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.
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.
I really relate to the holographic-panoramic style. I think early on in my socionics hobby I mistook it for Ni. The description is very apt when it speaks of the rotation of structures in the imagination. If I change my perspective, references, and assumptions then the whole image changes.
The end is nigh
haha, yeah i considered that for vortical styles. For the holographic style, the object is static and the observer's perspective of it is dynamic.
The end is nigh
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:09 AM.
When I read the Holographical-Panoramic style I always think of slot machines and how you can get different versions of one product by alternating the variables around.
(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
Thats not a bad example but you should probably try and use your words first next time. Perhaps a link if you can't describe it, being that you are a DA. This is sorta the relation I have with DA, it goes nowhere.
So on second thought you won't actually change anything due to the HP/VS nature of the interaction with a DA.
Another thing though is the strangeness that a DA (ILI Charles Darwin) would come up with the theory of natural selection. Did he sorta steal and recombine it?
Have you guys seen the evolution computer program that trys to navigate a obstacle course? I'll try and find a link.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:09 AM.
Yeah, he is one of the reasons why I referred to meteorology as a potential field of application for VS thinking style.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Twister, that is all.
I would also like to say that DA thinking styles have an uncanny knack for starting disasterous vortexs even when I might try and quickly influence them away. CD's to a lesser extent. They will act as if nothing could possibly go wrong, or of course for LSE you can't possibly forsee bad shit and thus all my efforts are not even real. Except that I'm not trying to predict the weather a week from now, but if its looks like its going to storm and we are about to go for a long walk, anyone should catch synergistic shit like this. Usually in reality the synergy will have a few more variables, which they can't handle, than my simplistic example.
Last edited by jughead; 05-05-2011 at 04:36 PM.
Last edited by Gilly; 05-07-2011 at 08:28 PM.
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...
Would a pond of EJ ( or ) data, where if a new drop comes in, the pool of EJ is displaced in ripples in such a manner that can be tracked by IP ( or , aarrgg unintentional pun ) be a good graphical representation of Vortigal Cognition?
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:10 AM.
Nice! especially starting at 1:45 and on out... I assume the "static" orange train-track type vortex would be the IP / elements, and it's the "dynamic" / EJ elements that are sparks of light, always following a sort of path determined by the IP elements?
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:11 AM.
^ I'm a clear MBTI P type, could never be J in that system... so maybe I should translate to TiNe, as I initially tried, who knows. Otherwise, typical P characterstics from MBTI translate to Socionics irrationality, at least in IP/Ip case, and correlation fails.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:10 AM.
I think DA thinking kind of necessitates this approach, because the overriding concern is to maintain a form of balance inherent in dynamic-negativist thinking, of keeping certain factors under control for the purpose of preventing negative outcomes. Interestingly enough DA thinkers are all at the beginning of their quadras in terms of quadra progression, likely serving as a necessary harness of sorts for their overly ambitious quadrant mates: static Positivists seek to create some form of extant priority, while dynamic negativists head off detrimental consequences or impinging factors. The other pair, holographic and vortex, are focused on producing a specificsingle effect rather than something intended to be (semi) permanent. Vortex thinking looks for the opportune moment to strike, while holographic shifts perspective in order to take advantage of the situation.
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...
I've just about always scored P in MBTI as well.
.
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.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 02:12 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.
Thanks Ashton (especially for the videos, they make us SEEs really happy)!
I'm in the Wentworth Miller (Prison Break actor) interview now, and it's very revealing - I see Positivist definitely, and I'm seeing, more or less, a loose but high-quality arrangement of logic from him, for lack of a better wording, one that's much less fragile and rigid than the sequential chain type thing formed by Causal-Determinist cognition (and at the very least, I can recognize it as the Positivist one that's not CD)...
I'll next check out Milton Friedman, then Alton Brown (who I recall as being typed ESE), and I feel a chart coming on soon...
at least those arguments are unambiguous and coherent, unlike much of the tripe being spouted about cognitive styles that any point can be used to rationalize one typing as easily as another.Originally Posted by ashton
you could, for example, just as easily have pointed at Friedman's painstaking empiricism as an indication of his being a Negative/Process (DA) type.