# Gulenko's Cognitive Styles



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I still have no idea what my cognitive style is. I would say I'm better at recognizing when something is illogical or doesn't agree with what I think is valuable (which is self-evident to me and doesn't require a thinking strategy), finding relevant information, and generating potential interpretations than I am at actually solving problems or putting all the information together to come to a conclusion. Which is exactly why my strategy has been to present as much information as I can about my cognition in the hopes that someone else will be able to put the pieces together for me. 

But when I try to figure my type out on my own, it's like...

Type X involves aspects 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11
Type Y involves aspects 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10
Type Z involves aspects 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11

And I relate to aspects blahblahblahinsertaspectshere.

Which doesn't match up perfectly with any of the types. And it's complicated because not all aspects are necessarily of equal importance, and I don't relate to all of them to an equal degree. If I try to use all the pieces to put together the puzzle as if they're all important and necessary, I get a picture that doesn't seem to correspond to any type. And if I use only some of the pieces, then there are multiple ways I could put the puzzle together depending on which pieces I choose, and I don't know how to tell which ones I should use.

So I basically need someone to help me actually come to conclusions when the data seems ambiguous.

Does this point toward any of the cognitive styles?


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Trying to read through and understand this is making my brain short circuit. The connections and tangents he makes and how they relate to each style is difficult to sift through. This is my hazy understanding though:


Causal-Determinist: Very syllogistic, cause and effect thinking. Stable, clear, and looking to reach a single conclusion. 
Dialectic-Algorithmic: Thinks in terms of formulas, adjusting them continually to sort out inconsistencies and paradoxes. 
Holographic-Panoramic: Looks at an object from every angle to get the complete picture. Sees how each part produces the whole. Forms multiple conclusions but all of them are puzzle pieces to understanding the object. 
Vortical-Synergetic: Haphazard, trial-and-error thinking that is looking for a single conclusion/path but can easily change course. Thinking that evolves over time. 

As to how any of this apply to me...I really don't know. Going through each dichotomy, I could see a bit of myself in everything. And I don't know about anyone else, but examining my own thinking is really difficult. I just...think. Any sense of how I come to a conclusion fades away before I can analyze it. Basically I feel like my mind works kinda like this:



Takes in new information or reviews previous information. 
Brain does something with it. 
??? 
Profit. 

Though if there is any clue, there was this interesting experience I had in my high school physical science class. As a study aid, the teacher made a little flow chart on the board to show how bigger, general concepts/categories break down into smaller concepts/categories regarding the subject we were studying at the time. To show what I mean...









On the test, there was a portion with this chart completely blank. I don't think anyone was expecting it, but I easily remembered everything by reasoning it out. A lot of other people had problems with it, though. I would guess that I remembered it so easily because it matches how I actually think on some level, and maybe my style was the same as the teacher's.

In addition, I took a college linguistics course once and for homework, we had to do linguistics problems. Among them were breaking down sentences into parts. We would find phrases (such as prepositional phrases and noun phrases) and the continually break them down into their component parts. I had quite a bit of fun with this, and it seems to relate with the above. What style of thinking does this fit into?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

That chart looks like evolution to me by extrapolating details from a larger idea thus complexifying it. I think CD and DA types would identify the most with it. I don't understand what would make it difficult to remember?

@Silveresque based on the post above what you describe seems like HP cognition.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

-Ephemeral- said:


> That chart looks like evolution to me by extrapolating details from a larger idea thus complexifying it. I think CD and DA types would identify the most with it. I don't understand what would make it difficult to remember?


I think people may not have remembered the specific terms or where they went...or something.

I feel like I am equally capable using inductive and deductive logic. In fact, I once took a quiz someone posted on here testing logic and I missed a question because I used inductive logic instead of deductive logic. Yet I will also say that in my high school geometry class, there was a lesson on logical statements. I seemed to get it easily when a lot of other people seemed to have problems with it...and this was an _accelerated_ class.

Meh, I'll just list what I relate to in the descriptions for CD and DA:



CD description said:


> ...If even one link fails for any reason, then Determinists lose their sense of rationale and find it difficult to act because they see no reason to. *I can fall victim to all-or-nothing thinking pretty frequently.*
> 
> ...Its efficacy extends to the 'logical' formulation of already existing results, the construction of operating mechanisms, but not fundamentally new discoveries. *This sounds like a possible reason why I don't feel original or capable of inventing new ideas.*
> 
> ...Habits in pronounced Determinists are comparable in their rigidity to conditioned reflexes. *I tend to cry in response to stress, and this has been present since childhood. As much as I hate the idea that I could be easily brainwashed and conditioned, I wonder if this response is just very deep, rigid conditioning.*





DA description said:


> ...The disadvantages in Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition include instability and uncertainty. Algorithmics suffer from difficulty in making choices and embracing unambiguous decisions. This thinking is more comparable to a symphony of flowing interwoven imagery, rather than a mechanism of clearly established instruction sets. Another problem is increased criticality, which can be so high that it incurs self-destruction, plunging them into danger of total detachment from reality, and leading to mental disorders, especially in cases of hereditary predisposition. *I think this speaks for itself.*
> 
> ...They need only tune out their internal oscillation between freedom of choice and fatalism, and reinforce the latter. Doctors know that a small but accurately timed shock can throw the heart into a state of fibrillation. Likewise, a successfully directed signal at the right time can throw the Dialectical psyche into a chaotic state. *This really hits on how I fear having lack of free will, and the description of how DAs become stressed sounds like what happens whenever I get upset.*


This may not have anything to do with anything, though.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

-Ephemeral- said:


> @_Silveresque_ based on the post above what you describe seems like HP cognition.


Is it because I'm easily able to see all the variables? Like right now I'm thinking it could be true that I'm HP, but that depends on whether you correctly understood what I was describing and what I intended to convey (or as a different perspective on the same thing: whether I was able to adequately explain it in a way that could be understood), and whether you correctly understand HP. And even if those two are affirmative, it's still possible I might have a different cognitive style because cognition is flexible and there could still be one that fits even better. Or it might be the case that my cognitive style does not match my type. I think seeing all variables is a better way of putting it than what I said in my post this morning.

I wonder if I should be considering IEE, then. I've been leaning strongly toward delta lately, LSI would definitely fit as my conflictor, and I could see inferior Si as well. I'm hypersensitive to things that will affect me and can easily get depressed or upset over things like worrying I won't get enough sleep, or that I won't have enough free time for relaxation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> Is it because I'm easily able to see all the variables? Like right now I'm thinking it could be true that I'm HP, but that depends on whether you correctly understood what I was describing and what I intended to convey (or as a different perspective on the same thing: whether I was able to adequately explain it in a way that could be understood), and whether you correctly understand HP. And even if those two are affirmative, it's still possible I might have a different cognitive style because cognition is flexible and there could still be one that fits even better. Or it might be the case that my cognitive style does not match my type. I think seeing all variables is a better way of putting it than what I said in my post this morning.
> 
> I wonder if I should be considering IEE, then. I've been leaning strongly toward delta lately, LSI would definitely fit as my conflictor, and I could see inferior Si as well. I'm hypersensitive to things that will affect me and can easily get depressed or upset over things like worrying I won't get enough sleep, or that I won't have enough free time for relaxation.


Well, this entire post speaks for itself I think.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Trying to read through and understand this is making my brain short circuit. The connections and tangents he makes and how they relate to each style is difficult to sift through. This is my hazy understanding though:
> 
> 
> Causal-Determinist: Very syllogistic, cause and effect thinking. Stable, clear, and looking to reach a single conclusion.
> ...


Something static (analytic). So either Casual-Determinist or Holographic-Panoramic. You're able to take each part and fit it with the whole


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Really interesting, these cognitives styles. I relate to VS and HP. Example for a VS moment: in exams, if I have no plan, no exact idea what to do next, it is like I order some energy boost from the brain to just throw everything together very quickly to get to the next clue. 

But I don't really understand why the cognitive styles are distributed so neatly among the types (why not independent from types and functions?). 

Here and here is something about static/dynamic at least. Pi and Je are dynamic and Pe and Ji are static. Does anyone find these explanations plausible and could explain them better? One could also imagine that Se is more attentive to change and Si more about 'snapshots' or that interpersonal relationships can be perceived continuously changing...


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Holographic-Panoramic: Looks at an object from every angle to get the complete picture. Sees how each part produces the whole. Forms multiple conclusions but all of them are puzzle pieces to understanding the object.
> Vortical-Synergetic: Haphazard, trial-and-error thinking that is looking for a single conclusion/path but can easily change course. Thinking that evolves over time.


Ooh, I didn't see this before. This makes sense, thanks for writing this. I can see how VS cognition would be helpful to me because it's focused on coming to a single conclusion. And I can see how my cognition seems like HP and might be helpful to someone with VS because they might miss other possibilities but are receptive to them. VS is quick and HP is thorough. 

Anyways, I also remembered a post I wrote a few months ago that I think might be demonstrating HP cognition:


Silveresque said:


> I see it as people's perceptions of reality being unaligned. There is an objective whole picture of reality (which is literally everything that has happened externally and internally), but no one can see the whole picture directly. Furthermore, even if people did see the whole picture, they might not interpret it the same way.
> 
> An analogy of this would be if everyone were shown a drawing of a scene representing a certain concept within a system, but they are only shown 10% of the drawing. They can see bits and pieces here and there, but most of it is blank and missing. And everyone sees a different 10%, and no one can see anyone else's drawing.
> 
> Some might be able to extrapolate to see more of the scene, and guess what concept the scene is representing. But not everyone will interpret their piece of the drawing correctly, and everyone has a different idea of what this concept is supposed to look like. Even if people were able to get a clear idea of the what the whole scene must look like, they might not agree on what concept it's representing, because the concept looks different in every depiction. Unfortunately, there are no objectively measurable criteria that can determine which concept a scene is representing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dastan said:


> Really interesting, these cognitives styles. I relate to VS and HP. Example for a VS moment: in exams, if I have no plan, no exact idea what to do next, it is like I order some energy boost from the brain to just throw everything together very quickly to get to the next clue.
> 
> But I don't really understand why the cognitive styles are distributed so neatly among the types (why not independent from types and functions?).
> 
> Here and here is something about static/dynamic at least. Pi and Je are dynamic and Pe and Ji are static. Does anyone find these explanations plausible and could explain them better? One could also imagine that Se is more attentive to change and Si more about 'snapshots' or that interpersonal relationships can be perceived continuously changing...


They are like that because that's what the theory says. Change the definition and you are changing the way the theory fundamentally works. Je and Pi are dynamic because Je changes on context and Pi is unrelated to context, and Pe and Ji are static because Pe sees the context as is and Ji because it seeks universal laws that applies to all contexts. 

If you think they are interchangeable you clearly don't understand how the elements in socionics work.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

-Ephemeral- said:


> If you think they are interchangeable you clearly don't understand how the elements in socionics work.


I see, this more about the very basics. I didn't know that static/dynamic etc is part of the very core of the elements.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

-Ephemeral- said:


> They are like that because that's what the theory says. Change the definition and you are changing the way the theory fundamentally works. Je and Pi are dynamic because Je changes on context and Pi is unrelated to context, and Pe and Ji are static because Pe sees the context as is and Ji because it seeks universal laws that applies to all contexts.
> 
> If you think they are interchangeable you clearly don't understand how the elements in socionics work.


So when you can always see multiple correct answers and can never come to one conclusion because you can see how all possibilities fit, this is HP cognition?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

@TruthDismantled

I don't know if it's that way for everyone with HP cognition, but I think it's more about this:



> As Statics, Holographers attain reliable precision of thought. As Negativists they periodically turn the object of thought to its opposite side. As Involutionary types, they sporadically change the angle of examination or criterion of judgment.


*Turning the object to its opposite side:* When trying to figure out my type, I've noticed that at the beginning of considering a potential type, I look for all the ways it might fit. All the supporting evidence. Then, after a little while, I flip it around and start focusing on ways it doesn't fit. In problem solving it seems necessary to me to focus on the missing pieces and dissonance, otherwise whatever conclusion I come to is just confirmation bias.

*Changing the angle or criterion:* Like I said in my earlier post, I can't just look at the whole picture and decide, because the whole picture doesn't appear to correspond to any type. So the only way for me to understand the whole picture in a way that works and makes sense is to examine the parts. In order to put this puzzle together, I'm going to have to be selective about which pieces I use. And because I work this way, it makes sense that I should frequently change which puzzle pieces I focus on, because I don't really know the right combination.

*All of that combined with my Ne:* I could be blahblahblahtype, because blahblahblahstuff fits, but then there's still all of this stuff that doesn't fit. I wonder if it's possible to be this type and not relate to those things. Or maybe I do relate to them but simply don't understand them well enough to realize. Or maybe I broke socionics. But maybe I'm a different type. I still haven't ruled out those other types too because my Ne would rather expand possibilities and keep options open. Maybe Ne should learn to multitask. Wait, would it still be multitasking if one of the tasks involves limiting possibilities, thus reducing the number of tasks? Do I care about this? Probably not. Where was I...Oh yeah, possibilities. Hmm. Yeah, I see how I could be those types too, but then there's still stuff that doesn't fit for them as well. Am I simply not understanding these types correctly? Is there some kind of special rule or subtype I'm missing that would solve this issue? Wait, how would I even know if there were something I don't know about? Maybe I should be thinking about something more useful and productive, like how to actually SOLVE this. Maybe I'll ask everyone I know whatever questions happen to come to mind so I'll have more input to work with and think about. Actually I'm hungry. But lazy. I think I'll go ask my cat to make me a sandwich. In the meantime, more introspection sounds fun.  (See avatar)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

TruthDismantled said:


> So when you can always see multiple correct answers and can never come to one conclusion because you can see how all possibilities fit, this is HP cognition?


I think for LII they can come to a conclusion though. I think not finding conclusions is more something symptomatic of Ne bases in general in how they want to keep options open.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

-Ephemeral- said:


> I think for LII they can come to a conclusion though. I think not finding conclusions is more something symptomatic of Ne bases in general in how they want to keep options open.


Would certainly explain why I need to have all possibilities ruled out to stick with one! Also I can never explain something in linear, sequential order. When I'm explaining MBTI for instance, instead of specifically talking about what someone has asked I feel like I need to explain more and more for them to understand. So I shove a good few hours of understanding into 10 minutes and use the most abstract analogies to try and help them make sense of it. I'll skip lots of steps then fill in the gaps of something I was talking about 10 minutes prior lol. 

Though I question Ne-dom because I find it difficult to think on the spot. And when someone uses fallacies in arguments it can throw me off, and it basically turns into the other person throwing points at me and me explaining why their points are bs. Then they think they've won because they just keep on speaking and think quantity over quality is key lol. I need time to formulate my points.

I usually end up saying, "well how do you know?", "how did you end up at that conclusion?", "that could very well support conclusion B".


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> @_TruthDismantled_
> 
> I don't know if it's that way for everyone with HP cognition, but I think it's more about this:
> 
> ...


LOL, this is ME right here, and this is why I never feel like I get anywhere haha. Also why I am extremely indecisive and hate making decisions I can't change. What kind of career options appeal to you? If you're not yet where you want to be that is.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

TruthDismantled said:


> LOL, this is ME right here, and this is why I never feel like I get anywhere haha. Also why I am extremely indecisive and hate making decisions I can't change. What kind of career options appeal to you? If you're not yet where you want to be that is.


I'm studying counseling psychology. Photography appeals to me as well so I plan to try that as a hobby eventually and see if I can build up a portfolio. Maybe if I like it enough and am good at it, I could turn that into a career. I also considered doing something with foreign languages or teaching.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> I'm studying counseling psychology. Photography appeals to me as well so I plan to try that as a hobby eventually and see if I can build up a portfolio. Maybe if I like it enough and am good at it, I could turn that into a career. I also considered doing something with foreign languages or teaching.


Ahh I'm currently doing my Psychology degree, about to start my last year in September. I'm thinking of doing something related to forensics or biology or, if not, try and become a lecturer. 

Sounds good to me, good luck with your endeavors!


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Something static (analytic). So either Casual-Determinist or Holographic-Panoramic. You're able to take each part and fit it with the whole


I'm conflicted about where I fit exactly on the dichotomies, but maybe I'm just getting bogged down in details? It might be a better place to start than what I put in my last post though...

*Static vs Dynamic*: I feel like I can be both analytical and associative, though maybe I am just misunderstanding something here and identifying tendencies in myself that all humans have. Furthermore, the idea of space vs time doesn't make much sense to me, since I don't know how one would be bothered by empty space really. (Yet thinking about it, a completely empty room in my apartment would make me feel kinda weird.) I do see how one would be bothered by boredom/empty time, but I think everyone gets bored at times. Though I suppose if I get to the nitty-gritty here, static seems to be about stability vs instability. Stability of thought would naturally lend itself to clear categories, while instability of thought would not. I may lean more toward static according to this definition, since I do like things to be clearly defined. And if I may include another little detail from the descriptions, I don't really mess with stuff in my home too often...or with my online avatars. For example, I decided to change my icon on Tumblr to a different picture of Jinora once the Book 2 finale of The Legend of Korra aired, and a friend joked that they were facing an existential crisis because I changed my icon. XD

*Positivist vs Negativist: *One point in favor of me being a negativist is how I see contradictions in trying to fit myself into these categories. The descriptions make it sound like a matter of optimism vs pessimism, but I have read elsewhere that this is a vast oversimplification. Could it be more related to troubleshooting? Regardless, I feel like I do point out the problems with a situation more often than not (which is why counseling probably doesn't work well with me...so far). Yet at the same time, when I did work for school, I always wanted to make sure I had _the _right answer for something, but that may be more due to the nature of the educational system itself favoring convergent thinking (positivism) combined with my anxiety. I also feel like I easily categorize things into good/bad because I do not want to see the negative in the positive or the positive in the negative, which according to the article, seems more like positivist thinking? (Positivists easily hold overall views of objects?) I easily fall into all-or-nothing thinking, where even one bad thing can cause me to negate anything good. In terms of this dichotomy relating to people, I _want_ to believe and act as if people are good, but I sometimes I fear it isn't true.

*Evolution vs Involution*: Honestly? I feel like I could go in either direction if needed. I could complicate thinking and branch off from a single topic, or I could narrow things down and simplify them if need be. I think for this one I'll just take some things from descriptions and bold what I relate to:



> *Social Level*
> 
> On the social level, differences between these approaches can be contrasted as naturality/artificiality. By 'naturality' I refer to primal behavior inherent to nature, and by 'artificiality' I refer to behavior accepted by society. For example, in nature, survival of the fittest is law, whereas in society, protection and care of the weak is cultivated.
> From this stems distinctions in one's attitudes towards people in close or distant circles.* In the life of Evolutionary types, reputation plays a much greater role. Opinions of others in external society tend to be more important to them than opinions of friends or relatives. * *Involutionary types depend less on social appraisal. They are more accommodating towards people of their inner circle, whose opinions they hold in higher esteem than those of public approval or disapproval. (Somehow both fit? I try to get the approval of everyone. I want societal approval even if I secretly hold my own opinions and those of my inner circle higher than that of society.)*
> ...





> Consequently, susceptibility to conditioning is higher in Evolutionary types than in Involutionary types. Conditioned responses require movement along a single path, without possibility of turning around or deviating from the imposed route. *One of the inhibitory mechanisms of conditioning is phobia (obsessive fear). Imagine not being able to rid yourself of thinking you will definitely fall on a slippery road. This is an example of a phobia. And then you actually do end up falling, even if wearing mountain-climbing boots. According to my observations, Involutionary types do not seriously suffer such phobias.*


 A lot of this applies to how I felt about grades in school in the past.



> *Physical Level*
> The Evolution–Involution dichotomy manifests on the lower level of communication through an orientation towards either process or result.
> *Evolutionary types are more inclined to procedure, which involves careful study of details.* They are subject to the logic of the development process, which assumes motion from beginning to end and top to bottom.
> 
> ...



A lot of this seems to point toward evolution, but I still want opinions. Yet...if I'm static, negativist, and evolutionary...do I break socionics?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> A lot of this seems to point toward Evolution, but I still want opinions. Yet...if I'm static, negativist, and evolutionary...do I break socionics?


It's okay, I did too. XD

I think you just broke Gulenko's cognitive styles, which has not been proven to have any connection with the rest of socionics.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Silveresque said:


> Which doesn't match up perfectly with any of the types.
> 
> So I basically need someone to help me actually come to conclusions when the data seems ambiguous.
> 
> Does this point toward any of the cognitive styles?


You don't need to look for a perfect match -- only the closest fit one. A lot of things mentioned in my type's descriptions aren't true for me, and some are actually the exact opposite of what I'm like. When I was getting into socionics I realized that all the type profiles are someone's imaginative interpretations of the basic TIM configuration, and instead went back to their original source -- figuring out information elements and their functional placement in Model A -- and that settled my type. Checking on intertype relations offered more evidence for that typing.

Gulenko's thinking styles was a much later corroboration of my type -- I've noticed that I work in a very haphazard try-and-search method that was also wasteful and resource intensive rushing to get to the end (result type), as compared to this woman I was working with who was unmistakably an ILE, causal-determinist, and would sequentially lay out her assignments, work on them very carefully, and stress out when any of her projects came to a definitive end (process type, she loved to immerse herself in the process of work, but felt adrift when everything was over). The difference between us was so stark, I could never work by her methods, that it neatly ruled out any of the CD and DA typings for me.

The cog style typing approach works better if you are able to compare yourself to someone of a different type rather than analyzing it separately from anything and anyone else. Then the differences and gaps really begin to show.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> You don't need to look for a perfect match -- only the closest fit one. A lot of things mentioned in my type's descriptions aren't true for me, and some are actually the exact opposite of what I'm like. When I was getting into socionics I realized that all the type profiles are someone's imaginative interpretations of the basic TIM configuration, and instead went back to their original source -- figuring out information elements and their functional placement in Model A -- and that settled my type. Checking on intertype relations offered more evidence for that typing.
> 
> Gulenko's thinking styles was a much later corroboration of my type -- I've noticed that I work in a very haphazard try-and-search method that was also wasteful and resource intensive rushing to get to the end (result type), as compared to this woman I was working with who was unmistakably an ILE, causal-determinist, and would sequentially lay out her assignments, work on them very carefully, and stress out when any of her projects came to a definitive end (process type, she loved to immerse herself in the process of work, but felt adrift when everything was over). The difference between us was so stark, I could never work by her methods, that it neatly ruled out any of the CD and DA typings for me.
> 
> The cog style typing approach works better if you are able to compare yourself to someone of a different type rather than analyzing it separately from anything and anyone else. Then the differences and gaps really begin to show.


I know, but I can't figure out the closest fit because it's ambiguous. Currently the most likely types are SLI, EII, and IEE, with LII being still slightly possible. My functions seem to be like this: Si>Ne>Fi>Te (but socionics Si only, not Jung's Si or any other version). And of the unvalued functions: Ti>Fe>Se>Ni. And my cognitive style is HP.

In intertype relations, beta NFs are sometimes confusing and hard to communicate with. And I get along extremely poorly with LSI. I get along very well with ILI and find them helpful.

I've been talking to a delta ST and he is way more Te than me. But I seem more Si I think.


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

So I finally got around to reading the thread and reading the style descriptions (well, somewhat) and ... no wonder people have a hard time identifying with the Causal Determinist style of thinking. I mean, who is just going to lie down and accept a profile that tells them they're rigid thinkers who are easy to brainwash? Try telling an INFP that, bahaha.

Now I'm wondering whether or not I'd be easy to brainwash. Or if it's already happened. :sad:


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Mostly Harmless said:


> I mean, who is just going to lie down and accept a profile that tells them they're rigid thinkers who are easy to brainwash? Try telling an INFP that, bahaha.


I might need someone try to brainwash me before I can say with much confidence how I'd respond to that.

And hmm, having looked a bit at all the styles now, I'd say CD does sound the most fitting, compared to the other styles.


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

Kink said:


> I might need someone try to brainwash me before I can say with much confidence how I'd respond to that.
> 
> And hmm, having looked a bit at all the styles now, I'd say CD does sound the most fitting, compared to the other styles.


It's also been my experience (although that's based on a very personal sense of things) that INFPs tend to be wedded to the idea of being fuzzy, nonlinear thinkers (Ne) with, nonetheless, a clear idea of ethical right and wrong. So the deterministic aspect of this style of thinking doesn't really describe that perception well. 

I'm just wondering how to reconcile CD thinking with that general sense of INFPness ... though I'm prepared to accept that this general INFPness is vague at best and totally misleading and misinformed at worst. For better or for worse, it does exist in people's minds though though, which is why you see MBTI INFPs claiming they're IEI or identifying dynamic > static or whatever.

(I totally have vested interests in understanding this as I'm not 100% sure on whether I'm ISFP/ESI or INFP/EII ... grr.)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Mostly Harmless said:


> So I finally got around to reading the thread and reading the style descriptions (well, somewhat) and ... no wonder people have a hard time identifying with the Causal Determinist style of thinking. I mean, who is just going to lie down and accept a profile that tells them they're rigid thinkers who are easy to brainwash? Try telling an INFP that, bahaha.
> 
> Now I'm wondering whether or not I'd be easy to brainwash. Or if it's already happened. :sad:


Well, Gulenko also writes that DA types are prone to life crises where they can just overhaul their entire thinking and set of values over night due to the instability of our thinking process and this makes us more prone towards developing mental illnesses of the more reality-removed kind (psychoses, whatever). Not sure that's particularly flattering either in that regard. Not quite brainwashing in the direct sense of the word, but still some kind of when exposed to the sufficient stimulus. For a practical example of this, you can always watch the film Mr. Nobody. There's a scene at the end that I think exemplifies DA so well.

From personal experience, I can also say this is true because this happened to me. I went from being a pretty firm capitalist to Marxist. I have also often felt the pull where my thinking becomes so chaotic I am not sure I can trust my own perception anymore, but I am not sure how related that is to DA as a whole and just my natural ability to emotionally dissociate from reality as a coping mechanism.


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Well, Gulenko also writes that DA types are prone to life crises where they can just overhaul their entire thinking and set of values over night. Not sure that's particularly flattering either in that regard. Not quite brainwashing in the direct sense of the word, but still some kind of when exposed to the sufficient stimulus. For a practical example of this, you can always watch the film Mr. Nobody. There's a scene at the end that I think exemplifies DA so well.
> 
> From personal experience, I can also say this is true because this happened to me. I went from being a pretty firm capitalist to Marxist.


Actually, I can see how that would be appealing to people who feel they're stuck in a rut and end up glorifying the whole Ni transformative release as a form of escape from their situation. And, the whole "burn your old life to the ground and start fresh" thing also has a kind of artistic appeal to it, right? It's poetic.

Whereas CD is more like "Oh hey, congratulations, your cognitive superpower is goodthink, go you!"

ILIs keep recommending Mr. Nobody to me. I guess I should watch it sometime.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Mostly Harmless said:


> Actually, I can see how that would be appealing to people who feel they're stuck in a rut and end up glorifying the whole Ni transformative release as a form of escape from their situation. And, the whole "burn your old life to the ground and start fresh" thing also has a kind of artistic appeal to it, right? It's poetic.
> 
> Whereas CD is more like "Oh hey, congratulations, your cognitive superpower is goodthink, go you!"
> 
> ILIs keep recommending Mr. Nobody to me. I guess I should watch it sometime.


lol, though I can equally see the appeal in having a thinking style that's actually somewhat stable because I trust what I see instead of always looking for and questioning what is in order to find archetypes in the unity of opposites. The grass is always greener on the other side, huh? I also relate to how I have this drive towards finding a creator as I'm intrinsically driven towards finding cause and purpose. 

And yes, it's a good film and well worth watching. I think the main character is an ILI and it's quite typically gamma and I think the entire way the story is set up is very Ni (and DA). It's a good example of how our minds may operate, imo.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Mostly Harmless said:


> Whereas CD is more like "Oh hey, congratulations, your cognitive superpower is goodthink, go you!"


Lol! It kinda does sound like the most boring thinking style, doesn't it? Then again, I don't find my own thinking very interesting in the first place. Wonder how many who do.


And yeah, Mr. Nobody is pretty good.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Mostly Harmless said:


> Actually, I can see how that would be appealing to people who feel they're stuck in a rut and end up glorifying the whole Ni transformative release as a form of escape from their situation. And, the whole "burn your old life to the ground and start fresh" thing also has a kind of artistic appeal to it, right? It's poetic.
> 
> Whereas CD is more like "Oh hey, congratulations, your cognitive superpower is goodthink, go you!"
> 
> ILIs keep recommending Mr. Nobody to me. I guess I should watch it sometime.


I found Mr. Nobody ridiculously floaty actually. I have real problems with the main lead and how indecisive he was, how his emotional expression was so childish and how all the events were so disjointed and surreal. Even the lovemaking didn't seem passionate as much as it was surreal. Eventually I fell asleep on the movie. If you like action it's probably not for you. 

And yeah CD is depicted like trash tbh, like we're outdated and simplistic by associating us to stuff like behaviorism and determinism and Newtonian mechanics, all of which have been replaced by more probabilistic methods today. I don't like how the advantages are just written with this tone of pity, like we can have them just to make us feel better lol. And the article seems rather biased towards DA, but I suppose I would say HP and VS get descriptions that do them more justice, too. 

But eh, I'm used to negative descriptions and I recommend you get used to them too. Saves time and mental energy. Oh, and it's worth thinking about what the articles don't say. Like how even though EIEs and ILIs are supposed to the "most intellectual", for every intellectual EIE there are 5 others who use their emotional charisma to say vague, pointless stuff and sound convincing, and the ILI might be intellectual but they never know they want and can spend ridiculous amounts of time in confusion, weighing opposites endlessly.

Comparisons like that are how I get over my bitterness. Fuck you Gulenko -.-


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

There are three dichotomies, so there should be _eight_, not four, categories of cognitive styles. What happened to the other four? The four he did deduce each contain a type from each quadra. That means each quadra has a type with one each of the four cognitive styles. Is this why he chose these four styles? Because they fit is theory of social dissemination of information? Or are these really the only four cognitive styles observed?

Also, there appears to be overlap between the static-dynamic dichotomy and the process-result (evol-invol) dichotomy. Static looks a lot like result while dynamic looks like process. As a result, some of the combinations seem contradictory. For example, CD is static-positive-process. Static and process don't appear to go together. Likewise, VS is dynamic-positive-result. Dynamic and result don't seem to go together. All three dichotomies are derived from the four MBTI dichotomies, so they are not independent of each other. I think this is the reason for the overlap. It's messy, not clean. It looks contrived to fit the goal of the psycho-social theory.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> *There are three dichotomies, so there should be eight, not four, categories of cognitive styles*. What happened to the other four? The four he did deduce each contain a type from each quadra. That means each quadra has a type with one each of the four cognitive styles. Is this why he chose these four styles? Because they fit is theory of social dissemination of information? Or are these really the only four cognitive styles observed?


The non-Gulenko set of cognitive styles is defined by these dichotomies:

a, p, i
s, n, i
a, n, d
s, p, d

where a=analytic, s=synthetic, p=positive, n=negative, i=inductive, and d=deductive. 

Notice the difference between this and the Gulenko set (see below) is the substitution of _deductive_ for _inductive_ in the process-result dichotomy. Otherwise, all else stays the same. I checked a table of Reinin values and no sociotypes have these dichotomies--ie, the types are not defined. The reason is that there are actually 2^16 types defined by 16 dichotomies, not just the 16=2^4 types defined in socionics. Since 12 dichotomies are dependent on the 4 MBTI ones, the types defined by these 12 dichotomies will overlap to some degree with the 16 defined by just the 4 independent dichotomies--ie, they are somewhat redundant if the goal is to have _distinct_ sociotypes. Of course, the fact many people appear to type _in between_ the distinct types may be one argument in favor of defining and including _tweener_ types. But that is the reason these four cognitive styles, and not the other four, are defined. Nevertheless, the four cognitive styles delineated above show there are tweener types that use none of the Gulenko styles. If people, in fact, _do_ fall between the 16 distinct types, then the missing cognitive styles may be a big missing piece of the socionics puzzle.


The Gulenko set itself is defined by these dichotomies:

CD analytic, positive, and deductive.
DA synthetic, negative, and deductive
HP analytic, negative, and inductive
VS synthetic, positive, and inductive

What is interesting is that the CD and DA and the HP and VS style pairs bear a special relation to each other, in that all dual relations consist in one of these two style pairings. LII in HP and ESE in VS are duals, for example, as are ILE in CD and SEI in DA, and so on. These same style pairs also appear in _relations of benefit_. The rings of benefit are either alternating CD-DA types or alternating HP-VS types. So there is something very beneficial about these style pairings. Has anyone studied this question and knows the answer?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> The Gulenko set itself is defined by these dichotomies:
> 
> CD analytic, positive, and deductive.
> DA synthetic, negative, and deductive
> ...


The mirror and activation relations can also be defined as cognitive style pairings. Mirror rel'ns exist between CD-HP pairs and between DA-VS pairs. Activation rel'ns exist between CD-VS pairs and between DA-HP pairs. So all intra-quadra rel'ns can be defined in terms of the pairing of two cognitive styles. Again, this is possible because each cognitive style consists of a single type from each quadra.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> The non-Gulenko set of cognitive styles is defined by these dichotomies:
> 
> a, p, i
> s, n, i
> ...


I've given this more thought and have to correct myself. Because only four of the sixteen Reinin dichotomies are independent, there are, in fact, only 2^4=16 types and _not_ 2^16 as I first thought. Applying any combination of the non-independent dichotomies will simply yield the same sociotypes, but with further properties defined by those dichotomies. The table of Reinin values defines what these values will be for each type and dichotomy. Likewise, the four hypothetical cognitive styles not defined by Gulenko don't belong to any actual sociotype; they are purely theoretical. So an interesting question is why the Gulenko cognitive styles exist but these theoretical ones don't?


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

So I read those descriptions, and I think I'm static, negativist, and evolutionary. If this is accurate, what does that mean? I don't see a cognition style for analytical negative and deductive. Is there a contradiction?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Stampede said:


> So I read those descriptions, and I think I'm static, negativist, and evolutionary. If this is accurate, what does that mean? I don't see a cognition style for analytical negative and deductive. Is there a contradiction?


Gulenko interpreted static and evolutionary as analytic and deductive, respectively.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> I've given this more thought and have to correct myself. Because only four of the sixteen Reinin dichotomies are independent, there are, in fact, only 2^4=16 types and _not_ 2^16 as I first thought. Applying any combination of the non-independent dichotomies will simply yield the same sociotypes, but with further properties defined by those dichotomies. The table of Reinin values defines what these values will be for each type and dichotomy. Likewise, the four hypothetical cognitive styles not defined by Gulenko don't belong to any actual sociotype; they are purely theoretical. So *an interesting question is why the Gulenko cognitive styles exist but these theoretical ones don't?*


The theoretical non-Gulenko cognitive styles don't exist because the three dichotomies that define the styles are not independent. Choose any two and the third is determined. So there are only 2^2=4 distinct combinations of the three dichotomies. Voila!


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> The theoretical non-Gulenko cognitive styles don't exist because the three dichotomies that define the styles are not independent. Choose any two and the third is determined. So there are only 2^2=4 distinct combinations of the three dichotomies. Voila!


What this means is the Gulenko cognitive styles are uniquely defined by any _two_ of the three dichotomies; the remaining third dichotomy is redundant. So the styles can be define using, for example, just the static-dynamic and positivistic-negativistic dichotomies:

CD static, positivistic
DA dynamic, negativistic
HP static, negativistic
VS dynamic, positivistic 

Or, alternatively, they may be defined by the static-dynamic and process-result dichotomies:

CD static, process
DA dynamic, process
HP static, result
VS dynamic, result

Because of the inter-dependence of these three dichotomies, these two descriptions are equivalent. One doesn't describe aspects of these cognitive styles the other doesn't.

It's interesting to examine the relations between cognitive styles to see exactly what these dichotomies mean. Let's take the first set of styles defined by static-dynamic and positivistic-negativistic. Static and dynamic are understood to mean cognitive focus on "spatial" relations and temporal relations, respectively, that is, static focuses on the relations between cognitive objects at one point in time, while dynamic focuses on changes in cognitive objects _over_ time. _Objects_ just mean whatever "things" the mind focuses on and includes perceptions, concepts, values, etc. So the static-dynamic dichotomy is relatively easy to understand. And types that are static have static information elements (or cognitive functions) in their ego stack, while types that are dynamic have dynamic IMs in their ego stack.

What about the positivistic-negativistic dichotomy? How does this produce the dichotomy between types with the same static-dynamic dichotomy into the four cognitive styles? Let's look, for example, at the static types in the CD and HP styles. CD is positivistic and HP negativistic. What do these mean? If you examine these two groups, they all have static IMs in their ego stacks. However, they are distinguished by the _number_ of operations needed to get from one member of a group to another. All types _within_ either of these two groups can be obtained by _two_ operations; all types _between_ these two groups can be obtained by _one_ or _three_ operations. What is an operation? It is swapping one ego block function for another function from either the ego or superego blocks. Take ILE in CD, for example. Swapping Ne for Ti (switching these around) yields LII, a member of the HP style. Or swapping Ti for Fi yields IEE, another member of the HP group. Swapping Ne for Se yields SLE, another member of HP group. Finally, swapping Ne for Se, Ti for Fi, and Fi for Se--_three_ operations--yields ESI, the final member of HP style. What about two operations? Swapping Ne for Se _and_ Ti for FI--_two_ operations--yields SEE, a member of CD. Swapping Ti for Fi and Ne for Fi yields EII, a member of CD. Swapping Ne for Se and Se for Ti yields SLI, the final member of ILE's group. 

So CD maps to HP, and vice versa, by an _odd_ number of operations. CD and HP both map to itself by an _even_ number of operations. This is probably the origin of the idea of positivistic and negativistic as _seeing the glass as half-full or half-empty_, that is, as the two sides of the same coin, so to speak. One operation, like one flip of a coin, changes the pov of the type--ie, the side of the coin facing up or the half of the cup that is seen. _Two_ operations, like two flips of a coin, changes the pov _back_ to the _original_ perspective--ie, the same side of the coin facing up again, the same half of the cup being seen.

The same rules exist between the DA and VS styles.

So the difference between CD and HP (and between DA and VS) is this flipping of perspectives. But does this make sense? ILE maps to IEE by swapping Ti for Fi. But both Ti and Fi are introverted rational functions. Why would this one change produce a change in perspective from "positivistic" to "negativistic"? I don't see the rationale here. So I can't see any justification for the calling these groupings _cognitive styles_. It's not clear the positivistic-negativistic dichotomy does anything to change cognition.

Shortly, I'll look at the process-result dichotomy in the same way to see if it provides any explanation and justification for this idea of cognitive styles.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> What this means is the Gulenko cognitive styles are uniquely defined by any _two_ of the three dichotomies; the remaining third dichotomy is redundant. So the styles can be define using, for example, just the static-dynamic and positivistic-negativistic dichotomies:
> 
> CD static, positivistic
> DA dynamic, negativistic
> ...


Btw, if you ignore, for the moment, the problem discussed above of the validity of these dichotomies in defining any cognitive styles and assume, for the sake of argument, that they do, then the four styles can be simply described in terms of the static-dynamic and positivistic-negativistic dichotomies as

CD seeing what things _are_
DA seeing what things may _not_ _become_
HP seeing what things _aren't_
VS seeing what things may _become._

So static and dynamic focus, respectively, _on_ things or on _what happens to_ things; positivistic and negativistic focus, respectively, on things that _are_ and things that _are_ _not_. The idea of CD focusing on what things are is close to the causal-deterministic idea of looking at the objects in front of you and deciding what they are. The idea of HP focusing on what things aren't is somewhat like the holographic-panoramic idea of looking at the objects in front of you from several viewpoints, since there are any number of ways objects _are not_ and one can spend any amount of time envisioning them; but it is unlike holographic-panoramic cognition since the focus is on what _isn't_ there to define what is, and not on the holographic-panoramic idea of looking at what _is_ there but seen from several different perspectives. The idea of DA focusing on what things may not become--or on what they may become by looking at what they may not become--is somewhat like the dialectical-algorithmic idea of processes combining and resolving contradictions, if negativistic is taken to mean contradictory or paradoxical. Finally, idea of VS focusing on what things may become is like the vortical-synergetic idea of processes that converge on a point, or a solution. VS is very much like CD, only VS happens in time as well as in space.

So it is possible to see the cognitive styles described by Gulenko by looking at the static-dynamic and positivistic-negativistic dichotomies alone, if some allowances are made for the interpretations of positivistic and (especially) negativistic. It is not necessary to consider the process-result dichotomy. However, this doesn't mean these dichotomies have the meanings assigned to them. Again, it's not clear how this idea of positivistic-negativistic comes out of the actual functional structure of sociotypes. ILE and IEE map to each other by swapping Ti and Fi, but how does this _actually_ produce the change in perspective described by the positivistic-negativistic dichotomy?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Stampede said:


> So I read those descriptions, and I think I'm static, negativist, and evolutionary. If this is accurate, what does that mean? I don't see a cognition style for analytical negative and deductive. Is there a contradiction?


no such thinking style exists, it's either dynamic-negativist-evolutionary (D-A) or static-negativist-involutionary (H-P)
if it existed Gulenko would have described it a long time ago. perhaps you picked one of the wrong reinins.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> no such thinking style exists, it's either dynamic-negativist-evolutionary (D-A) or static-negativist-involutionary (H-P)
> if it existed Gulenko would have described it a long time ago. perhaps you picked one of the wrong reinins.


To be honest I'm an idiot, and I can't be trusted to come to conclusions on my own. I could be the opposite of all of those. 

What do you think of this theory: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/339170-how-would-you-differentiate-si-dom-fi-tertiary-fi-dom-si-tertiary.html


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I relate most to Causal-Determinist
> 
> I've never seen how this relates to the rest of Socionics at all. I'm calling confirmation bias.


Fair dinkum. I relate to CD, too.

I'm also interested in confirmation bias. Might have something to do with the fact that I don't understand any other cognjtive style description other than my "own".


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Finally get round Cognitive Styles article. Causal-Determinist is the easiest to understand, I think majority of people would relate to it, even if it's not their 'natural' thinking style, as it is widely encouraged to think in "chains of cause and effect". Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition was honestly the most foreign. 

I have a hard time choosing between Holographical-Panoramic and Vortical-Synergetic. I'm involutionary for sure and type-wise should be V-S, but I just don't know.
In theory the difference is clear but in practice... H-P is like: "this situation can be this and that, which means 1 and 2, and 3, but on the other hand it's blah blah blah", and V-S is like: "X means Y so I'll do Z; no, wait, *sudden mutation*, I'll do Lambda".
H-P is more relatable in this case. I don't know if I'm looking for a single conclusion, it resembles more as if I'm forming different suggestions and variations and try to make use of them. "On the one hand... on the other hand", "alternatively", "eather... or" are all my favourite constructions. Well...sigh.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

To_august said:


> Finally get round Cognitive Styles article. Causal-Determinist is the easiest to understand, I think majority of people would relate to it, even if it's not their 'natural' thinking style, as it is widely encouraged to think in "chains of cause and effect". Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition was honestly the most foreign.
> 
> I have a hard time choosing between Holographical-Panoramic and Vortical-Synergetic. I'm involutionary for sure and type-wise should be V-S, but I just don't know.
> In theory the difference is clear but in practice... H-P is like: "this situation can be this and that, which means 1 and 2, and 3, but on the other hand it's blah blah blah", and V-S is like: "X means Y so I'll do Z; no, wait, *sudden mutation*, I'll do Lambda".
> H-P is more relatable in this case. I don't know if I'm looking for a single conclusion, it resembles more as if I'm forming different suggestions and variations and try to make use of them. "On the one hand... on the other hand", "alternatively", "eather... or" are all my favourite constructions. Well...sigh.


The dichotomy I find most confusing is Evolution-Involution.

As in I understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, but still I don't know which I'm more prone to using.

How did you become sure that you are involutionary?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

TruthDismantled said:


> The dichotomy I find most confusing is Evolution-Involution.
> 
> As in I understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, but still I don't know which I'm more prone to using.
> 
> How did you become sure that you are involutionary?


Deduction and induction reasoning. I'm not interested in making things more complex, I don't move in the direction of situations' complication or form something complex on the basis of simple facts, statements, data. I can do this, but it just doesn't sit right, doesn't feel natural. I like to go the opposite way and make things simple. I observe some complex model and strive to reduce to its simple elements. When analyse something I break stuff into its elementary parts, dissect it to meaningful simple pieces in order to understand or explain it, cutting off secondary and minor details. Actually, that was the easiest dichotomy for me, as I still not sure about static/dynamic and positivist/negativist.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Oh, and the man in this video - http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/327738-socionics-si.html - 
strikes me not so much Si as an example of involutionary type in a sense that he contrasts complex city life with simple life in his village. 
Personally, it would be incredibly boring to me to live a life that he describes. Live in a rural area, where there are not many opportunities and new ideas inflow. Which makes me think he doesn't need them in his environment and thus can be Ne ego, or maybe even Si DS, or maybe I'm just flipping the theory upside down:tongue:.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

I'm H-P, sometimes I frame C-D into it too. So whenever something's laid out as C-D I frame it into H-P readily so yeah lol no question about me preferring H-P.. funnily enough it matches my typing of SLE.


----------



## Typhon (Nov 13, 2012)

Personally, I find Gulenko's Cognitive Styles too complicated to be useful.


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

Single greatest thing I've ever read.


I believe I am a Dynamic-Negativist-Evolutionary
i type as SEI for socionics, although I must admit I'm not so familiar with it


----------

