Vortical-Synergetic types attachment to larger activities

[Delilah]

Is it common for them to attach themselves to a larger sort of activity?

I notice I generate a lot of activity which seems to attract the attention of some synergist thinkers.

I'd had the impression from theory that synergists create their own sort of activity yet it doesn't seem so in my experience, it seems they tag themselves along to something larger than their own activity. Have you noticed something of the sort since I'm having some issues with keeping my activity free from interference so to speak ?

[Aylen]

Would this be in alignment with you idea of synergist thinking?

This is what I call "synergistic" thinking as opposed to more conventional "imperative" thinking. Before I start explaining both of them, let me once again reiterate that there is absolutely no implication about which kind of thinking is "better" or "superior" or whatever than the other.

Both thinking processes start with a trigger – an event or an idea or sensory inputs which triggers a thought process. Imperative thinking proceeds in a "logical" fashion and deduces one conclusion after another. Highly focused imperative thinkers put enormous energy into this imperative thought process and proceed onto thinking about finest details starting from the initial idea. Imperative thinking is very good at creating "actionables" – specific and clearly defined action points that need to be performed in order to achieve a particular objective.

Synergistic thinking on the other hand starts off differently. Given a trigger (an idea, event or sensory input) synergistic thinkers start off several processes – each addressing a different facet of this trigger. Each process then proceeds autonomously, forking off other processes if required. The synergistic thinking process ends when the thinker sees a larger harmony or synergy emerging from all these different processes. They have a very good idea of the overall topology of the cognitive landscape, while they may not be very good at specifying clearly defined actionables.

In fact, many synergistic thinkers don't see the need for actionables, and are put off by rules and processes that they consider to be too fine-grained. Synergistic thinking has created a map in their minds and they can't understand why someone is specifying a particular path in great detail.

Perhaps one of the extreme examples of synergistic thinkers was the mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan who could conjure up sophisticated and intricate results in number theory just like that. About whom, the Cambridge mathematician Hardy described as someone “who didn't understand the need for proofs.”

Imperative thinking can be thought of as "how to" (reach a certain destination) thinking, while synergistic thinking can be thought of as "what is" (the nature of the larger system) thinking.

For a long time, this kind of thinking was seen as a “weakness” of sorts. (I guess it still is, in some circles). It was as though, synergistic thinkers cannot “control” their thoughts and “focus” on one thing. Besides, concepts like harmony and synergy lacked formal definitions.

Only recently I think we are able to understand (at least I am able to) how to formally define harmony. A synergistic process is a process of optimization. There are several logical processes, each thinking away along its own path and often producing implications that conflict with that of other processes. Then there is an overall global process of selection that seeks to minimize these conflicts. Harmony or synergy is a system state where conflicts among the processes are minimized.

While imperative thinking is about deduction, synergistic thinking is about optimization. There you are, at least now, I hope synergistic thinkers would get some bhav.

Synergistic thinking theory also explains why OCD suffers are often hypersensitive about certain things – especially issues like morality. When there are several processes going off in their own directions, harmony or synergy is achieved by focusing on the invariants in the system. These are properties of the system that remain unchanged in the larger picture even the system is undergoing several transformations (like laws of physics and Vicco Vajradanti ads ;-). Morality is essentially the invariant set of societal norms across cultures and time. It is these invariants that help us formulate appropriate behavioural strategies when faced with a new culture or when faced with large-scale changes happening in our life or the society. It is no wonder then that the synergistic thinker seeks to understand these invariants very closely.

It is also not that all synergistic thinkers are alike. Firstly, the different facets along which processes are forked may differ from thinker to thinker based on what they have been exposed to. Secondly, optimization processes are prone to this problem called local optima. These are system states which are not optimal, but are the best given a small set of other surrounding alternatives. Synergistic thinkers may end up in different local optima, even though they have the same kind of exposure and are working under the same set of underlying values.

Historically, one of the major impediments to synergistic thinking is the difficulty in communicating the harmony that is seen by one thinker to others. But with high-speed computers and advances in visualization techniques, hopefully synergistic thinking will get its rightful place in the scheme of things.

https://randomgraphs.blogspot.com/20...-thinking.html

I suppose it would depend if they were extroverted or introverted people to begin with. I do not relate to attaching myself to others activities. Can you give an example?

[Delilah]

For example: a couple of years ago I was doing some research and it got some people interested but working alongside was annoying for me, like lots of micromanaging, and all in all it came across to me as interference, also attempting to change the direction of things (i can't get into too many details).

What you pasted is okay, but i'd hoped to get something in feedback from what people have observed in daily activities etc.

[Delilah]

For the record, changing the direction things are going is okay sometimes, but for me I have a timeframe in mind and have to be accountable to myself what i did with that time so prefer no-interference if that makes sense. Like i get really stressed out and frustrated if the changes a third party is trying to introduce detract to a really large extent from initial purposes

[Aylen]

For example: a couple of years ago I was doing some research and it got some people interested but working alongside was annoying for me, like lots of micromanaging, and all in all it came across to me as interference, also attempting to change the direction of things (i can't get into too many details).

What you pasted is okay, but i'd hoped to get something in feedback from what people have observed in daily activities etc.

I just wanted to clarify we were talking about the same concept or if you were talking about Gulenko's ideas specifically.

"The fourth cognitive style: it is synthetic, positive, and inductive. Its most appropriate title is Vortical-Synergetic. This form flows in Sociotypes ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI."

I am sure I am synergist thinker>imperative thinker but as far as all the interference and micromanaging of others, I can't see myself getting that involved in other people's processes. I feel like I am literally in my own world (as in I see it all inside me while contemplating) and sometimes pull others into it with me.

Hope you get the answers you are looking for.

[FDG]

If I remember correctly, synergistic thinkers are described as having tendencies like "the more they do, the more they will do, the less they do, the less they will keep on doing", manly because it's the nature of being result and positivist.

[Delilah]

I feel like I am literally in my own world (as in I see it all inside me while contemplating) and sometimes pull others into it with me.
.

This is what i was wondering, like i'd assumed from theory synergist thinkers (yes, Gulenko) generate their own activity and pull others along, but ime and maybe this might be a different type than yours, they also can get pulled along in others activities but turn it towards different ends and purposes. For me this turned into a disaster - like by the end of it we couldn't even stand each other it went that poorly

[Aylen]

This is what i was wondering, like i'd assumed from theory synergist thinkers (yes, Gulenko) generate their own activity and pull others along, but ime and maybe this might be a different type than yours, they also can get pulled along in others activities but turn it towards different ends and purposes. For me this turned into a disaster - like by the end of it we couldn't even stand each other it went that poorly

I imagine there was more going on here, without knowing your situation I got a head full of dark gray clouds when I read your response. :/

Have you looked into specific intertype relations for more information? I can't say I have experienced this to any degree, worth noting, interacting with other VS thinkers. Maybe an ego clash here and there but for the most part our interests are so different that I didn't find myself getting pulled into anything they were working on. It is probably because of my introversion and lack of mutual interests.

The closest to anything like this I can remember was with an EIE who would always take over and try to change and refine ideas I had and present them as his own but would credit me as being his muse, his greatest inspiration. It was highly irritating sometimes because he was a true narcissist. I didn't even care he was completely distorting my ideas/work but he took it further and assumed he always knew what I was feeling too. I am not suggesting in any way that is what you were dealing with.

I spent some time reflecting on what happened after that. Fortunately I have not met another like him. I do think I could handle it better now.

[Delilah]

If I remember correctly, synergistic thinkers are described as having tendencies like "the more they do, the more they will do, the less they do, the less they will keep on doing", manly because it's the nature of being result and positivist.

Thanks!_Also__I_recall_another_summary_as_"placing_yourse lf_in_the_middle_of__the_activity_generated"_PS:ke yboard_issues

[Delilah]

The closest to anything like this I can remember was with an EIE who would always take over and try to change and refine ideas I had and present them as his own but would credit me as being his muse, his greatest inspiration. It was highly irritating sometimes because he was a true narcissist. I didn't even care he was completely distorting my ideas/work but he took it further and assumed he always knew what I was feeling too. I am not suggesting in any way that is what you were dealing with.

I spent some time reflecting on what happened after that. Fortunately I have not met another like him. I do think I could handle it better now.

Yes, something like that though i don't know about the narcissism etc part, only that general taking over and redirecting ideas though EIEs are a different thinking style; Thanks, this is still helpful to me,

[FDG]

Thanks!_Also__I_recall_another_summary_as_"placing_yourse lf_in_the_middle_of__the_activity_generated"_PS:ke yboard_issues

Yeah. Doesn't always work well though, I see the difference with ESIs who kind of just "keep on going" when they start something, sometimes after keeping on going you generate a good outcome, whereas I would be more likely to quickly shift strategy if my actions don´t quickly lead to decent results.

[niffer]

@Delilah .

I have noticed what you've described in some sense. I see it as, them doing both-- you need to latch onto something first in order to expand your own whirlwind. I think what's annoying you really is other factors than what's got to do with that. I think what you're actually experiencing is frustration over too much undirected Te help, which can easily stifle some IEIs and get them to clam up.

[Delilah]

@niffer it could be a multitude of other factors bothering me but the main gist was the overtaking of the project to a large extend - like by the end of it the original questions and concerns i'd come up with had not even been explored since it'd been diverted so much. Maybe food for thought if another case like this comes up. thanks.

[Delilah]

If I remember correctly, synergistic thinkers are described as having tendencies like "the more they do, the more they will do, the less they do, the less they will keep on doing", manly because it's the nature of being result and positivist.

I just remembered that i'd noticed SLIs for instance seem not so good at coming up with their own goals so they sort of compare with others situationally and even compete with w/e goals there seem to be available in present company - which to me comes across as leeching even sometimes lol; Maybe LIEs and other synergistic types are different in that they come up with their own goals more easily ?