Insert any adjective/adverb/conjunction here and then we'll discuss

[Metaphor]

So, there is an article written by Gulenko about cognitive style and he explained that:

"because", "therefore", "consequently": Causal-Determinist
"if-then-else": Dialectical Algorithmic
"or-or", "either-or", "on the one hand, on the other hand": Holographical-Panoramic

But it's not really the end of it - I later found that "and", "and/or", "also" conjunctives, despite it wasn't explicity stated by Gulenko on his article, is constantly used by Vortical-Synergetic cognitive users. So, I've been wondering whether these conjunctives really are related to cognitive style or not. But that's not really the point of this discussion - there is a forum thread that asked about the usage of word "basically" in a sentence. Therefore, this leads me to a question: Are these words really related to types/elements in a way or it's just a mere coincidence?

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I use basically all of those.
I HAVE TRANSCENDED!
*heavenly sound effect*

(I'm pretty sure this is just more of G's BS)

[godslave]

"because", "therefore", "consequently": Causal-Determinist
"if-then-else": Dialectical Algorithmic
"or-or", "either-or", "on the one hand, on the other hand": Holographical-Panoramic

All those term have in commun the theme of "explanation". Those are explanatory terms. Ask yourself in which situation do you utilise the most those terms (all of them !) ? I don't think that the usage of those terms in both frequency and configuration (permutation) could be a hint to any form of cognition (at any level). We all use conjunctions they are part of our syntax and grammar. Sometimes one imposes itself over another, that's eloquence 101.

"because", "therefore", "consequently" : imply a previous information which lead to a result . We all use those terms esp "because" for it is the word our teachers (and caregivers) taught us to put in a sentence in order to answer a "Why" question.

"if-then-else": "if-then" implies conditional logic and we all think in those terms in certain situations. "else" implies a subsequent instruction.

"or-or", "either-or", "on the one hand, on the other hand" : imply a description of a state of situation. "or-or" (undefined equal potentiality) and "either-or (undefined mutual exclusion)

Like I said we all use those kind of reasoning when the situation demands it. The frequency or tendency of their usage (written of spoken) can be indicative of a style of communication like for instance figure of speech devices in literature.

[Metaphor]

I use basically all of those.
I HAVE TRANSCENDED!
*heavenly sound effect*

(I'm pretty sure this is just more of G's BS)

You are a god-like human who is better than Mr. G even.
(Thought so)

[Metaphor]

Like I said we all use those kind of reasoning when the situation demands it. The frequency or tendency of their usage (written of spoken) can be indicative of a style of communication like for instance figure of speech devices in literature.

As someone who learned linguistics, I couldn't agree more.

[Metamorph]

Gulenko types everyone into beta because of the cognitive styles. Ej types are always dialectical-algorithmic, Ij types are always causal-determinist, Ep types are always holographic-panoramic, Ip types are always vortical-synergistic. The idea that, say, SEI is dialectical-algorithmic, or SEE is causal-determinist, is just absurd. Even in the case of delta Gulenko does not want to focus on cognitive styles since LSE and EII are clearly less focused on abstract cognitions than LSI and EIE, which seem more properly logical and more properly like the odd psychic sensitive Gulenko wants to type these types as. Cognitive styles is the worst and most wacko thing Gulenko designed, and he had to start typing all his supposed betas in DCNH to make up for the fact he made most of the type descriptions make no sense with his cognitive styles. That being said, of course language correlates to cognition, because language is cognition's basis.

[Metaphor]

Gulenko types everyone into beta because of the cognitive styles. Ej types are always dialectical-algorithmic, Ij types are always causal-determinist, Ep types are always holographic-panoramic, Ip types are always vortical-synergistic. The idea that, say, SEI is dialectical-algorithmic, or SEE is causal-determinist, is just absurd. Even in the case of delta Gulenko does not want to focus on cognitive styles since LSE and EII are clearly less focused on abstract cognitions than LSI and EIE, which seem more properly logical and more properly like the odd psychic sensitive Gulenko wants to type these types as. Cognitive styles is the worst and most wacko thing Gulenko designed, and he had to start typing all his supposed betas in DCNH to make up for the fact he made most of the type descriptions make no sense with his cognitive styles. That being said, of course language correlates to cognition, because language is cognition's basis.

Yeah, I don't agree to Gulenko's approach in using the cognitive style but I think he still got some important points about the cognition.
I have re-built my own for the sake of integrating it as the very last option when I got stuck into the rut with nowhere to go usually.
Therefore, imo, ILI as a dialectical-algorithmic already makes sense, for example, but his elaboration about it was poorly defined.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

hmm dunno. I do remember I got marked down on a paper once in school because I didn't use the word 'that' enough. I also remember this woman I didn't like, who I talked about on here before and I type her as a 4D Te LSE - she used 'that' quite a bit- so maybe there is something to it.

The Idea of That