Dialectical-Algorithmic thinking

[munenori2]

I'll ask some questions about dialectical-algorithmic (DA). Why is the formula if-then-else indicative of it? How does that formula relate to dealing with oppositions, if at all? If DA is not a form of synthesis, then what is it? That is ...

Does DA have anything to do with cognitive dissonance? Would a goal of DA be to see oppositions and seek a middle way, or a means to blend them to create something new? Or would it allow for oppositions and unblendables and let them coexist, even if they are not reconcilable?

Also, would DA possibly relate to what is known as Rogerian argumentation? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogerian_argument). This is a form of argument, or a rhetorical strategy, in which both or all "sides" of a matter are developed fully. The person using this forum of argument assesses the usefulness and accuracy of different viewpoints and tries to find a fair common ground. I wonder if there might be established rhetorical forms in general that best fit the four cognitive styles.

(And speaking of that, now I also wonder what Rogers's type is: http://www.google.fr/search?q=carl+r...w=1202&bih=525)

What would be some real-world applications of DA? And how would it manifest differently in the different sociotypes Gulenko says employ it?

The way I see it, D-A is sort of about holding multiple lines of reasoning in mind without much regard for their particular truth values as such (as phenomena are intrinsically viewed as hard to fully encapsulate and, thus only ever approximate). There's concern for internal consistency, but it's a creative endeavor that pulls things into some sort of cohesive amalgam. Apparent contradictions are brought into line with an eye towards preserving belief systems in a greater, holistic sense. In some respects it's a how-do-I-make-this-and-this-fit, but it also has a way of taking any reasoning and postulating contrary argumentation as a means of back and forth building. If this then this else some other set of events/factors/explanations that reloops and is reevaluated. Some might say it's a very unskeptical way of dealing with various beliefs, but I'd characterize it as chiefly doubtful in a way that any reasonings are equally suspect and thus worthy of consideration and involvement as a means of finding some wider truth by means of collision of opposites. It views all things as being related, reconcilable, particularly in areas that are most apparently paradoxical.

I'm not sure I'm saying precisely what I want to say or all I want to say here, but that's what I have after 9 shots of vodka.

[golden]

The way I see it, D-A is sort of about holding multiple lines of reasoning in mind without much regard for their particular truth values as such. There's concern for internal consistency, but it's a creative endeavor that pulls things into some sort of cohesive amalgam. Apparent contradictions are brought into line with an eye towards preserving belief systems. In some respects it's a how-do-I-make-this-and-this-fit, but it also has a way of taking any reasoning and postulating contrary argumentation as a means of back and forth building. If this then this else some other set of events/factors that reloops and is reevaluated. Some might say it's a very unskeptical way of dealing with various beliefs, but I'd characterize it as chiefly doubtful in a way that any reasonings are equally suspect and thus worthy of consideration and involvement as a means of finding some wider truth by means of collision of opposites. It views all things as being related, reconcilable, particularly in areas that are most apparently paradoxical.

I'm not sure I'm saying precisely what I want to say or all I want to say here, but that's what I have after 9 shots of vodka.

Like it. Thanks.

[Metaphor]

By the way, just to keep in mind that "if-then-else" associative thinking also works in Ni in general, and is not necessarily correlated to the cognition style to an extent. However, as if it really has a correlation, then it'd dialectically be an algorithmic form of thinking which is known as a Dialectical-Algorithmic. Albeit, that doesn't mean if-then-else only works on cognition style in general, since Socionics Ni is really that associative or contemplative towards the thinking form that doesn't involve a direct conclusion according to the cause of effect. The difference between Causal-Deterministic and Dialectical-Algorithmic can be formulated with an ontological approach, as in, gambling or the probability according to the chances of if-then-else in possibilities, so there should be a breath of space rather than the Causal-Deterministic.