# Styles of Cognition



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I saw a post in another forum that broke down the four cognition styles, and I found it really interesting.

"CD: Static Reductionist
DA: Dynamic Reductionist
HP: Static Holist
VS: Dynamic Holist"

What do you all think of these distinctions? How do you describe the Cognition Styles? Do you have any examples of the styles from your own life you care to share?


----------



## Anonymous Disaster (Mar 15, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I saw a post in another forum that broke down the four cognition styles, and I found it really interesting.
> 
> "CD: Static Reductionist
> DA: Dynamic Reductionist
> ...


What does that even mean? A little explanation?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Meaning that Causal-Determinist is described as being Static and Reductionistic, and Dialectical Algorithmic is dynamic and reductionist, and so on.

So CD and DA pare away information to get at the essence of things whereas HP and VS try to look at the holistic picture. Its already know that CD and HP are Static, and DA and VS are Dynamic, but I found these alternate words an interesting way to look at it.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

I had an article link on this, but the link broke so I deleted it. If you can manage to find the article for it by Gulenko, it details it very well.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

It's up on Wikisocion: Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion
--with some examples: Gulenko Cognitive Styles: Examples - Wikisocion

I've also made a poll to see if others related any to them. The feedback was positive, almost everyone could relate: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/127992-forms-thinking.html


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Oooooh, a poll. Thank you! And the EXAMPLES. This is what I have been needing. I can't tell if I use DA or VS (or more to the point, I can think of times that I do both as near as I can tell -_-).


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

I actually find the cognitive styles to be very helpful when typing others. Admittedly I find the material hard to digest, but I'm getting there. 

I understand CD and DA very well but my understanding of HP and VS is shaky.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

I feel like my understanding of the difference between DA and VS is shaky. That example link above makes me think I am more likely to be VS than DA, though, which helps a bit. I know plenty of people with CD, and I *think* I know someone with HP. HP is kinda fascinating to me, and a bit hard to imagine...actually having that sort of mind. It's interesting.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I feel like my understanding of the difference between DA and VS is shaky. That example link above makes me think I am more likely to be VS than DA, though, which helps a bit. I know plenty of people with CD, and I *think* I know someone with HP. HP is kinda fascinating to me, and a bit hard to imagine...actually having that sort of mind. It's interesting.


I'm CD. (I reckon it's one of the easiest to spot, actually).

I think part of my problem is that the way I learn best is with concrete real-life examples. So, basically, I'd like to observe/study people who embody all styles (well, mainly VS and HP. I understand DS quite well because my partner is ILI).


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I feel like my understanding of the difference between DA and VS is shaky. That example link above makes me think I am more likely to be VS than DA, though, which helps a bit. I know plenty of people with CD, and I *think* I know someone with HP. HP is kinda fascinating to me, and a bit hard to imagine...actually having that sort of mind. It's interesting.


HP is just like rotating a playing board to get a better angle on things and point them out.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> HP is just like rotating a playing board to get a better angle on things and point them out.


And VS is like when you're rolling up yarn on that ...thing. Idk its name in english(or in my language for that matter O.O). Or like CuSo4*5H2O crystalization process.

I think it ought to be pretty clear.


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

This is interesting, but I only immediately see how they have assigned the types (functions) into the Static/dynamic groups...

Static (analysis) = TI/FI in ego

Dynamic (association) = NI/SI in ego

Positive (utilisation) ? 

Negative (improvement) ? 

Evolution (expansion) ? 

Involution (simplification) ? 

The allocation into Po/Ne & Ev/In seems quite random, but I haven't thoroughly looked yet...


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/786738-random-strat-stuff-fractals-reinin.html


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> HP is just like rotating a playing board to get a better angle on things and point them out.


Yeah, but that doesn't help me understand it in the sense that I cannot put myself in the shoes of someone else that thinks this way. I try to rotate mental images on their semantic axes and it just...it is so hard, everything goes fuzzy, I lose details and the image like explodes and reforms instead of actually turning and then it is just all different. It doesn't...do what HP does. I have a hard time with being able to fit myself into those shoes.

I have similar issues with CD, in that I have a hard time "rigidly" (that's how it feels to me) going step by step to get to the conclusion. I'd rather look at what the conclusion probably is, and play around in the middle stages. Like jumping in and out of a pond and tracking the water from that pond to the next one over, then zooming out and seeing that all the water trails and ponds form a big image.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yeah, but that doesn't help me understand it in the sense that I cannot put myself in the shoes of someone else that thinks this way. I try to rotate mental images on their semantic axes and it just...it is so hard, everything goes fuzzy, I lose details and the image like explodes and reforms instead of actually turning and then it is just all different. It doesn't...do what HP does. I have a hard time with being able to fit myself into those shoes.
> 
> I have similar issues with CD, in that I have a hard time "rigidly" (that's how it feels to me) going step by step to get to the conclusion. I'd rather look at what the conclusion probably is, and play around in the middle stages. Like jumping in and out of a pond and tracking the water from that pond to the next one over, then zooming out and seeing that all the water trails and ponds form a big image.


HP is just Ne/Ti, CD is just Se/Ti, VS is just Ni/Te, DA is just Si/Te.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> HP is just Ne/Ti, CD is just Se/Ti, VS is just Ni/Te, DA is just Si/Te.


ummm...k...


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> ummm...k...


Saying you do all 4 as information goes between functions. Try viewing them in that light, and see if it helps.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Saying you do all 4 as information goes between functions. Try viewing them in that light, and see if it helps.


AH. Well I do try to do all 4, mostly to understand how other people work. That does help illuminate what you meant, yeah.

I guess I have a hard time accessing the functions that do HP then? Maybe it's because of Ignoring Ne...and weak Ti. Maybe that's why it bothers me that I can't do HP, too, because of Ti HA. I feel like I should be able to do it, and it bothers me that it is so difficult.

Thank you for your input, Jeremy.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> AH. Well I do try to do all 4, mostly to understand how other people work. That does help illuminate what you meant, yeah.
> 
> I guess I have a hard time accessing the functions that do HP then? Maybe it's because of Ignoring Ne...and weak Ti. Maybe that's why it bothers me that I can't do HP, too, because of Ti HA. I feel like I should be able to do it, and it bothers me that it is so difficult.
> 
> Thank you for your input, Jeremy.


Well, technically, being your HA+Ignoring, it should elicit the effect of going from feeling happily mobilized to a calm state, which eventually leads into a restful state. Deconstruction/Reconstruction logic is Ne/Ti, which is the rebuttal phase of arguments, so if you can isolate that in your psyche, it may give a better look at it.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, technically, being your HA+Ignoring, it should elicit the effect of going from feeling happily mobilized to a calm state, which eventually leads into a restful state. Deconstruction/Reconstruction logic is Ne/Ti, which is the rebuttal phase of arguments, so if you can isolate that in your psyche, it may give a better look at it.


Hm...then either I am not understanding something about it, or those functions aren't where I think they are in my cognition.

/frustrated.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hm...then either I am not understanding something about it, or those functions aren't where I think they are in my cognition.
> 
> /frustrated.


Well, I can say that a lot of the INFJ stuff associated with Ni are more closely related to Ne+Ti in Socionics, with the other parts being a lot of Se+Ti and unconscious (Vital) Ni in socionics. If it's a time-related pattern, it's part of Ni. If it's an unconscious manifestation of such, e.g., sporadic future-casting, then it's Id Ni. If the patterns are more like a flat disc of interconnected parts, it's the deconstruction/reconstruction of Ne+Ti and the subsequent solidarity of Se+Ti, if that makes any sense. It's liquid in my mind as far as how easily things flow and such, but gets kinda derpy when I try and explain it. Those long logic posts I did here recently are actually things I grasped in moments upon first coming to the forums, but I forgot a couple of words for like 2 years until someone on 16types brought it up, then I was like, ohhhhhh... Derp. I thought of drawing pictures before for the various elements and combinations, but don't have PhotoShop at home, and people at work look at me super weird when I start drawing metaphysical stuff for hours on my computer lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Quickly! No time to think! Ego vs Id!

"I am" vs "I know." Place yo elements!

Fiyight! Baroooooken! Bison uppercut!


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Jeremy8419 said:


> HP is just Ne/Ti, CD is just Se/Ti, VS is just Ni/Te, DA is just Si/Te.


Why? 

HP types are LII, SLE, IEE, ESI
CD types are SEE, ILE, LSI, EII
DA types are LSE, ILI, EIE, SEI
VS types are SLI, IEI, LIE, ESE


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

The Exception said:


> Why?
> 
> HP types are LII, SLE, IEE, ESI
> CD types are SEE, ILE, LSI, EII
> ...


Thought process being logic, otherwise it's just feelings or perceptions.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Thought process being logic, otherwise it's just feelings or perceptions.


Sorry, I still don't follow your logic here.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

The Exception said:


> Sorry, I still don't follow your logic here.


No worries.


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

The Exception said:


> Why?
> 
> HP types are LII, SLE, IEE, ESI
> CD types are SEE, ILE, LSI, EII
> ...


I just stumbled accross this article that has the therory that each quadra has assigned to its valued functions:

a (+) which appears to mean: Maximise the positive aspect of that function

or (-) which appears to mean: Minimise the negative aspect of that function

Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko


As a result, if you look at each of the 16 types, the order of their ego functions look like:

(+)(-) or (-)(+)

The order of the positive or negative signs appears to dictate the 'process/result' dichtomy:

(+)(-) = Process

(-)(+) = result

As I said in my earlier post: 

The statics have TI or FI in the ego 

The dynamic have NI or SI in the ego

So...

VS = ego order (-)(+) with SI or NI in ego (Result, Dynamic)

HP = ego order (-)(+) with TI or FI in ego (Result, Static)

DA = ego order (+)(-) with SI or NI in ego (Process, Static)

CD = ego order (+)(-) with TI or FI in ego (Process, Dynamic)


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

It's a thinking process, so it's descriptions are based upon the thinking elements. It wouldn't necessarily have to be done or conceived in such a way, but it's how Gulenko chose to do so.

CD: Se -> Ti
HP: Ne -> Ti
DA: Si -> Te
VS: Ni -> Te

These are the Thinking tracks of the four Supervision Rings. If you would like, you can conversely switch them around to be what the Thinking element flows into rather than what it flows from. Or, if you are more inclined to use the Feeling elements as the base, you may do that as well. What I've written is for those who have a hard time placing the various Cognition Styles into the sub-portions of their own psyche.


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's a thinking process, so it's descriptions are based upon the thinking elements. It wouldn't necessarily have to be done or conceived in such a way, but it's how Gulenko chose to do so.
> 
> CD: Se -> Ti
> HP: Ne -> Ti
> ...


Ahh... Te vs Ti would make sense for a thinking process, but only half of VS and DA value Te. Do you know his thinking behind allocating CD/HP to TI and DA/VS to TE?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Murkury said:


> Ahh... Te vs Ti would make sense for a thinking process, but only half of VS and DA value Te. Do you know his thinking behind allocating CD/HP to TI and DA/VS to TE?


Well, that's not really all that contradictory is it? I have a conscious thinking process, yet I value feeling over thinking. Just because I value feeling over thinking, doesn't mean I won't still think and doesn't mean that thinking won't have a process to it. If I were to try and logically explain (Thinking) when people communicate via shared emotional connection, it would come out odd, because feeling isn't logical; they're opposites. This is why the Feeling traits and descriptions often come across as being so murky and shallow-seeming to Feeling Types, because you're trying to communicate Feeling via Logic, and it just doesn't ever seem to come out quite right.

But, no, lol. I have no firm sources as to why he chose such, simply that the end result makes sense to me and sounds about right. Not sure if he realized that he was describing logical process, though, even if some like VS don't appear very logical on the surface, he seems to be just describing thinking processes.


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, that's not really all that contradictory is it? I have a conscious thinking process, yet I value feeling over thinking. Just because I value feeling over thinking, doesn't mean I won't still think and doesn't mean that thinking won't have a process to it. If I were to try and logically explain (Thinking) when people communicate via shared emotional connection, it would come out odd, because feeling isn't logical; they're opposites. This is why the Feeling traits and descriptions often come across as being so murky and shallow-seeming to Feeling Types, because you're trying to communicate Feeling via Logic, and it just doesn't ever seem to come out quite right.
> 
> But, no, lol. I have no firm sources as to why he chose such, simply that the end result makes sense to me and sounds about right. Not sure if he realized that he was describing logical process, though, even if some like VS don't appear very logical on the surface, he seems to be just describing thinking processes.


Don't worry, I'm a lazy reader/busy, but I found the article ; )

Socionics - the16types.info - Supervision-relations

Causal-Determinist supervision chain (C-D; Process, Positivist, Static): ENTp( ILE) → ISTj (LSI) → ESFp (SEE) → INFj (EII) → ENTp (ILE)
-->TI -->SE --> FI --> NE
​Dialectical-Algorithmic supervision chain (D-A; Process, Negativist, Dynamic): ISFp (SEI) → ENFj (EIE) → INTp (ILI) → ESTj (LSE) → ISFp (SEI)

--> FE --> NI --> TE -->   SI 
​Vortical-Synergetic supervision chain (V-S; Result, Positivist, Dynamic): ESFj (ESE) → ISTp (SLI) → ENTj (LIE) → INFp (IEI) → ESFj (ESE)

--> SI --> TE -->  NI --> FE
​Holographical-Panoramic supervsion chain (H-P; Result, Negativist, Static): INTj (LII) → ENFp (IEE) → ISFj (ESI) → ESTp (SLE) → INTj (LII)

--> NE --> FI --> SE --> TI​


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Murkury said:


> I just stumbled accross this article that has the therory that each quadra has assigned to its valued functions:
> 
> a (+) which appears to mean: Maximise the positive aspect of that function
> 
> ...


OMG is that the math that actually explains what he was getting at? I was getting frustrated the other day trying to put that together myself. Thank you for spelling it out for us!


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> OMG is that the math that actually explains what he was getting at? I was getting frustrated the other day trying to put that together myself. Thank you for spelling it out for us!


No worries dude! ; )

That way does logically work, but as Per Jeremy's post; It seems that rather than SI/NI vs FI/TI, the intended is: 

TE vs TI; which doesn't immediately look logical, as only half of the groups of (VS/DA/CD/HP) Value either TI or TE.

But when you look at the last post: Supervision relations.

You can see that the types in the groups are connected by an ego function, forming a 'ring' 

e.g. ILE shares TI with LSI, who shares SE with SEE, who shares FI with EII, who shares NE with ILE


So it is the thinking function of each ring that is important


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Murkury said:


> No worries dude! ; )
> 
> That way does logically work, but as Per Jeremy's post; It seems that rather than SI/NI vs FI/TI, the intended is:
> 
> ...


Meaning it is the types that have the bolded function (in the above post with Ti or Te bolded and enlarged) as their conscious logical function when coupled with the appropriate other functions that jeremy linked to them? That is, provided Ni and Te are Mental and in any order for functions 1-4, then you are Vortical-Synergetic (and then extrapolate that logic to all of the groupings)?

CD: Se -> Ti
HP: Ne -> Ti
DA: Si -> Te
VS: Ni -> Te


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Meaning it is the types that have the bolded function (in the above post with Ti or Te bolded and enlarged) as their conscious logical function when coupled with the appropriate other functions that jeremy linked to them? That is, provided Ni and Te are Mental and in any order for functions 1-4, then you are Vortical-Synergetic (and then extrapolate that logic to all of the groupings)?
> 
> CD: Se -> Ti
> HP: Ne -> Ti
> ...


Basically. Then you can use the same element pairs to determine where you use the remaining 3 in your cognition.

For example, IEI:
Leading -> Creative: Ni -> Fe: VS
Creative -> Leading: Fe -> Ni: DA
Creative -> Role: Fe -> Si: VS
Role -> Creative: Si -> Fe: DA
Role -> PoLR: Si -> Te: VS
PoLR -> Role: Te -> Si: DA
PoLR -> Leading: Te -> Ni: VS
Leading -> PoLR: Ni -> Te: DA

Then similar for Vital Track's HP and CD.

Really, I just took the logic of the base article and applied it's structure to the sub-channels of the TIM, then introspected to verify and compare/contrast to behaviors of others identifications as well. 

It may be due to me being CD and having unvalued, contact Ti that I can explain it via Ti. Not sure if IEI's "I get it" would be similar, as their Ti is in Vital. Y'all's may just be more like a vortex and an acknowledging head nod for all I know.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Basically. Then you can use the same element pairs to determine where you use the remaining 3 in your cognition.
> 
> For example, IEI:
> Leading -> Creative: Ni -> Fe: VS
> ...


*stares* *Struggles*
So...erm...you are saying that a given type varies between the two styles that are on the same axis (static or Dynamic) when accessing various Mental functions, and they vary between the two styles on the opposite axis when they are using Vital Functions? Like, an ILE uses Ne, Ti, Se, Fi mental IIRC, so that makes them...HP? Because Ti and Ne? And that would mean that they vary between Causal Determinist and Holographic Panoramic when accessing Mental functions and they use the Dynamic thought styles when on their Vital Functions?

But if people spend most of their time in their Ego functions, then this would mean that they frequently shuttle back and forth between the two styles that are shared between Static or Dynamic. This would then mean that most people should easily identify with both styles of the same alignment, such as my own struggle to choose between VS and DA. Similarly, all Static types should then see aspects of themselves in both CD and HP cognition.

So in effect, there is a constant wave of looping back and forth that intensifies with the level of thought going on within a person, and the more complex the topic the more circular the patterns become as more elements are added and mixed in? Like a stewpot, everything seeping together until an output is achieved.

Does that sound like what you are trying to say?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> *stares* *Struggles*
> So...erm...you are saying that a given type varies between the two styles that are on the same axis (static or Dynamic) when accessing various Mental functions, and they vary between the two styles on the opposite axis when they are using Vital Functions? Like, an ILE uses Ne, Ti, Se, Fi mental IIRC, so that makes them...HP? Because Ti and Ne? And that would mean that they vary between Causal Determinist and Holographic Panoramic when accessing Mental functions and they use the Dynamic thought styles when on their Vital Functions?
> 
> But if people spend most of their time in their Ego functions, then this would mean that they frequently shuttle back and forth between the two styles that are shared between Static or Dynamic. This would then mean that most people should easily identify with both styles of the same alignment, such as my own struggle to choose between VS and DA. Similarly, all Static types should then see aspects of themselves in both CD and HP cognition.
> ...


Well, even though TIM is a static model, that's why they call it "dynamic." Think of it like a grid and (insert Tron:Legacy quote; jk) a dot enters and then moves any which way (as long as the functions or elements have a connection, like Fi -> Fe or Fe -> Ni) until it eventually exits the model as a "result."

This is kinda nitpicky, but important: "But if people spend most of their time in their Ego..." This is not stated to be the case. When people are doing something consciously, it is in their Ego. You know when you've got your head in the clouds while you're doing stuff? "in the clouds" is Mental, as you're using your conscious. "doing stuff" is Vital, as you're just automatically doing it.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, even though TIM is a static model, that's why they call it "dynamic." Think of it like a grid and (insert Tron:Legacy quote; jk) a dot enters and then moves any which way (as long as the functions or elements have a connection, like Fi -> Fe or Fe -> Ni) until it eventually exits the model as a "result."
> 
> This is kinda nitpicky, but important: "But if people spend most of their time in their Ego..." This is not stated to be the case. When people are doing something consciously, it is in their Ego. You know when you've got your head in the clouds while you're doing stuff? "in the clouds" is Mental, as you're using your conscious. "doing stuff" is Vital, as you're just automatically doing it.


True. I should say "people with no lives spend most of their time in their Ego, like my boring ass"


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

Nice one guys, so I just learnt conscious vs unconscious ; )

So... 

VS = ego order (-)(+) with conscious TE (Result, Dynamic)

HP = ego order (-)(+) with conscious TI (Result, Static)

DA = ego order (+)(-) with conscious TE (Process, Static)

CD = ego order (+)(-) with conscious TI (Process, Dynamic)

Conscious as opposed to vauled makes sense tbf, for a thinking style

Time for bed :ninja:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> True. I should say "people with no lives spend most of their time in their Ego, like my boring ass"


Not at all. Mental track is also called "Social," whereas Vital is also called "Individualistic."


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Murkury said:


> Nice one guys, so I just learnt conscious vs unconscious ; )
> 
> So...
> 
> ...


Yup, looks good. May want to add in a section for which is + and which is - for people that are +/- challenged.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Not at all. Mental track is also called "Social," whereas Vital is also called "Individualistic."


Hah. Fair enough. So then why do I struggle with seeing HP cognition in myself? Any thoughts?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hah. Fair enough. So then why do I struggle with seeing HP cognition in myself? Any thoughts?


Well, the entire article is clear classifications, which is Ti. However, that doesn't mean that the classifications are good enough for people's unconscious Ti. The article could just be a really poor level of Ti and your unconscious mind could be picking up on the fact. The writer is an LII, after all, so he probably just doesn't know how to make his thoughts into something clear enough for people to read. Whatever you're envisioning for HP is probably much closer than is written in the article.


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yup, looks good. May want to add in a section for which is + and which is - for people that are +/- challenged.


Good idea,


These are the positive or negative states of the valued functions of each quadra:


ALPHA

-Fe -Ti +Si +Ne 

BETA

+Fe +Ti -Se -Ni 

GAMMA

-Fi -Te +Se +Ni 

DELTA

+Fi +Te -Si -Ne 



VS = ego order (-)(+) with conscious TE (Result, Dynamic)

HP = ego order (-)(+) with conscious TI (Result, Static)

DA = ego order (+)(-) with conscious TE (Process, Static)

CD = ego order (+)(-) with conscious TI (Process, Dynamic)



So...(e.g.) 

ESE is in alpha, and has (-)FE then (+)SI as the ego order. 

ESE also has conscious TE

So ESE has a VS thinking style



Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko

Socionics Model A

[url]http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Gulenko_Cognitive_Styles

[/URL]


----------

