Vortical Synergetic Cognition

[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]

.

[woofwoofl]

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...

[krieger]

I like it a lot too. He typically gets pegged as INTp AFAIK, but I vehemently disagree with this. The usual reasoning goes, "oh, economist… money, must be Gamma! talks about theroetical shit… must be NT!" Stupid.

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.

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.

[mfckr]

.

[Sir Knight]

post

This clears a lot of things up. I was having trouble conceptualizing VS since the other three styles seem so easy to strip down to their fundamentals while VS just seemed like... Random Fucking Chaos: The Thought System. Which it is. But now I understand how that actually works towards creating a kind of coherence.

post

I thought you endorsed Reinin dichotomies? I mean, really, all this strikes me as is taking a given type's Reinin dichotomies and extrapolating how that type would think based on them.

[Pookie]

It's basically saying that in any system—complex or simple—not all causal influences or conditions can ever been fully accounted for. Thus its behavior can never be reliably predicted with 100% certainty, especially over longer time periods (which should induce one to think twice before attributing future prediction to ). The usual gedanken for this is the Butterfly Effect:

That seems to be the reason why future prediction is attributed to . One who's aware of the variables and how they can change a situation should have an easier task "predicting the future" than someone who isn't. Since someone not thinking along those lines would be susceptible to overlooking the causal influences or conditions.

"The behavior can never be reliably predicted with 100% certainty" - Wouldn't all the cognitive styles would be susceptible to this in the eyes of a Vortal synergetic, but its just the VS thinker is aware of their own uncertainty?

[mfckr]

.

[GuavaDrunk]

Yes and no.

is good at apprehending abstract processes in situations, people, etc. So when they catch sight of some underlying theme again, they can often predict its development based on a sense of, "oh, I've seen this shit before and it generally works out like x,y,z." Which is really nothing to do with time or predicting the future in any temporal sense per se. Just an observation of archetypal patterns.

That makes Ni-egos strongly experience-dependent, naive to start with then increasingly better at "forecasting" as they accumulate experience.

[marooned]

That makes Ni-egos strongly experience-dependent, naive to start with then increasingly better at "forecasting" as they accumulate experience.

Yeah. To me it sounds like sucking the intuition out of Ni...

[mfckr]

.