# Gulenko's cognitive model and function differentiation



## Swiftstar (Dec 29, 2010)

How would Gulenko's model of cognitive styles (DA, HP, etc.) work for those with undifferentiated functions or ambiverts? Would certain cognitive styles still prevail depending on how differentiated/undifferentiated your ego functions are, sort of like a spectrum, or would they just not apply to the individuals at all? 

Also:
I find the evolutionary-involutionary or process-result dichotomy in Socionics pretty fascinating, but I think that the 16types/wikisocion article only provides detail to those who are very sure of their type, or maybe because its examples are strange/oddly specific for each type. Some of the speech styles, like "if-then" or "therefore" examples, sort of made sense, but this too seems kind of vague because I think that simple statements (and maybe because I'm looking at it very simply) such as these could be influenced by writing style or field of work, could it not? The former, programming, and the latter, mathematics, almost. Maybe I'm looking at this too narrowly as I admit that I don't quite understand each style. Additionally, I am not sure if the examples given were the best because most were kind of trivial to me.

Help?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I strongly identify with DA but then again, I'm pretty differentiated. I don't really subscribe to studying people's language use because you wouldn't necessarily see how my brain always operates in these if-then-else unless I would lay out my entire reasoning process to you and I usually don't. I tend to first explore one option before I move to another option and if that first option leads to more options then I am likely to explore that entire route first before I even go back to explore the other side of the crossroad. My thinking as Gulenko also correlates it to, is very similar to flowcharts (flowcharts operate on algorithms). In retrospect this paragraph does seem very if-then-else though lol. 

I don't tend to focus on cognitive styles when typing people though, and I think that differentiation as you asked it, matters in such a sense in that the more differentiated you are the more you will fit a particular cognitive style. ILI-Te would have more VS traits because LIEs are VS for example.


----------



## Swiftstar (Dec 29, 2010)

Yeah, I suppose you can't really see how someone thinks unless they explain it to you, as you usually only see the result. I guess depending on the situation, we can mimic some of the thinking styles he's described though not for an extended period of time, because it's not natural. Cause there are circumstances where I'm like, I have think this way, but it might not come naturally to me and I revert to thinking the way I'm used to, or I might have to think in a much more linear fashion, etc.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swiftstar said:


> Yeah, I suppose you can't really see how someone thinks unless they explain it to you, as you usually only see the result. I guess depending on the situation, we can mimic some of the thinking styles he's described though not for an extended period of time, because it's not natural. Cause there are circumstances where I'm like, I have think this way, but it might not come naturally to me and I revert to thinking the way I'm used to, or I might have to think in a much more linear fashion, etc.


I notice that my thinking changes depending on the elements I am engaging more consciously. Even Reinin change. When I engage Se and Fi I become strategical over my otherwise tactical approach. I set my mind on this particular goal and it's almost like it's the end of world if I can't have it. I already described it in the delta thread I think. Usually I would be able to think about other ways of how to accomplish something since I am more focused on the intermediary set points rather than the overall result, but not when I set on my mind on something like that. As an interesting contrast, of course the gf also changes her cognition and suddenly becomes more tactical when she engages Ni and Te to tell me that I can do so many other things to get there and it's not the end of the world even tough it feels like it.

Dualization is quite peculiar like that. Not sure how it applies to other type interactions because I currently only speak to duals and identicals on a somewhat regular basis.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Swiftstar said:


> How would Gulenko's model of cognitive styles (DA, HP, etc.) work for those with undifferentiated functions or ambiverts? Would certain cognitive styles still prevail depending on how differentiated/undifferentiated your ego functions are, sort of like a spectrum, or would they just not apply to the individuals at all?


There's not such thing as "undifferentiated" functions. All functions are differentiated from an early age when a baby already needs to learn how to walk, talk, live by a certain time schedule (2-3 years of age). 

Were you talking about functional "filling" rather than "differentiation"? The filling periods are different (0-10 years base; 10-20 years creative, etc.) but that doesn't change the overall cognitive style. Cognitive style depends only on the positioning of elements and functions on Model A. Since their order or positioning doesn't change, so doesn't the cognitive style change.

Ambiversion: doesn't exist in socionics. You're either introvert or extrovert according to your leading function.



Swiftstar said:


> Also:
> I find the evolutionary-involutionary or process-result dichotomy in Socionics pretty fascinating, but I think that the 16types/wikisocion article only provides detail to those who are very sure of their type, or maybe because its examples are strange/oddly specific for each type. Some of the speech styles, like "if-then" or "therefore" examples, sort of made sense, but this too seems kind of vague because I think that simple statements (and maybe because I'm looking at it very simply) such as these could be influenced by writing style or field of work, could it not? The former, programming, and the latter, mathematics, almost. Maybe I'm looking at this too narrowly as I admit that I don't quite understand each style. Additionally, I am not sure if the examples given were the best because most were kind of trivial to me.


Using grammatical conjunction "or-or" and "if-then-else" hasn't worked well for me. These are too common use in the conventional lexicon. I think Gulenko has given these examples trying to demonstrate the general direction of thoughts inside a person's head. He wasn't saying "type everyone who have used an "or" into an HP type" which is how these passages are commonly misinterpreted.

My advice is to get some practice identifying them. Pick your favorite authors, read their biography, try to figure out their type. Then read their works, contrast and compare how they structure their writing and their thoughts. If you're not sure of your typing skills, there are some type benchmarks like the writings of Einstein would provide you with an example of CD cognitive style (ILE) while Kant and anything written by Gulenko would be an example of HP cognitive style (LII).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> There's not such thing as "undifferentiated" functions. All functions are differentiated from an early age when a baby already needs to learn how to walk, talk, live by a certain time schedule (2-3 years of age).


The OP is referring to the actual Jungian idea of differentation. I don't know where socionics stands on the matter, but Jung definitely claimed that not everyone had to be clearly differentiated and based on my observations I would also say this is true, which is supported by the fact that not everyone within the same type actually gives the elements in their TIM the same providence in terms of metabolism.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> The OP is referring to the actual Jungian idea of differentation. I don't know where socionics stands on the matter, but Jung definitely claimed that not everyone had to be clearly differentiated and based on my observations I would also say this is true, which is supported by the fact that not everyone within the same type actually gives the elements in their TIM the same providence in terms of metabolism.


In that case it is a confusion between "a function" and "functional informational filling". The function itself (the informational channel) and information that fills it aren't the same thing. I would say that everyone has differentiated functions (channels), but the "filling" of those channels with appropriate information won't be the same for all people and would depend on their environment. This is where you'd see differences. But it's not accurate to refer to any lapses in "informational filling" that may have occured as "undifferentiated functions".

If the functions were undifferentiated and "clumped" or "fused" together for children, they couldn't learn, talk, walk, make friends, do all the usual things that kids do. A child needs sensing and intuition as early as 1 year of age -- to learn how to walk and coordinate their movements, how to orient in space and time. Children need ethical functions to be able to recognize their family members, make friends and play with other children as early as 4-5 years of age. From this it sensible to assume that people have all their information channels differentiated and ready to absorb learning experiences by very early age i.e. by the time they start attending grade school. Otherwise I don't see how they could function.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> In that case it is a confusion between "a function" and "functional informational filling". The function itself (the informational channel) and information that fills it aren't the same thing. I would say that everyone has differentiated functions (channels), but the "filling" of those channels with appropriate information won't be the same for all people and would depend on their environment. This is where you'd see differences. But it's not accurate to refer to any lapses in "informational filling" that may have occured as "undifferentiated functions".
> 
> If the functions were undifferentiated and "clumped" or "fused" together for children, they couldn't learn, talk, walk, make friends, do all the usual things that kids do. A child needs sensing and intuition as early as 1 year of age -- to learn how to walk and coordinate their movements, how to orient in space and time. Children need ethical functions to be able to recognize their family members, make friends and play with other children as early as 4-5 years of age. From this it sensible to assume that people have all their information channels differentiated and ready to absorb learning experiences by very early age i.e. by the time they start attending grade school. Otherwise I don't see how they could function.


I understand what you are saying but I wonder if that's a really correct assertion to make as to how a type would operate since just noticing objects in the world through the five senses does not necessarily equal to sensation.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> I understand what you are saying but I wonder if that's a really correct assertion to make as to how a type would operate since just noticing objects in the world through the five senses does not necessarily equal to sensation.


I'm not talking about just awareness but interpretation and learning. You'd need sensation to interpret information coming from your senses, or cognizant awareness wouldn't be possible. The mind needs to channel, structure, and interpret information it's receiving from the senses somehow -- and that has to start happening at a very early age.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> I'm not talking about just awareness but interpretation and learning. You'd need sensation to interpret information coming from your senses, or cognizant awareness wouldn't be possible. The mind needs to channel, structure, and interpret information it's receiving from the senses somehow -- and that has to start happening at a very early age.


I see, though do they need to be of conscious character? Most children are not highly self-aware as it is a development process.


----------



## Swiftstar (Dec 29, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Using grammatical conjunction "or-or" and "if-then-else" hasn't worked well for me. These are too common use in the conventional lexicon. I think Gulenko has given these examples trying to demonstrate the general direction of thoughts inside a person's head. He wasn't saying "type everyone who have used an "or" into an HP type" which is how these passages are commonly misinterpreted.


Ah no, of course not. As you've said, these are pretty common phrases that are used, and the idea behind them, i.e. the logic or characteristic thought patterns they follow, would be the indicator of the cognitive style. I suppose I just didn't find the wiki very well written and as I said, the examples seemed overly specific in a way that didn't quite fit with my understanding, though I'm probably just over thinking it. I've seen good examples of VS and CD from personal experience and in media (less so in writing, however), but overall I'm not too familiar with the rest.

Regarding the informational filling bit, yes that's what I meant by function differentiation, as @ephemereality said. Is there a reason why Socionics doesn't account for ambiversion?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swiftstar said:


> Ah no, of course not. As you've said, these are pretty common phrases that are used, and the idea behind them, i.e. the logic or characteristic thought patterns they follow, would be the indicator of the cognitive style. I suppose I just didn't find the wiki very well written and as I said, the examples seemed overly specific in a way that didn't quite fit with my understanding, though I'm probably just over thinking it. I've seen good examples of VS and CD from personal experience and in media (less so in writing, however), but overall I'm not too familiar with the rest.


Could you provide with those examples too? I'm curious.



> Regarding the informational filling bit, yes that's what I meant by function differentiation, as @ephemereality said. Is there a reason why Socionics doesn't account for ambiversion?


I would say that contact subtype would essentially be the socionics version of ambiversion.


----------

