Results 1 to 40 of 48

Thread: Dialectical-Algorithmic thinking

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,009
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  2. #2
    you can go to where your heart is Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,458
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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