Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
I've decided to consider cognitive styles after observing the effects that the three Reinin dichotomies, which are their basis, causes in the way of reasoning of different users (myself included).

ILEs seem to fit well in CD (I'm thinking in a lot of examples, this forum, other forums and real-life examples), so maybe LIIs and ILIs do the same in their corresponding HP and DA.

Holograpical-Panoramic:
  • Analytic: static (spatial), stable vision of reality...
  • Negative: divergent thinking (multiple solutions), minimizing negative, distrust, differences...
  • Inductive: involution, simplification, result over preocess, suboptimal acceptable...


Dialectical-Algorithmic:
  • Synthetic: dynamic (temporal), variable vision of reality...
  • Negative: divergent thinking (multiple solutions), minimizing negative, distrust, differences...
  • Deductive: evolution, complication, process over result...


(a table with the main characteristics of the four cognitive styles was made by EyeSeeCold)

The first impression after reading about CS is HP and DA are enough similar, so they could be mistaken. I could imagine an user of HP thinking in that way that he could "emulate" DA. Being HP characterized for changing the point of view, the selected angle for the managed information, with enough small changes these "static differences" could seem to be dynamic. An analogy could be a set of discrete points so similar that they resembles a line. By the other hand, in certain way "dynamic contains static": in a continuos variation you can always pass for a collection of discrete selected values, so DA could also emulate HP. The divergent thinking nature of HP and DA would make it possible. If any of these could emulate the other, how could they be accurately distinguished?
I've thought about the same quite a bit myself

In your specific case, I noticed that you lean more Negativist (which I look at as more of an uncertainty/flexibility thing as opposed to the certainty/rigidness of Positivist - I'm more "positive" of things being a certain way) than either Process or Result, which, of course, leaves DA and HP... I found, when someone's mind is doing the heaviest of lifting (not the most difficult of lifting necessarily), they'll most obviously go to the style suggested by their type

Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
My thoughts exactly

Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
But the difference is more profound. They're different ways of thinking, not different variations of the same one. As usual, the difference was more obvious to me once I made a "mental simulation" of each process (could be this a trend of dynamic egos, making "simulations"??).

The question about static Vs dynamic is not simply "some points" Vs "all points". HP carries well, IMO, the essence of the Ti leading function, regardless the user is a Ti leading or even Ti ego. This method of thinking first takes a "snapshot" (hologram) of reality. It will contains all information needed for solving the problem. Being taken directly from reality, "it's true", so it does not need more "external confirmation" so to speak. The problem is solved analyzing this densely packed snapshots of information (dividing elements in different and well-delimited subelements) and looking at the problem form different points of views, like 2D proyection of the 3D figure. Each of these point of view correspond to a particular interpretation of the problem by particular combinations (context) of the subelements. Hence the "or-or" alias of this CS.

As static, each context would be well defined, well delimited. The capability for looking from more angles/points of views should be mainly restricted to the user's skill for identifying smaller subelements (the more subelements, the more combinations).
I wish I was a bit closer to HP at times to determine this description as a good one, but this sounds accurate to me...

Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
DA does not work in this way. It does not capture all the information in a single taken snapshot (or multiple-taken, but one in each step) of HP. DA perceives patterns (changing information) more than the information itself, which are commonly associated to algorithms (the way this information could evolve) and therefore the "IF-THEN-ELSE" alias DarkAngelFireWolf69 suggested.

If you capture a flow of information, you do not know (or implicitly have, although still undiscovered) which the value of the information (the solution of the problem) is. You need to fill that "empty pattern" with concrete information, run the algorithm with concrete values for the variables it uses.

The users of DA, being naturally aware of this dependence between the output (conclusion) with the input (initial data) will understand every solution as no much more than a particular solution, which is not by default "more correct", so to speak.
Hence the trend to relativism, disliking for general conclusions, etc.

Being patterns empty of information, they can easily be combined in multiple ways, like pipelines, gererating multiple solutions for multiple (or even single) conditions. At least, the "correctness of a solutions" is seen in probabilistic terms. Using again the pipeline analogy, which carries a higher flow of water would be the more correct.
interesting that you should use the term "flow" - I was thinking of a flowchart right now as a good depiction of the style!



Only one path down it can be followed simultaneously, and only one result can happen at a time, though the overall form remains regardless of the path chosen at any given time...

Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
A difference should be observed in the ways HP and DA manage multiple solutions. HP does not require external confirmation, so the validity of each point of view is implicit in the same information which contains it. An HP user would evaluate potential solutions and "automatically" accept or discard them. At least, only those which have survived would be presented. They could have thought in a lot of them, but few will remain.
Every point of view will also be analyzed in a static way: you can be have this XOR that, but not both of them at the same time. Analytical thinking. Being also involutionary (result), HP users will tend to present their conclusions without the "superfluous" details of the reasoning they've made. LIIs are not very verbal, for example.

For a DA user all solutions could be correct, because it depends it depends it depends... on the conditions. Statistically they should present more of them. Different points of views/angles will be analyzed in a dynamic way: you can have this AND that at the same time. The election between two options will again depend on the particular conditions. Like in particle-wave duality of light, in a particular experiment you will observe its nature as particles, and in other experiment you will observe its nature as waves... but it is both things at the same time. Synthetic thinking. Being evolutionary (process), DA users put lot of importance in how they achieve conclusions, not only their correctness.
I wonder how much of your idea of HP is specific to that which is found in LIIs (as well as ESIs due to them being Rationals that manage Feeling much like LIIs manage , and maybe SLEs also due to the sounding hues) - the IEEs I know are more verbose about things, but go about things in that "multiple perspectives of the same object" kinda approach, and they might be the best ones to look at to see that style in action (at least for myself)...

Quote Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam View Post
With all of this, IF my understanding of HP and DA cognitive styles is CORRECT, I would be much closer to DA -> ILI.
It looks like you have a good grasp on things I also noticed your description of DA was much easier for me to get an understanding of...

Also, your displays of would then be due to ILIs having as a Demonstrative function, as well as your extensive time in college - academia strikes me as leaning heavily towards the Alpha quadra, which could lead to your strength and comfort in using