Cognitive styles
Hi guys! Questions by someone that have read about Cognitive styles by DarkAngelFireWolf69 only few hours ago.
How they model psyche?
It's like functions in socionics, that are present all in the human psyche but in different strenght?
Can you train/use one that isn't your natural in a good way? How?
Ok, please provide process and infosTy!
If the elements are all present to varying degrees then the reinin dichotomies might be then the cognitive styles might be. I'm not the one to answer this but I'm amused at the thought of some socionically ambitious alpha NT puzzling it out.
Technically yes, you can view the IM elements as groups of types (Ti = {LSI, LII}, Te = {LSE, LIE}, ...) so another division of types can also be viewed as "elements" that correspond to new "functions" that we use in particular ways. The dynamic interpretation automatically becomes valid if you accept the existence of a sixteen function model. So e.g. the Dynamic Positivist ring would correspond to the processing of dynamic positive information ({+Fe, +Si, +Te, +Ni}). The same applies for other Reinin groups that are based on relationships.Originally Posted by lump
But note that supervision rings are actually a normal subgroup of the socion, so you can't have a "creative function" that would distinguish within the groups. So it's a strictly less specific, more generalized model.
"Cognitive styles" is just a DarkAngelFireWolf69an rebranding of the supervision rings that interprets them in a particular way. A way that in my opinion is speculative and has little to do with classical socionics.
Last edited by Exodus; 10-25-2017 at 12:37 AM.
Yes, you can use different forms of thinking beyond your main one. There are three key dichotomies based on but varying from some Reinin traits that make the cognitive styles:Hi guys! Questions by someone that have read about Cognitive styles by DarkAngelFireWolf69 only few hours ago.
How they model psyche?
It's like functions in socionics, that are present all in the human psyche but in different strenght?
Can you train/use one that isn't your natural in a good way? How?
Ok, please provide process and infos
Static/Dynamic (State vs change/movement)
Convergent/Divergent (aka Positive/Negative showing tendency to converge onto a single solution, or branch out into separate solutions) and
Analytic/Holistic (aka Process/Result, also could be described as deduction vs gestalt)
CD = Static, convergent, analytic
VS = Dynamic, convergent, holistic
H = Static, divergent, holistic
DA= Dynamic, divergent, analytic
So, while in one method of thinking, switching to another requires a kind of frame switch. Say you're thinking in CD style: most easily represented by IF-THEN style thinking - chains of reasoning converging to a single solution, to switch to DA you'll have to allow those chains to diverge away from that solution into other possibilities - with the easiest way to do this is to introduce a clause. As in, if this is not true, and this other thing is true, then this other possibility emerges. I don't know how to illustrate that as a dynamic process besides thinking of it as a flowchart with the different options creating a moving system.
To switch from CD to H requires taking a step back away from the process. You're no longer looking at the details of how one thing leads to the next and now you're trying to capture an overview of the whole thing from different angles, but still in static form, like a literal hologram.
And so on. These are just some of my thoughts about it. Imo, it's certainly possible to think in each of the different ways, but usually one comes more naturally and the ease of switching would have to do with how strongly entrenched you are in each particular style. If you are very static in your thinking you might have a more difficult time switching to dynamic for example and if very much inclined to compare choices and think of options, or things that could go wrong, etc, then narrowing things down to a single solution might be harder to do than if you're only mildly inclined to do that.
I think DarkAngelFireWolf69's goal with Forms of Cognition was to explain how types output information. Information exchange. It's related to Supervision rings.
To use LII-IEE as an example: They both employ Holographical-Panoramic cognition style (Static, Negativist, Evolutionary). If the LII were to advise the IEE, the IEE would be receptive to the LII's advice because they're speaking the same language. But if an LSI were to do the same, it'd be like listening to a French dude attempt to teach you something in his native tongue. You won't understand him. You may even find it offensive that he's speaking to you in a language you don't understand, especially since you already told him you don't understand what he's saying. But he doesn't speak English, so...
If I were to use the Positivism-Negativism dichotomy as an example:It's like functions in socionics, that are present all in the human psyche but in different strenght?
Can you train/use one that isn't your natural in a good way? How?
Negativism isn't negative. Negativism is noticing the lack of something. But it can be misinterpreted as "negative", in the colloquial sense of the term. Positivists tend to build on what's already there. Negativists may seem like Positivists (on the surface) in situations which lack something positive in nature. So if everyone is suggesting negative interpretations, then the Negativist - noticing that there's a lack of positive interpretations - will suggest a positive interpretation. It's probably similar for the rest of the dichotomies. So I imagine that they're capable of creating a product similar to that of their contrary dichotomy, but the method they used to create that product would still be firmly grounded in the usage of their most natural dichotomy.
If you believe in neuroplasticity then yes, it's possible to re-brand your psyche. But I think a few people have already stated that it's possible to switch between different cognition styles, but I don't know which specific set of circumstances need to be at play in order for that phenomenon to take effect. Your cognition style is just that, it's the cognition style that comes most naturally to you. You can try the others on for size but you'll still prefer yours.
I almost wonder if cognition styles are a natural byproduct of a chemical reaction that takes place between you and your environment. The tiny imperceptible changes that your behavior inadvertently creates in your environment. Ripple effects that birth a tsunami. LIE are known to be naturally chaotic, so maybe their Vortical-Synergetic cognition style formed in order for them to be able to deal with and handle all the chaos surrounding them.
Didn't find a better place to post this question but curious about input.
What cognitive style would this be if any?
Noting one observation with a conclusion, then, as if jumping to another point, noting another observation with another conclusion that adds to the first one but is not the same as the first one, could even seem contradictory to it on the surface. Then repeat this a few times until a picture is built of the points of observation-conclusion bits. The picture with these points is about some tangible object or situation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote