Results 1 to 40 of 283

Thread: Doubt my ILE-ness? Well come on in

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    That's exactly what I said but phrased it differently and for the record D-A by definition can't deal with if-then-else per DarkAngelFireWolf69 of course. Cause and effect logics does not operate nor manifests this way. Cause and effect logics is the thesis whereas D-A is the antithesis of C-D, at least that's what I think. I know cause and effect logics and can differentiate between C-D and D-A. You're not cause and effect unless you're faking, trying to prove something or just farting around. At least now.

    And I do not see any if-then-else in C-D unless DarkAngelFireWolf69 had a one beer too many. All in all, emulating duals can be a tricky task, unless the duals are mixed up.
    The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing.

    DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution.

    So for

    function A(param X)
    {if X = b then Y else Z}

    DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable.

    By supply X, Y or Z is determined.

    I don't create if-then-else propositions.

    By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result.

    Quote Originally Posted by DA thinking
    Its advantages are obvious: it is the most subtle and flexible style. It can easily switch to an opposite direction, and possesses predictive ability, accompanied by an effective type of associative memory. Algorithmic thinking is also good at solving problems of classification, given their gift for recognizing complex patterns. Beyond the circumstantial conditions of a problem, it perceives a fundamental algorithm for its solution.
    These are interrelated styles of thinking and I can see why you would see the similarities.

    Also I would say my paraphrasing of what I said before was somewhat inadequate in describing CD thinking.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing.
    Well, they do. They have to, it is the static-dynamic "properties" of, say, LSI and EIE. This is nothing new nor groundbreaking.

    So for

    function A(param X)
    {if X = b then Y else Z}

    DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable.

    By supply X, Y or Z is determined.

    I don't create if-then-else propositions.
    And this is exactly where I can conclude people you reference to are not D-A, in fact, they're C-D unless you want to argue otherwise and I do not go against your interpretation of C-D. Excuse me, I do, for it doesn't make any sense whatsoever and you're actually crusade against yourself. Cause and effect logics as you interpret it is not cause and effect logics unless you're not ILE at all nor any of cause and effect bimbos in DarkAngelFireWolf69's Cognitive Styles, again, unless you do not emulate your duals.

    These are interrelated styles of thinking and I can see why you would see the similarities.
    It is you who sees that

  3. #3
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    And this is exactly where I can conclude people you reference to are not D-A, in fact, they're C-D unless you want to argue otherwise and I do not go against your interpretation of C-D. Excuse me, I do, for it doesn't make any sense whatsoever and you're actually crusade against yourself. Cause and effect logics as you interpret it is not cause and effect logics unless you're not ILE at all nor any of cause and effect bimbos in DarkAngelFireWolf69's Cognitive Styles, again, unless you do not emulate your duals.
    I am not crusading against myself, I did paraphrase poorly before, my original posts were not in that form. I have changed my paraphrasing to reflect DarkAngelFireWolf69's writings in order to avoid any further confusion. So you are right, I did have cog style mix up earlier as far as verbalization.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I am not crusading against myself, I did paraphrase poorly before, my original posts were not in that form. I have changed my paraphrasing to reflect DarkAngelFireWolf69's writings in order to avoid any further confusion. So you are right, I did have cog style mix up earlier as far as verbalization.
    Allah be fucking praised, I mean Elohim. Cough. Thank you very much. I was right the whole time. Oh and check his film, anyone:



    Masterpiece.

  5. #5
    &papu silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5,077
    Mentioned
    456 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Also, if you notice the way I talk, which is very representative of CD thinking of ILE's.

    "emotivist, therefore not ILE(also 7 other types)"
    " base and emotivist therefore IEE"

    There is a strict formal logic to CD thinkers and how they talk. Compare to how he talks.

    "I will say that I don't relate to ALL of the ILE dichotomies. I consider myself more 'declaring' than 'asking', and more 'results' than 'process'."

    He is willing to say these yet, he's unwilling to take his considerations to their logical conclusion, which is that either he is wrong about declaring/result or he is wrong about a host of other considerations.

    Now this shows another side of him which is divergent thinking, which is associated with negativism.
    This can be due to subtype differences between you two i.e. you being Ti-ILE and Phthalate most likely being Ne-ILE.

    Something that I've noticed some time ago is that people will periodically 'flip' into cognitive style that is dual to their own, meaning that duality of cognitive styles is a concurrent process - all V-S types have some H-P going on, all C-D types have some bit of D-A churning in their minds, and vice versa.

    I've also noticed that the relative proportion of each is influenced by person's subtype where for irrationals it is the inert/leading function subtype that will display instances of dual cognitive styles more frequently, and for irrationals it's the other way around. What this means is Phthalate as a Ne-ILE will more often manifest cognitive traits of his dual type, the SEI, than a Ti-ILE such as yourself. This will include instances of negativism (SEIs are negativists), greater degree of uncertainty since in his mind would be generating more of those if-then-else propositions, and hence more flexible approach to logical deduction. This may be what you're picking up on - Phthalate being Ne-ILE sporadically displaying instances of negativism that belong to his dual type.


    Cognitive style are based on these three Reinin dichotomies: static/dynamic, process/result, negativist/positivist
    Two of these differ between dual types: static/dynamic and negativist/positivist
    What this can possibly mean is that these two dichotomies will periodically alternate as the person 'flips' to their dual cognitive styles, though greater preference will be given to the one that corresponds to one's true style. The only dichotomy that is conserved at all time is process/result.

    From this follows that typing someone by static/dynamic and negativist/positivist dichotomies using one or two examples may be misleading, since they are liable to change. Instead one needs to gather multiple samples and see which one the person relies upon most frequently.

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing.

    DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution.

    So for

    function A(param X)
    {if X = b then Y else Z}

    DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable.

    By supply X, Y or Z is determined.

    I don't create if-then-else propositions.

    By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result.
    This is where I disagree. An ILE would generate some small portion of these if-then-else propositions, and Ne-ILE in greater proportion than a Ti-ILE. Everyone utilizes some bit of their dual cog-style, because any cognitive style on its own, in isolation, would be inoperative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phthalate View Post
    I read that, and I'm quite familiar with discrete mathematics to understand it. Dichotomies are useful to describe a type, but not to make the typing itself. If we start going by dichotomies, there are 225 possible outcomes. It's not that hard to comprehend :\.
    you don't start with dichotomies, you start with the person you're trying to type and then eliminate types based on what dichotomies don't seem to fit

    Quote Originally Posted by Phthalate View Post
    I was messing with the dichotomies the other day on paper, and I even showed fenryrr here how some of the groupings seems quite arbitrary (as in, how some groups are put together). I'll make a thread about it later on, but my wasn't happy with some of the assumptions made when these were created and described.
    how did you come to that conclusion? my perception was that the traits that were assigned to dichotomies were picked somewhat arbitrarily

  6. #6
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by siuntal View Post
    This can be due to subtype differences between you two i.e. you being Ti-ILE and Phthalate most likely being Ne-ILE.

    Something that I've noticed some time ago is that people will periodically 'flip' into cognitive style that is dual to their own, meaning that duality of cognitive styles is a concurrent process - all V-S types have some H-P going on, all C-D types have some bit of D-A churning in their minds, and vice versa.

    I've also noticed that the relative proportion of each is influenced by person's subtype where for irrationals it is the inert/leading function subtype that will display instances of dual cognitive styles more frequently, and for irrationals it's the other way around. What this means is Phthalate as a Ne-ILE will more often manifest cognitive traits of his dual type, the SEI, than a Ti-ILE such as yourself. This will include instances of negativism (SEIs are negativists), greater degree of uncertainty since in his mind would be generating more of those if-then-else propositions, and hence more flexible approach to logical deduction. This may be what you're picking up on - Phthalate being Ne-ILE sporadically displaying instances of negativism that belong to his dual type.

    Cognitive style are based on these three Reinin dichotomies: static/dynamic, process/result, negativist/positivist
    Two of these differ between dual types: static/dynamic and negativist/positivist
    What this can possibly mean is that these two dichotomies will periodically alternate as the person 'flips' to their dual cognitive styles, though greater preference will be given to the one that corresponds to one's true style. The only dichotomy that is conserved at all time is process/result.

    From this follows that typing someone by static/dynamic and negativist/positivist dichotomies using one or two examples may be misleading, since they are liable to change. Instead one needs to gather multiple samples and see which one the person relies upon most frequently.


    This is where I disagree. An ILE would generate some small portion of these if-then-else propositions, and Ne-ILE in greater proportion than a Ti-ILE. Everyone utilizes some bit of their dual cog-style, because any cognitive style on its own, in isolation, would be inoperative.
    I would say you are right here but it happens imo more unconsciously as the functions involved (dynamic vs static) is unconscious. It's like the unconscious bubbles up to the surface. It may even be said that this unconscious process can be even more core to the individual. However the dual would give form/mirror/solidify these vague "primordial" impressions(as Jung would call them).

    It's possible for him to be ILE if I didn't think he was a emotivist(conscious one at that). Even in comparison to someone like FoxOnStilts, who has taken a different position then I have. Her expressions are not emotivist, she remains business like even through her beliefs are different then mine and she supports Phthalate. She hasn't questioned my motivations or accuse me that I desire to impose thought on Phthalate, which I'm absolutely not trying to do. Also she hasn't voiced any alternative possibilities for Phthalate(which he does for himself) and she hasn't offered any reason why Phthalate is ILE either.

    What I said earlier I will explain, because what you mention is important. What I said is only applicable in the sense, that I am not conscious of how I arrive at those ideas. I have many moments where I spontaneously come to functional forms and constructs but I have no idea how this occurred. It's a product of me researching, gathering thoughts, (sitting in tub and shouting eureka, need to do this more) and occasionally doing menial work. But I don't think I could ever give a real reason why I make the connection.

    I think the conscious/unconscious divide provide for the full range of expression/thought/processing/etc for all individuals but these do have a high degree of relevance in intertype relations and type diagnostics.

    I want to bring up something I highlighted earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phthalate
    Basically, what you call 'red', I might call it 'blue', and in some other cases, I might call it 'dog'.
    This is indicative of holographic thinking.

    A few tidbits from the article: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...amic_Cognition
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAngelFireWolf69
    As Statics, Holographers attain reliable precision of thought. As Negativists they periodically turn the object of thought to its opposite side. As Involutionary types, they sporadically change the angle of examination or criterion of judgment.
    Also

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAngelFireWolf69
    IEE detects the possible hidden motivations of a person, as if building their psychological 'hologram'.
    The implication is by seeing something as "Blue", "Red", "Dog", a different conclusion can be made. And he's always trying to detect that hidden motivations within me.

    Quote Originally Posted by siuntal View Post
    you don't start with dichotomies, you start with the person you're trying to type and then eliminate types based on what dichotomies don't seem to fit
    This is the approach I take, it's a differential diagnosis approach to substantiate a typing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_diagnosis
    Dichotomies as symptom and a process of elimination to come to a conclusive typing. Then that typing can be tested, and if the off, there is a mistake in the prior analysis.

  7. #7
    FoxOnStilts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    TN
    TIM
    Fi-SLE 3w9 so/sp
    Posts
    790
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Even in comparison to someone like FoxOnStilts, who has taken a different position then I have. Her expressions are not emotivist, she remains business like even through her beliefs are different then mine and she supports Phthalate. She hasn't questioned my motivations or accuse me that I desire to impose thought on Phthalate, which I'm absolutely not trying to do. Also she hasn't voiced any alternative possibilities for Phthalate(which he does for himself) and she hasn't offered any reason why Phthalate is ILE either.
    I'm staying out of it aside from neutral interjections, because no matter what I say, it will just be taken as me being biased because of my friendship with Phthalate.

  8. #8
    Phthalate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    TIM
    ILE, E5 so/sx, INTP
    Posts
    291
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FoxOnStilts View Post
    I'm staying out of it aside from neutral interjections, because no matter what I say, it will just be taken as me being biased because of my friendship with Phthalate.
    Bitch who are you?
    ILE; INTP
    5w6 so; rcUe|I|;

  9. #9
    FoxOnStilts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    TN
    TIM
    Fi-SLE 3w9 so/sp
    Posts
    790
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phthalate View Post
    Bitch who are you?
    Your Vanilla Bear!


  10. #10
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FoxOnStilts View Post
    I'm staying out of it aside from neutral interjections, because no matter what I say, it will just be taken as me being biased because of my friendship with Phthalate.
    And that's exactly why I think you're not the same type as him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •