Dialectical-Algorithmic thinking

[flames]

From what I’ve gathered, it seems to hold consensus as the most unhinged cognition style, at least to outside people when you don’t appropriately explain the conclusions you’ve reached through it (thankfully, I am more than happy to unless I’m purposely bringing up two seemingly opposing phenomena with absolutely no explanation out of the blue for humor or shock value purposes- works brilliantly, might I add ) I think it may be something of a double edged sword for EIEs because on one hand it can make you appear nothing short of brilliant and on the other hand it can make you appear crazy but not in a sexy way at all and, well... EIEs are usually creatures that put a lot of importance in their image. SEI might relate to that in a further distance from on their particularly sensitive days, but I doubt an ILI ever would unless they were put in a position where their prematurely described DA conclusions made others question their intelligence, and perhaps for an LSE, their authority but that one is just a theory because LSE seems the least stereotypically DA of the bunch to me. In between brilliant or crazy you may find a less intimidating perception from others as asinine- this is typically where the many ILEs who attempt to duplicate DA fall into (IEEs can more rarely be imitators, I think Ne as a function just has inherit qualities of DA cognition- not sure if I recall LIEs ever following the pack, but they are certainly one of the best non DA types in quickly deciphering it).

On the bright side, it is easily the main culprit in EIEs and ILIs being absolute master manipulators but a major drawback is that (to me, at least) I am less confident in what I truly believe as an individual because my natural inclination is to avoid picking sides in matters, stay neutral when possible, or (the most satisfying route) be alone in believing whatever I managed to synthesize from two polars. When both of these quirks occur at once, it is essentially just the DA person manipulating themselves into some state of confusion or unrest. It is without a doubt the perfect cognition style for (verbal) arguments or mere debates but the thing is, it will cut the DA user even deeper themselves when they are solely internalizing it (take a look at the infamous self doubt of EIEs... messy ) than it will cut other people in an argument (and believe me it does that well, I have had to withhold my tongue in heated debates to not burn the opponent too hard- not that I’m implying you can never beat me in an argument ).

Overall, I think it works best as a cognition style when it is applied 100% to external data, which it really is meant to be being a tool for nonstandard synthesis (for the purpose of fixing what very few others would ever see around you); when it is taken into isolation it often produces the most cynical or overdramatized people on the planet (and yes, that tends to be ILI and EIE respectively; on the flip side of the coin, SEI tend to be more cynical compared to LSE’s overdramatized: I think this explains the strange, faint attraction between ILIs/SEIs or EIEs/LSEs at times).

I think walking a tightrope is an adequate way of describing the mental strain it can induce but someone’s gotta do it, right?