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?
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?
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:16 AM.
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"
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.
Last edited by rat1; 04-30-2011 at 08:50 AM.
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
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:16 AM.
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...
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:06 AM.
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).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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.
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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 12:04 AM.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:11 AM. Reason: formatting
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.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:11 AM.
I love that video. ISTp, huh? I thought he'd been pegged as Gamma.
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?
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.Of the most pivotally frustrating aspects of VS cognition, is that it frequently culminates in very generalized inferences of an incredibly non-demonstrable kind
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?plagued by appeals to chronic indeterminism
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" ?
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?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.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:12 AM.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:12 AM.
??
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
Subtle, fine action is preferred over labored, crude action.
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"
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.
"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
nope ... wrong emphasis ... deductive vs inductive
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:
Alan Watts (Te-LIE imo) explaining VS cognition:
Last edited by silke; 06-10-2017 at 09:02 AM.
There is no thing like cognition in Vortical-Synergetic cogition
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
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
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Going to bump this for discussion