughts like a vortex or fluctuating storm.

IEI as if in a kaleidoscope sees whimsical iridescent imagery, dissolving then receding in flux. LIE thinks very experimentally with many variants rapidly assorted and mentally tested on the fly for practical applicability. ESE initiates a social torrent leaving behind a trail of emotional turbulence. Thoughts 'swarm' and chaotically displace one another. SLI 'lies in a drift' as it were awaiting favorable wind. Once the situation becomes favorable, self-organization immediately takes hold and rapid thinking initiates, scrolling through incoming information, identifying options most and least likely to succeed.

Intellectual Sphere

Characteristic of a 'vortex' is its self-organizing nature, moving like a whirlwind. This manifests mentally as a rapid search for options, tests, and the subsequent screening of variants which do not yield results. It operates on basis of testing, advancing to the goal through trial and error. In a sense, it is comparable to a perpetual lab experiment in the brain.

The first advantage of Vortical cognition—liveliness and naturalness. It seems to simulate the actual processes occurring in nature. Another advantage—faith in success and luck. Synergetics do not confuse temporary setbacks with error; they will undertake attempt after attempt until success ultimately comes to them.

Its chief disadvantage is that the intellectual search is often blind and uneconomical. Another difficulty is its randomness and spontaneity. Synergetic intellect is a kind of chain reaction that catalyzes itself. The mechanism of positive feedback operates: if not curbed, then the concentration of effort first leads to an explosion, followed by dissipation.

Synergetic intellect explains phenomena through substantive reasoning. The very substance (material or substrate) itself generating phenomena through natural movement. In the Aristotle example, the cause of sculpture is the block of marble from which it was made.

Social Sphere

Vortical cognition developed into a unique intellectual paradigm that was deemed later than all others to have social merit, despite it being most akin to natural phenomena. It is known that in natural conditions, all processes run in cycles. For example, in laissez-faire economies operating on Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' principle, natural cyclical fluctuations in market supply and demand guide the natural equilibrium prices of goods.

Studying biological evolution, Charles Darwin discovered its origin as a struggle for existence against natural selection, and survival of the fittest organisms. The main engine of this 'evolution', is involution through events of random variation, which abruptly leave no intermediate gradual links between appearances of species.

Biological self-organization is catalyzed by mutation—sudden, unpredictable changes in genetic material. Involution generates pulsating chaos, as evolution simultaneously selects and propagates useful mutations.

Following in the involutionary trend of Darwinism, the concept of 'punctuated equilibrium' emphasizes the discontinuous development of species observed in nature. Authors Gould and Eldridge conclude from this fact that smooth gradual evolution of species is impossible under natural conditions. To survive, all organs must simultaneously be in working order; there are no creatures present with half-fin wings, half-hoof toes, etc. According to this theory, the lifetime of a species is divided into two unequal stages of duration. The first stage is stasis, long periods where no significant species change occurs. Then the second stage, a time of fracture when the species is rapidly converted into another form, or dies out.

In the 20th century, as I mentioned, the vortex idea was rediscovered and Synergetics adopted its armament. The motto of Synergetics—order through fluctuation. Such fluctuations (local perturbations in the system) are analogous to biological mutation. Order in the chaotic evolution of complex socio-psychological systems, Socionics understands through the law of quadra progression. However, we must not forget that in the irreversible progression of quadras is a series of involutional junctures—jumps, twists, and turns. Because of this, the real non-theoretical quadra progression curve is jagged and looped, its outline resembling the dancing tongues of a burning flame.

Psychological Sphere

This cognitive style imbues qualities of endurance and optimism to the psyche. However, the psyche of Synergetics is less stable than that of Holographers. Synergetic types are partially conditionable, but capable of discarding undesired habits. For restoration of normal mental life they need specific, and sometimes long periods of trial and error. Depriving their life of continuous forward movement exerts a bad effect upon their mind. Operating principle: As ambient momentum of circumstance declines, their self-determination atrophies. Lack of oncoming circumstantial pressures renders them increasingly worse off.

The best countermeasure in such situations is positive self-programming. Consisting of forcing disturbing thoughts to the background and dissolving them in positive scenarios. IEI before sleep visualizes a pleasant scene to remove disturbing experiences of the day. LIE casts a desirable goal in its imagination, optimistic it will eventually acquire the necessary persons and resources. ESE simply does not think about past mistakes and its mood is improved by itself. SLI is not the first place puts a positive scenario and awaits the moment possible to implement it.

It is often forgotten that the synergetic aspect of development makes extended forecasts futile. American meteorologist Edward Lorenz descriptively coined this phenomenon the 'Butterfly Effect'. Where a butterfly waving its wings in some part of America can, with specific confluence of circumstances, induce a hurricane somewhere in Indonesia. Complex nonlinear phenomena are unpredictable, because tiny initial influences with time can lead to enormous consequences. In conventional life, this same phenomenon is called the Domino Effect. Where the initial fall of the first domino successfully entails catastrophe of the series. The catalyzing action, whose event occurs on your will, determines which of the scenarios will run—optimistic or pessimistic.

Scientific Sphere

This cognitive form reflects the synergy formed by the current worldview. Within this paradigm during the 18th century arose the Kant-Laplace hypothesis about the vortex origin of the sun and planets from cosmic dust.

The Synergetic paradigm is opposed to Creationism; the emergence of complex systems explains spontaneous creation, not divine intervention. A typical example from the history of science is biochemist A. I. Oparin's hypothesis on the emergence of life from inanimate matter in the primordial 'broth' of Earth's early existence, which was largely confirmed in Stanley Miller's famous 1953 experiment.

Also hailing from the Synergetic paradigm comes the outlook of Nikolai Amosov. According to him it "explains the evolution of the world's self-organizing structures… miracles can happen, but are of no practical value." He sincerely believes demonstrative simulations can be recreated by computer models.

Synergetics recognize the critical role of chance and free will in transitional moments of history. Synergetically-minded scholars frequently consider alternative historical outcomes. British historian Arnold J. Toynbee in particular, explored this twist on the course of ancient history—what if Alexander of Macedon did not die (pessimistic version), how would the world have developed then (optimistic version)?

A real-life model of Synergetic cognition is the turbulent flow. Turbulence is a liquid or gas flow, in which there is rapid mixing of its moving layers. The behavior of such flows cannot be predicted. Whereas the preceding laminar flow phrase exhibits clear regularities deducible by Causal-Determinism.

Mathematical modeling of natural growth processes typically uses exponential functions. Such functions describe geometric progressions, rather than arithmetic values. Logarithmic (S-shaped) curves terminating in saturation points are common in dynamic modeling. Implying that self-organization is not omnipotent: after exceeding a certain limit, it exhausts its own momentum. At which point it becomes necessary to either yield to external structure, or create a new nexus of self-organization. Synergetic types naturally select the latter.

Lev N. Gumilev offers a Synergetic account for involutions of ethnogenesis in the birth, growth, and death process of societies. Social systems dictate rules of selection for specific behaviors of people. Charismatic-personalities (cranks, outcasts, dissenters) engender a variety of diverse social mutations. Society holds them at bay, until such time that it weakens for any reason (due to economic crisis, internal wars, cultural stagnation, etc.). Afterwards, the energy of a new order vigorously sweeps the decrepit system and begins to grow in its place. But sooner or later, the new order itself will age just the same and be forced to give way to an alternative system ripening in its depths, and so forth.

Vortical cognition is hardest to convey to people of Algorithmic cognition, since to them free choice and the game of chance opposes teleology, fate, the special role of a creator, etc. When Synergetics speak about the implicit order in chaos, if we translate their words to the language of Socionics, they imply that Holographical cognition, with its minimally convoluted ordering structures, is dual to the chaotic vortex.

Alan Watts (Te-LIE imo) explaining VS cognition:

[noid]

There is no thing like cognition in Vortical-Synergetic cogition

[nanashi]

There is no thing like cognition in Vortical-Synergetic cogition

It's in the moment strategic coping, and I love it. Certainly cognition.

[lynn]

I always wondered how ESEs fit into VS cognition and today I heard a guy I previously typed as ESE suddenly discuss his research about turbulent flows, which characteristics sounded pretty similar to the VS cognition articles out there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence

[nanashi]

krieger:"recognition yes, but utilization in an impactful non-trivial sense is typically a break from the style. it is something vortex thinkers can do but vortex thinking can't. understand that distinction and you do fine."

That's a very confident statement ...without any proof.

I guess all the LIE everyone's always fawning over embarassingly throughout history are actually only impacting the world in a trivial sense--not to mention the SLI that keep everything running, and the IEI that have massive insights and along with the ESE keep everyone going....

good god. that you don't understand vortical cognition's workings or effects doesn't mean it has no impact on the course of human events.

[Alomoes]

I am this hypothetically. Uh. So I respond to whatever I see fit to respond to in whatever way I see fit as a response using whatever information I see, leading to myself copying others as needed.

People get angry and say they don't understand, when it's easy to parse through if you follow along the dotted line. I reuse bits of information to make it easier on people, but also try not to keep it too static, as that would be boring. It's because I need to keep thinking, and if I'm going 123 directly, I will miscount eventually. As such, I go 1. 23 123, 123. ECT. This is easiest for me.

It's chaotic, yes, and doesn't make sense, yes, but it is what it is. It took me a fairly long time to recognize I can count by grouping more efficiently than directly counting. IE, count 3, then 2, then 3, then count the 3s and 2s, then count another group of 3s and 2s, and so on and so forth. This is beginning to seem like homestuck stack calls.

Anyways, it made marching band really hard. You can't swap between right and left foot at will, and I would. I can explain it in not counting, but I think you get it.

My mind is otherwise incredibly orderly. I can pull any single thing at any time and hyperfocus on the implications of it with thought experiments. Like I just did.

[MissDucki]

Going to bump this for discussion

[Baqer]

Going to bump this for discussion

Does anyone even fully get the Cognitive styles?