I figured I could go over Gulenko's crap slowly and painfully. One at a time.
You must think in terms of some math. It is impossible not to. The goal of our study is to figure out inductively how you think.
***BTW, if reinens don't exist, this doesn't either. So take it with that in mind. Also, I am assuming it's true. This is heavy on the divorced from reality part, it just looks plausible enough to be true.
Space and Time. One person describes things in terms of space, and one person describes things in terms of time. I do time.
Negatavists and positivist. Positive likes happy. Negative doesn't care about happy. Good? There's implications from that, like happy things not cheering up negativists, while negative things deactivate positivists. Not now.
Order v Chaos. Do you read from the middle and go to the beginning, just to reread the middle? If no, you are ordered, like me. I absolutely refuse to read out of order. I will skip around if I feel like it, but there is an order of operations.
From that, we get how many options? Hold on. How do we get four options from three binary sets of variables? It should be six. Oh well. I'll check his math latter. ((I know why it might be like that))
I am actually breathing hard as I do this, as it is a lot.
Casual Determinist is basically I think therefore I am. If you think like that, then you are casual determinist.
ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
Therefore, Descartes is one of those people. I'm not worrying about it.
This is where SEE will ask a million questions to fulfill their need for massive amounts of information to come to a conclusion.
LSI will declare something stupid that they came up with in a few seconds, that everyone else will applaud, as it's impossible to disprove.
ILE will ask something so divorced from the conversation, and then spend their lives arguing it in their heads.
EII will declare something like this. "I am on a walk with friends, therefore I am happy". They can and will fit their emotion to whatever it should be as a part of this conclusion. They will also apply this externally to other people, and use this information to determine how they should feel.
IF then. Similar to I think therefore I am, is If I think, I exist.
Big part of the difference is I don't know if I think. I believe I am this one.
If I do not know if something is true or false, what do I do? Consider neither as true or false. As such, I will consider every option in turn as plausible or implausible.
ILI. I think I got that one there.
EIE. They're gonna be like "If he does not do x, he's gonna have a problem" "If he does do x, he's not gonna have a problem". "If I tell him x, he'll might do x, he might do y." And then they'll tell me what I've been neglecting. I'll be like, yes, I understand, and then not do it. Then they get angry. Supervision.
LSE: You ever heard a stirlitz joke?
"Stirlitz opened a door. The lights went on. Stirlitz closed the door. The lights went out. Stirlitz opened the door again. The light went back on. Stirlitz closed the door. The light went out again. “It’s a fridge,” concluded Stirlitz."
Basically, he has to go through the mental gymnastics of confirming material.
SEI: They think in terms of emotions. If I feel fat, throw a fit about not exercising enough. Inverse as well. It looks irrational, and ridiculous to me.
SLE, LII, IEE, ESI.This one is related to switch case. https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_switch.asp
It's basically jumping between different phases of a problem. Like rotating a cube to see the hidden face instantaneously.
You can write switch case in if then statements.
However, switch case processes differently.
ESI - We have three people, each with their different interpersonal relationships, I'm going to go through each and all of them, and figure out what it is by jumping between options. Overachievers of relationship knowledge, tbh.
IEE - Similar deal, we have three people, each with their different interpersonal relationships, I'm going hop between each of them, talk to them, and generally harass them until they fit my special idea on how it should be, while ignoring some part of it that I missed.
LII - Have you considered it from this completely rational but incomprehensible point of view?
SLE - They're advancing with the infantry, charge with the cavalry. Oh wait they stopped, halt the cavalry. They charged with the cavalry and it worked, charge with the cavalry. Wait stop it didn't work. Fire with the artillery.
Chaos in motion. This is actually how I seem to work, however, I have concluded it is not this. I could be wrong. Either way, it's mirror of If then in all cases, I believe, so if I'm wrong and I am this, then I'm not very wrong.
This one also is probably not apt for a mental process description.
IEI - Running around frantically doing who know what? He does, it's insane.
LIE - Running around frantically doing who knows what? He doesn't. Still works.
SLI - Basically the most chaotic of people. Picks up a hammer, hits a nail, and the entire shed falls into place. There's a story about a guy who had a broken washing machine. Basically, this engineer was scrambling all over the place to design a fix. He put shunt in, and it got it working again.
ESE - Chaos emotionally. Imagine that you feel happy all the time, someone pisses you off, and then you rage. It looks funny to someone outside, as you just exploded. I can't describe emotions in terms of words tho.
Discussion. Is this good? Is it BS? I don't know.