Dialectical-Algorithmic thinking

[jughead]

These thinking styles allow me to see the the obvious leap between MBTI descriptions and socionics ones. In MBTI j is described as thinking in parts and p more holistically, requiring the forest to see the trees. They are not so alien, obviously the inter-type relations are a P holistic step forward!

Wouldn't you say the learning styles of DA vs VS are totally opposites?
VS would be very chaotic and haphazard, shooting for gold from the first try, why entj is stereotyped in a permanent steeple chase, and infp is caught forever dreaming up the best result. DA would be very linear step by step process controlled learning. VS is a more natural form that spontaneously seeks to reproduce the whole result and over time through natural ordering comes together. School learning is very much DA, step by step,very structured and ordered goals and homework, procedures etc etc. VS wants to start trying to produce the best result immediately, but the haphazardness makes DA think they are reckless and immature. Whereas VS thinks DA is overly structered, ineffective nitwits who are forever producing useless "progress". Does the duals thinking style back you up and support you in this manner or just acknowledge the validity of your style? It seems that if we are a dual nature type then the dual must provide very helpful data from the outside on your progress.

I believe Malcom Gladwell pretty much decribed this mechanism ( not for the first time, hes just a pop psychologist/economist who states the obvious and repackages it with a Phd and makes $$) when he described how skill mastery is reached: not through any special procedures other than general practice.

[Aiss]

These thinking styles allow me to see the the obvious leap between MBTI descriptions and socionics ones. In MBTI j is described as thinking in parts and p more holistically, requiring the forest to see the trees. They are not so alien, obviously the inter-type relations are a P holistic step forward!

Wouldn't you say the learning styles of DA vs VS are totally opposites?
VS would be very chaotic and haphazard, shooting for gold from the first try, why entj is stereotyped in a permanent steeple chase, and infp is caught forever dreaming up the best result. DA would be very linear step by step process controlled learning. VS is a more natural form that spontaneously seeks to reproduce the whole result and over time through natural ordering comes together. School learning is very much DA, step by step,very structured and ordered goals and homework, procedures etc etc. VS wants to start trying to produce the best result immediately, but the haphazardness makes DA think they are reckless and immature. Whereas VS thinks DA is overly structered, ineffective nitwits who are forever producing useless "progress". Does the duals thinking style back you up and support you in this manner or just acknowledge the validity of your style? It seems that if we are a dual nature type then the dual must provide very helpful data from the outside on your progress.

I believe Malcom Gladwell pretty much decribed this mechanism ( not for the first time, hes just a pop psychologist/economist who states the obvious and repackages it with a Phd and makes $$) when he described how skill mastery is reached: not through any special procedures other than general practice.

*blink*

Whatever makes you feel better about your awesome selfs, guys. I guess smart people will know bs when they see it, anyway.

[Aiss]

Dunno about Vortex, but here's my take on Dialectical-Algorithmic:

It's spaghetti architecture. You have links here, and links there, and it doesn't make much sense and guess what - any single link doesn't really matter. No particular way matters. It's the clusters that matter, where they meet, where they lead... condensation points. But this point doesn't depend on any single link - so the breaking of that, holes in it, don't matter much, it's just one of many. If I were to define DA on my own, I'd say it's about the opposite of relying on any one way, on any line of thought. So there can be no right way, no step by step, no dependable procedure or proof whatsoever. It goes against its nature, which lies in interconnectedness - at the cost of not really creating any stable structure, thus leading to often accurate enough, but not "reliable" results. Or inaccurate, if all the links fail and the redundancy is merely misleading. That's what I think Ganin really describes when he talks about ILIs "circumstantial" or "unpredictable" approach to logic, by the way - Dialectical-Algorithmic style in NT type.

IMO the static system crazedrat described represents Holographic more than any other style, and jughead's rant doesn't rely to any (unsurprisingly).

I suppose Causal-Deterministic compliments it by focusing on building a more stable structure, one that doesn't suffer from DA's main drawback, "so that's more or less somewhere there" tendency. Not quite what jughead describes, anyway.

[Galen]

If I were to define DA on my own, I'd say it's about the opposite of relying on any one way, on any line of thought. So there can be no right way, no step by step, no dependable procedure or proof whatsoever. It goes against its nature, which lies in interconnectedness - at the cost of not really creating any stable structure, thus leading to often accurate enough, but not "reliable" results. Or inaccurate, if all the links fail and the redundancy is merely misleading. That's what I think Ganin really describes when he talks about ILIs "circumstantial" or "unpredictable" approach to logic, by the way - Dialectical-Algorithmic style in NT type.

I've noticed this in my ISFp mom, where she'll have these little talks with me about how there is no such thing as a 'right way' or dependable course of action to take in any given situation. I more understood this as her catching on to my E6 ticks though.