# Forms of Thinking



## cyamitide

Back in 2002, one of the prominent socionics researchers, Victor Goulenko, published this article in which he examined the basis of rings of Supervision. He observed that information exchange happened fairly quickly between types in Supervision relations and proceeded to investigate what is promoting these rapid exchanges. He discovered that the types in rings of supervision all share in the same cognitive style, which is what facilitated the information transfer. There are four of these styles (as there are 4 rings of supervision):

Holographic-Panoramic: applicable to types INTj, ISFj, ESTp, ENFp
Vortical-Synergetic: applicable to types INFp, ISTp, ENTj, ESFj
Dialectical-Algorithmic: applicable to types INTp, ISFp, ENFj, ESTj
Causal-Determinist: applicable to types INFj, ISTj, ENTp, ESFp

(Information passes from Supervisor to Supervisee in these relations. Reverse flow is obstructed and Supervisor doesn't hear the Supervisee.)

I'm not sure I understand all of it (if you think this article is too dense, don't worry you're not alone!) so it would be cool to discuss these further.

*Do you think these forms of thinking have any merit? Do you relate to the one prescribed to your type? How would you describe your style in your own words?
*


----------



## aestrivex

I am not at all interested in Gulenko's cognitive styles.


----------



## Zero11

cyamitide said:


> He observed that information exchange happened fairly quickly between types in Supervision relations


I can confirm this :crazy: it happens incredibly fast. (EIE Supervisor)

*Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition (Dynamic, Process Types)*

It makes only sense if you are aware of the Static - Dynamic distinction and Process - Result Types and therefore you need to read this: 

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/26-On-vectors-of-social-progress-by-A-Dovgan 
Part 2: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/77-On-Waves-of-Aging-and-Renewal (only additional)

to understand the "Forms of Thinking"



> The second cognitive form is of particular interest: it is synthetic, negative, and deductive.





> As Dynamics, these types synthesize associational images. As Evolutionary(Process) types, they increase deductive complexity of them. As Negativists, they work well with contradictions and paradoxes.


makes total sense to me :mellow: now

Also very interesting: *Vortical-Synergetic Cognition (Dynamic, Result Types)*

SLI, IEI, ESE, LIE the living chaos-theories (working through trial & error) makes total sense regarding my observations. :mellow:

*Causal-Determinist Cognition (Static, Process Types)*

ILE, LSI, SEE, EII


> Speech in this cognitive style takes shape with aid of the connectives "because", "therefore", "consequently" (causal conjunctions).


At first I thought that I do the same but I realized that the "Original types" use it more direct and aggressive so it seems to be a part of the Process-Style.


----------



## itsme45

A note... my vote basically just means that that form of thinking describes me the _least_.


----------



## tanstaafl28

aestrivex said:


> I am not at all interested in Gulenko's cognitive styles.



Thanks for informing us of this. My only question is why you bothered?


----------



## tanstaafl28

I am beginning to see why Socionics is so unpopular.

My reading comprehension skills have tested at college level since I was 12. I have a post-graduate degree. I read that article twice, and it made my head hurt. 

It reminds me of Post-Modernism; a self-indulgent orgy of "...Sound and fury signifying nothing..." in which long strings of 25-cent words are overused in instances where shorter strings of 5-cent words would work far better.
I cannot decide if the issue is with Victor Goulenko's native language, his writing style, or some cross-language translation problem, but it reads like a technical manual, as if human cognition is nothing more than a mechanical process used in some factory somewhere. 

Supposidly, my cognitive style is Causal-Determinist, but when I try to square that with my ELE/ENTp - How exactly can I constantly be attempting to discover a new way to do things, if I'm so busy making rigidly logical cause-effect
chains, and apparently, being easily indoctrinated, or brainwashed? How can I think outside the box, and yet be trapped in my rigid, mechanistic, systematic thinking? 

I think I'm beginning to understand why @aestrivex isn't interested in anything this guy has to say.

I'm not a huge fan of either causality, or determinism, to be honest.


----------



## aestrivex

tanstaafl28 said:


> Thanks for informing us of this. My only question is why you bothered?


because it was not difficult to do so.


----------



## itsme45

tanstaafl28 said:


> I am beginning to see why Socionics is so unpopular.
> 
> My reading comprehension skills have tested at college level since I was 12. I have a post-graduate degree. I read that article twice, and it made my head hurt.
> 
> It reminds me of Post-Modernism; a self-indulgent orgy of "...Sound and fury signifying nothing..." in which long strings of 25-cent words are overused in instances where shorter strings of 5-cent words would work far better.
> I cannot decide if the issue is with Victor Goulenko's native language, his writing style, or some cross-language translation problem, but it reads like a technical manual, as if human cognition is nothing more than a mechanical process used in some factory somewhere.
> 
> Supposidly, my cognitive style is Causal-Determinist, but when I try to square that with my ELE/ENTp - How exactly can I constantly be attempting to discover a new way to do things, if I'm so busy making rigidly logical cause-effect
> chains, and apparently, being easily indoctrinated, or brainwashed? How can I think outside the box, and yet be trapped in my rigid, mechanistic, systematic thinking?
> 
> I think I'm beginning to understand why @_aestrivex_ isn't interested in anything this guy has to say.
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of either causality, or determinism, to be honest.


I don't think one needs to get too scared of reading technical texts. It's perfectly normal to feel it's a hard read at first because it is. Needs more time to get processed. The word usage also has a point IMO.

Your other criticism... human cognition when analysed should be looked at in this way, really this way of Gulenko's is not even that mechanical yet. If you want to look at it in some humanist way instead then you are no longer looking at cognition but social thingies or something.

You do bring up a good point though about how it's hard to mesh these ideas together with other Socionics ideas. It's not really possible IMO and I don't even look at the Gulenko stuff as something strictly inside the context of the core socionist theory and that's an understatement. 

Btw I'm not sure if OP remembers my previous answer about this topic but I'll add it here for convenience, mix of HP with some CD. No it can't completely fit my socionics type as it's a mix of two styles, this now then that, I like both.


----------



## tanstaafl28

itsme45 said:


> I don't think one needs to get too scared of reading technical texts. It's perfectly normal to feel it's a hard read at first because it is. Needs more time to get processed. The word usage also has a point IMO.
> 
> Your other criticism... human cognition when analysed should be looked at in this way, really this way of Gulenko's is not even that mechanical yet. If you want to look at it in some humanist way instead then you are no longer looking at cognition but social thingies or something.
> 
> You do bring up a good point though about how it's hard to mesh these ideas together with other Socionics ideas. It's not really possible IMO and I don't even look at the Gulenko stuff as something strictly inside the context of the core socionist theory and that's an understatement.
> 
> Btw I'm not sure if OP remembers my previous answer about this topic but I'll add it here for convenience, mix of HP with some CD. No it can't completely fit my socionics type as it's a mix of two styles, this now then that, I like both.


It's not scared of overly technical texts. I just don't like them. If the information is worth knowing, it's worth writing clearly. Take the time to make your point clear so anyone can understand it. 

If Goulenko is writing for an audience of academics, then his work is probably fine, but if laymen. non-academics are to be involved, its way to highbrow for them. 

I don't find any of his cognitive theories coherent enough to consider which I use. It's just not user-friendly enough.


----------



## itsme45

tanstaafl28 said:


> It's not scared of overly technical texts. I just don't like them. If the information is worth knowing, it's worth writing clearly. Take the time to make your point clear so anyone can understand it.
> 
> If Goulenko is writing for an audience of academics, then his work is probably fine, but if laymen. non-academics are to be involved, its way to highbrow for them.
> 
> I don't find any of his cognitive theories coherent enough to consider which I use. It's just not user-friendly enough.


Ok, "scared" was maybe the wrong term to use. I don't see that stuff as being "highbrow" but you are right it's not user friendly for the average person just wanting to get to know and understand other people a bit better in a social context. That Gulenko stuff is not meant for that, either...

As for coherence... see there's a reason why I voted the way I did.


----------



## Zero11

here is more stuff to work with: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/51-Forms-of-Cognition-by-Victor-Gulenko

EyeSeeCold

*Static-Process-Positive: Causal-Deterministic Thinking (Imposition)*: 

*Dynamic-Process-Negative: Dialectical-Algorithmic Thinking (Parallelism)*: 

*Static-Result-Negative: Holographic-Panoramic Thinking (Reconstruction)*: 

*Dynamic-Result-Positive: Vortical-Synergetic Thinking (Opportunism)*:


xxxxxxxxx
Dynamic Process (Negativist) SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE D-A - Programmed Algorithms
Static Process (Positivist) ILE, LSI, SEE, EII C-D - Causes and Effects
Dynamic Result (Positivist) ESE, IEI, LIE, SLI V-S - Chaotic Thresholds 
Static Result (Negativist) LII, SLE, ESI, IEE H-P - Fundamental Definitions

labcoat

Positive/Result/Dynamic(V-S): opportunity taking types ESE, IEI, LIE, SLI
Negative/Result/Static(H-P): rejecting/selecting types LII, SLE, ESI, IEE
Negative/Process/Dynamic(D-A): criticizing types SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE
Positive/Process/Static(C-D): headlong problem-confronting types ILE, LSI, SEE, EII

Process: obstacle-minded
Result: opportunity-minded

Crispy

Four Philosophical Endgames derived from Aristotle's Four Causes and Gulenko's Cognitive Styles:
*Process Dual Pairings*
Causal-Determinist - ILE, LSI, SEE, EII
Efficient Cause - Who made it?
Who made the universe?

Dialectical-Algorithmic - EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI
Final Cause - What is it being made for?
What purpose does the universe serve?


*Results Dual Pairings 
*Holographical - SLE, LII, IEE, ESI
Formal Cause - What is it that is being made?
What exactly is the whole universe?

Vortical - ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI
Material Cause - What is a thing made of?
What is the universe made of?


----------



## tanstaafl28

itsme45 said:


> Ok, "scared" was maybe the wrong term to use. I don't see that stuff as being "highbrow" but you are right it's not user friendly for the average person just wanting to get to know and understand other people a bit better in a social context. That Gulenko stuff is not meant for that, either...
> 
> As for coherence... see there's a reason why I voted the way I did.


I like your tone. Few people are so charming with words. :wink:


----------



## Dauntless

cyamitide said:


> Causal-Determinist: applicable to types INFj, ISTj, ENTp, ESFp
> 
> (Information passes from Supervisor to Supervisee in these relations. Reverse flow is obstructed and Supervisor doesn't hear the Supervisee.)
> 
> I'm not sure I understand all of it (if you think this article is too dense, don't worry you're not alone!) so it would be cool to discuss these further.
> 
> *Do you think these forms of thinking have any merit? Do you relate to the one prescribed to your type? How would you describe your style in your own words?
> *


Looking now, thank you!


----------



## Helios

Not sure what my socionics type is at the moment, but the Dialectical-Algorithmic one fits the best.


----------



## cyamitide

itsme45 said:


> A note... my vote basically just means that that form of thinking describes me the _least_.


that's not quite what the poll question was asking but ok 



tanstaafl28 said:


> I am beginning to see why Socionics is so unpopular.
> 
> My reading comprehension skills have tested at college level since I was 12. I have a post-graduate degree. I read that article twice, and it made my head hurt.



This is advanced Socionics material. It takes weeks-months to understand it. This is assuming you already have some background in socionics. If you are a beginner, of course it is going to make your head hurt 

Socionics isn't easy. Perhaps this is what makes it unpopular among some. However, there are a few of us who enjoy the challenge. For me MBTI was too simplistic and easy. I exhausted it very quickly and then turned my eyes to socionics because it was more complex. Some people are warded off by difficulty, others are attracted to it.



> It reminds me of Post-Modernism; a self-indulgent orgy of "...Sound and fury signifying nothing..." in which long strings of 25-cent words are overused in instances where shorter strings of 5-cent words would work far better.
> I cannot decide if the issue is with Victor Goulenko's native language, his writing style, or some cross-language translation problem, but it reads like a technical manual, as if human cognition is nothing more than a mechanical process used in some factory somewhere.


You said your cognitive style is Causal-Determinist. The cognitive style of the author of this article is Holographic-Panoramic. His style would be difficult for you to understand. What to you is merely "sound and fury signifying nothing" for him this is providing numerous references and anecdotes which when _superimposed _on top of each other reveal the bigger picture (like a hologram), but because your own style of thinking is opposite to his, his writing is giving you a lot of trouble.

You can already see the importance of cognitive styles in action  Often when people are required to read books written by someone of very different cognitive style than their own, listen to a video or a lecture, they have greater difficulty comprehending the material.



> Supposidly, my cognitive style is Causal-Determinist, but when I try to square that with my ELE/ENTp - How exactly can I constantly be attempting to discover a new way to do things, if I'm so busy making rigidly logical cause-effect
> chains, and apparently, being easily indoctrinated, or brainwashed? How can I think outside the box, and yet be trapped in my thinking isn't antithetical to discovery.


By incorporating different axioms and then seeing where the chain of logic leads you. Think about Einstein and how many of his mental derivations are _only now_ finding experimental support. This is the power of Causal-Determinist thinking.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Well, perhaps you might go through the material and translate it as you did here.


----------



## cyamitide

tanstaafl28 said:


> Well, perhaps you might go through the material and translate it as you did here.


I am not sure I fully understand them myself. I started this thread hoping that others will provide some examples and use their own words to describe their cognitive style so as to provide more food for thought. There were some examples of each style given at the end of this article in comments (but I think you need to be logged in to see those).

I've begun to understand HP and VS styles somewhat better so I'll write down a condensed summary (those who belong to these styles, speak up if something is wrong):

Holographic-Panoramic is perhaps the easiest cognitive style to understand. It works similar to a hologram where superimposition of multiple beams creates an image (Holography). Holographers superimpose the information they gathered and develop this kind of solid, static view. They a top-down view of any system and see the system while surveying it from outside or above. This kind of thinking is good at finding problems, deficiencies, lacks in something that already exists. This style is also very stable, but that is both a plus and a minus. It's plus is greater clarity in thinking especially in chaotic situations. The minus is if something is "borked" and the person's thinking becomes screwy, it is also very difficult to persuade them otherwise (in other words, HP thinkers would be weakly responsive to something like cognitive therapy and counseling for example). This thinking style also becomes stale and repetitious.

Vortical-synergetic style of thinking can be called most natural style - it works very similarly to natural selection (Charles Darwin is typed as ISTp in Socionics, a VS type). VS thinking is random, chaotic, impulsive. VS thinking is likened to self-assembly in natural systems - many different bits of information suddenly come together. VS types see greater number of possibilities, but have difficulty "crystallizing" them into singular view, which is what HP types do for them. The downside of this style of thinking is that it is wasteful, unpredictable. VS types struggle the most with the logic of CD types.


----------



## Spades

This is a lot to process. It's the third time I've looked at it, and each time I understand it a little bit more. I think the key is to ignore the types it's supposed to correspond to and approach it as a different system altogether (at least at first).

I'm still unclear on the processes, but I think I relate most to *Dialectrical-Algorithmic*.


----------



## itsme45

cyamitide said:


> that's not quite what the poll question was asking but ok


Yes I realise that but I couldn't quite answer in a better way. (I think I explained why, if not clear then feel free to ask.)




cyamitide said:


> I am not sure I fully understand them myself. I started this thread hoping that others will provide some examples and use their own words to describe their cognitive style so as to provide more food for thought. There were some examples of each style given at the end of this article in comments (but I think you need to be logged in to see those).


Any chance you can copypaste the examples here in this thread?


----------



## Zeit

tanstaafl28 said:


> I am beginning to see why Socionics is so unpopular.


There aren't many good socionists, particularly who command English language very well. 
Most people who approach it just see awkward forums of people trying to decipher things. 

I haven't looked a lot at Gulenko's work on the topic of this thread extensively, but I think one of the major problems in 'teaching socionics' is that there is very poor differentiation between high level texts and basic stuff... and related transitionings between the two. 

Between that, and, the inherently subjective nature of how people relate to the material being discussed, it's often rather ... awkward. 

I think socionics is perhaps better aided by non-social science studies, like calculus and maybe even physics, rather than simply delving into jung's work or other awkward profiles. But I say that now after a long time of considering these things.


----------



## itsme45

Zeit said:


> There aren't many good socionists, particularly who command English language very well.
> Most people who approach it just see awkward forums of people trying to decipher things.


There's not a lot to decipher about basic socionics. And the rest is only loosely related, those theories might as well be called by different names. There's not a bit of consistency in any of this, really.




> I haven't looked a lot at Gulenko's work on the topic of this thread extensively, but I think one of the major problems in 'teaching socionics' is that there is very poor differentiation between high level texts and basic stuff... and related transitionings between the two.


It's not just that high level stuff shouldn't be mixed with basic stuff... issue is worse than that 




> Between that, and, the inherently subjective nature of how people relate to the material being discussed, it's often rather ... awkward.


If people would finally admit that it's not socionics but their own theories and stop calling it socionics and stop using socionics notation, it'd be all fine.




> I think socionics is perhaps better aided by non-social science studies, like calculus and maybe even physics, rather than simply delving into jung's work or other awkward profiles. But I say that now after a long time of considering these things.


Why would you want to study calculus and physics to understand people on a psychological level? I'm sorry to break the news to you but psychology is quite far from physics, nobody has built a good direct connection between the two on a theoretical level (nope, socionics didn't either), let alone beyond the theoretical level.

You could do something with math studies (such as calculus) if you want to do serious cognitive modeling but socionics is not about that, either.

And then... What's so awkward about Jung? Jung though again shouldn't be mixed with socionics. Socionics is its own theory, not Jung's theory.


----------



## cocoabean

@itsme45 - A physics lab is one of the most interesting places to observe people, though. 
My style is Holographical-Panoramic. The holograph example made all the sense in the world. There are people I was able to associate to each type, and while I cannot decide how someone else thinks, I feel like this concept explains a lot. I love it!


----------



## itsme45

cocoabean said:


> @_itsme45_ - A physics lab is one of the most interesting places to observe people, though.


Eh, tell me more?


----------



## echidna1000

You'll find that my argumentation is VERY Causal-Deterministic


----------



## cyamitide

echidna1000 said:


> You'll find that my argumentation is VERY Causal-Deterministic


ahaha I remember some of your posts and yes you are very CD in your reasoning
too bad you have been banned


----------



## Entropic

I have been waffling a bit between holographic-panoramic but I do think my thinking style is actually closer to casual-deterministic, especially after observing the cognitive differences between myself and bearotter and the latter is definitely clearly holographic-panoramic. I actually have troubles following the train of thought of strong Ti use in general in socionics as the holographic-panoramic tends to describe a phenomenon in many different ways. I can't even reproduce it properly, but let's say I am going to describe a rock, the HR is akin to: "often octaval in nature with somewhat rugged and uneven surface, can be colored grey but also that of other colors. Solid surface and core" bla bla and ugh it's draining to just try to think this way in the long run. 

It's easier to just think A > B > C, and it's definitely easier to call a godamn rock a rock instead of a "round object grey in color with somewhat rugged surface".


----------



## Jennywocky

Spades said:


> This is a lot to process. It's the third time I've looked at it, and each time I understand it a little bit more. I think the key is to ignore the types it's supposed to correspond to and approach it as a different system altogether (at least at first).


I'm about to launch into the reading, and that's exactly what I had just told myself mentally a few seconds before I read your post -- don't try to tie it to any other system, just start over from the ground up and build from scratch, worry about correlations later.


----------



## cyamitide

Jennywocky said:


> I'm about to launch into the reading, and that's exactly what I had just told myself mentally a few seconds before I read your post -- don't try to tie it to any other system, just start over from the ground up and build from scratch, worry about correlations later.


I've read through it a couple of times by now and this takes a while to assimilate. The examples that were posted at the bottom of that article were very helpful (I think you need to be logged in to see them).



LeaT said:


> I have been waffling a bit between holographic-panoramic but I do think my thinking style is actually closer to casual-deterministic, especially after observing the cognitive differences between myself and bearotter and the latter is definitely clearly holographic-panoramic. I actually have troubles following the train of thought of strong Ti use in general in socionics as the holographic-panoramic tends to describe a phenomenon in many different ways. I can't even reproduce it properly, but let's say I am going to describe a rock, the HR is akin to: "often octaval in nature with somewhat rugged and uneven surface, can be colored grey but also that of other colors. Solid surface and core" bla bla and ugh it's draining to just try to think this way in the long run.
> 
> It's easier to just think A > B > C, and it's definitely easier to call a godamn rock a rock instead of a "round object grey in color with somewhat rugged surface".


that sounds more like Se than anything -- describing external properties of objects in great detail -- I don't think this is what HP style is like, at least this is not what I've noticed with INTjs


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> that sounds more like Se than anything -- describing external properties of objects in great detail -- I don't think this is what HP style is like, at least this is not what I've noticed with INTjs


And I think I'm bad at describing it properly too.


----------



## cyamitide

itsme45 said:


> Any chance you can copypaste the examples here in this thread?


oops sorry must have missed reading this -- I'll copy paste a few of them, there are more examples provided in the comments to that article

this is for D-A style 



"... my thinking style mostly consists of balancing opposites, finding middle grounds and relative truths based on the relative strength of opposing internal dispositions; when I'm under stress it kind of feels like I'm walking a tight rope, trying to balance what's going on in my head. To me it feels like a constant balancing act of my own internal tendencies for the things that I consider good and evil, the things I consciously do to improve myself and the world and my ability to promote my own vision of how I think things should be vs. the evils I am compelled to do either by my own impulses that I struggle to control or by circumstance. Everything I do is weighed on these scales, every word that comes out of my mouth, every emotional signal I send, every action I take, and the final outcome, what comes out of me and goes into the world, is dependent on how the scales are balancing inside me." - EIE
"I have a horrible talent for entertaining and enhancing oppositions in my mind. If two things don't go together, I put them together in my perceptions. And I get paralyzed or something. I'm basically nuts. It's that I really see how a thing and its opposite fit together, locked up. And that can bring me a huge amount of pleasure, to see that. The downside seems to be that I can't ... um, function. These are gestalts. And so a good friend will come in with a nice hammer and start breaking it into pieces." - EIE
"The best I can represent it as would be something like a scale that has weight being constantly poured onto it, and the ENFJ's role is to dictate where the weight falls in order to maintain proper balance. I think it makes a lot of sense for Aristocratic EJs: rational aristocracy is all about maintaining a social structure, so its fitting that the EJs have a style of thinking that supports their role, one focused on "keeping things together." The mental assumption of EJ temperament is that everything is in motion, and that it should be organized, and that energy needs to be exerted in order to maintain organization; the Democrat EJs (ENTJs) being the transition point to aristocratic quadras, take a more generative role with Vortex thinking, finding the right opportunity to promote cathectic action; once the shift is made into an extant collective, the Aristocratic EJs (ENFJs) take on the role of holding everything together once the opportunity to organize has been capitalized upon." - EIE

this is for V-S style



"My thinking is alike mucking about in puddles - randomized, but following some sort of direction. Playing some music, my head clicks together properly and thoughts come into focused torrents. I live in a world of organized chaos, headwise." - IEI, forum poster
"I love to deconstruct complex concepts, organize ideas, form conclusions or arguments by looking at it through several different lenses. I love that "Aha!" moment when everything clicks together for me." - IEI, forum poster
"To be blunt, I arrived at this typing out of gestalt. Since I know myself better than anybody else, and since I am the common denominator in all of my inter-type relations, my self typing becomes the focal point around my understanding of socionics coalesces. Imagining myself to be different types is akin to playing around with the focus on a pair of binoculars. Everything comes out blurry at all focal settings other than this one. At this point, everything snaps into focus and I am taken aback by how well socionics premises appear to jive with my own experiences. Every other focal setting produces a jumbled mess of incoherence from which nothing of value can be gleaned." - IEI, forum poster
"Vortex thinking believes the system is not perfectly counter balanced, and the connections of all the data imply the value of an unknown variable (all the information points toward its value). The value of the variable is what brings the system back into balance. That's why vortex thinking is opportunistic. Vortex thinking is searching for something." - IEI, forum poster

this is for H-P



"Lets say you're in a room that has no walls, no floor, and no roof. This room is completely free of conventional rules except for those of your own choosing (rules such as gravity for example). Now in this room, the focus of your attention is an object that you are dissecting or even expanding upon. You don't have to come into direct contact with the object in order to move it in anyway. However you choose to view the object will allow you to view in this way. You could choose to inverse the object in anyway shape or form to accurately/properly analyze it from your desired perspective." - LII
"My frame of perception is constantly shifting, or I'm layering one on top of the other." - LII, , forum poster
"Ti delves into possible realities. First, a schema appears before the mind's eye, then the facts are filled in depending on the context, but the facts are never given value. there is no seeking of facts for their own sake." - LII
"Art is the elimination of the unnecessary" - SLE, Pablo Picasso
"Why the hell would I need to think about reasons? if I got them, I do stuff; if I don't, I might do stuff just the same; oftentimes the conclusion would be the same either way, but I get there faster if I just chop out a large bulk, if not all, of the deliberation" - IEE
"I never over analyze the things that people say or do - I feel like people's intentions are always very clear to me." - ESI


tbh I didn't like the examples provided for C-D -- this one sounded ok but difficult to understand, I think the main point here is his difficulty with dealing with uncertainty

"If one asks how one's mind works, he notices areas where it is (perhaps incorrectly) understood, that is, where one recognizes rules. One sees other areas where he lacks rules. One could fill this in by postulating chance or random activity. But this too, by another route, exposes the self to the same indignity of remote control. We resolve this unpleasant form of M** by postulating a third part, embodying a will or spirit or conscious agent. But there is no structure in this part; one can say nothing meaningful about it, because whenever a regularity is observed, its representation is transferred to the deterministic rule region. The will model is thus not formed from a legitimate need for a place to store definite information about one's self; it has the singular character of being forced into the model, willy-nilly, by formal but essentially content-free ideas of what the model must contain."


----------



## Entropic

This is how I see CD, I think:

When solving a problem or finding a solution, I can think of all the possible outcomes and try to narrow it down to the one outcome that is the most likely to have occurred. I tend to go through each outcome, and as I rule out more outcomes, the actual outcome will eventually appear.


----------



## itsme45

cyamitide said:


> oops sorry must have missed reading this -- I'll copy paste a few of them, there are more examples provided in the comments to that article


Thanks! According to this.. D-A style is still most foreign for me


----------



## Helios

LeaT said:


> I have been waffling a bit between holographic-panoramic but I do think my thinking style is actually closer to casual-deterministic, especially after observing the cognitive differences between myself and bearotter and the latter is definitely clearly holographic-panoramic. I actually have troubles following the train of thought of strong Ti use in general in socionics as the holographic-panoramic tends to describe a phenomenon in many different ways. I can't even reproduce it properly, but let's say I am going to describe a rock, the HR is akin to: "often octaval in nature with somewhat rugged and uneven surface, can be colored grey but also that of other colors. Solid surface and core" bla bla and ugh it's draining to just try to think this way in the long run.
> 
> It's easier to just think A > B > C, and it's definitely easier to call a godamn rock a rock instead of a "round object grey in color with somewhat rugged surface".


Yes, bear is _definitely_ holographic-panoramic in thought style. And I think gingertonic is a pretty good example of causal determinism too based on my observations of he and various others on the forum in debate. Don't you think? 

As for my style, I honestly think Dialectical-Algorithmic or Vortical-Synergetic could work.


----------



## Entropic

FacelessBeauty said:


> Yes, bear is _definitely_ holographic-panoramic in thought style. And I think gingertonic is a pretty good example of causal determinism too based on my observations of he and various others on the forum in debate. Don't you think?
> 
> As for my style, I honestly think Dialectical-Algorithmic or Vortical-Synergetic could work.


Not sure about ginger, it was some time ago since I read one of his more logically elaborated posts but I think I know what you mean. 

And I've already told you I think DA fits your thinking closer than VS. For one, I think we'd have more conflicts if your thinking was VS because we really wouldn't understand where our thinking is coming from.


----------



## Helios

LeaT said:


> Not sure about ginger, it was some time ago since I read one of his more logically elaborated posts but I think I know what you mean.
> 
> And I've already told you I think DA fits your thinking closer than VS. For one, I think we'd have more conflicts if your thinking was VS because we really wouldn't understand where our thinking is coming from.


Well conversely, CD is the one that I vibe with the least and am more opposed to in general. And we share rational functions, so that could take a great deal of weight off.


----------



## nujabes

@LeaT @FacelessBeauty

I'm definitely Causal-Determinist. 



> 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.


This hits very close to home for me. If I can't draw a single, unbroken line of reasoning from original cause to final effect, I become totally lost and struggle to understand a chain of events.


----------



## cyamitide

gingertonic said:


> I'm definitely Causal-Determinist.
> 
> This hits very close to home for me. If I can't draw a single, unbroken line of reasoning from original cause to final effect, I become totally lost and struggle to understand a chain of events.


Haven't seen too many of your posts on this forum, but I'd like to know what is your MBTI type and if you know your Socionics type?


----------



## nujabes

cyamitide said:


> Haven't seen too many of your posts on this forum, but I'd like to know what is your MBTI type and if you know your Socionics type?


MBTI - ENTP
Socionics - ILE - Ti subtype


----------



## LibertyPrime

@cyamitide

Vortical-Synergetic style seems to be it, but I have some questions.

I tend towards the inductive approach, however I can't decide on positive or negative. I tend to see the neagtive in everything, but at the same time my mind is abuzz with how it can be overcome and I always think it can be overcome. To every problem there is at least one solution: 

- "The problem here is this and that, this won't work because of that and over here we will fall into such and such trap, if we aren't careful the future outcome can look like this." 

- "So how do we fix this?"

- "Well....*insert possible solutions with future orientated endresult scenario thinking & random eureka moments resulting from paralel constant mulling over information."

*<.<...I'd describe my mind as a whirlwind of chaos and I SEE the patterns in the chaos, connect the present to the future. I'm liable to overthink things and tend towards inaction, overcontemplation. Its like my opinion is constantly mutating based on incomming information, but i usually fail to act on it.*

:/ I'm very chaotic and roundabout, jumpy in my thought process...not to mention self doubting, contradictory and skeptical. I tend to keep hammering away at problems until the perfect solution comes to me from one failed attempt cascading into another one which can fail or not. Attempt after attempt I get closer to the truth.

*<.< I think since I require reassurance and mainly see the negatives clearly, try to minimize casualties etc...it must be negative, thus Vortical-Synergetic is incorrect for me. I also expect and naticipate the worst from people and everyting.*

 hmm so if I'm negative and inductive, then according to theory I'm also STATIC. If all this is true, then *Holographical-Panoramic Cognition is the most likely one*.

This swould explain why I constantly attempt to look at the same thing (personality) from the perspective of multiple theories, trying to connect all into one transparent system. To me it doesen't matter if its INFP, IEE, Supine, RCUAI or whatever the designation and point of view is, because all these systems look at the same thing, they have some interconnection visible or not and adress maybe the same part maybe a different part of the same thing, overlapping or compllementary.

*braindump complete....damn writing stuff out really helps the thinking process...wtf =_= why does freaking IEE pop up everywhere in socionics for me!? :\ I swear by MBTI standards and even psychological standards i'm introverted (thou yeah I HATE being alone). <.< being SUPINE might shed some light onto this as it is refered to as the "closet sanguine"...so psychologically extroverted while manifesting introverted behaviour.


----------



## cyamitide

FreeBeer said:


> hmm so if I'm negative and inductive, then according to theory I'm also STATIC. If all this is true, then *Holographical-Panoramic Cognition is the most likely one*.
> 
> This swould explain why I constantly attempt to look at the same thing (personality) from the perspective of multiple theories, trying to connect all into one transparent system. To me it doesen't matter if its INFP, IEE, Supine, RCUAI or whatever the designation and point of view is, because all these systems look at the same thing, they have some interconnection visible or not and adress maybe the same part maybe a different part of the same thing, overlapping or compllementary.
> 
> *braindump complete....damn writing stuff out really helps the thinking process...wtf =_= why does freaking IEE pop up everywhere in socionics for me!? :\ I swear by MBTI standards and even psychological standards i'm introverted (thou yeah I HATE being alone). <.< being SUPINE might shed some light onto this as it is refered to as the "closet sanguine"...so psychologically extroverted while manifesting introverted behaviour.


Congrats on figuring this out!

Only things I would add is that if you are sure of yourself being Fi-valuing and ethical type, ESI is another possibility that you should look into. If you are Fi-ESI you may be more dreamy and "softer" than what the usual socionics profiles describe of them.

The kind of excessive mental ruminations that you describe could be due to several things:
-- Inert subtype (Ne-IEE or Fi-ESI). Inert subtypes engage their mental block, while contact subtype engage their vital block. This means that inert subtypes spend a lot of time on absorbing and thinking over information.
-- Enneagram head triad. I see that it says 6w7 in your signature. 6s experience a lot of doubt and expand a lot of mental energy to resolve those doubts by carefully thinking things through.
-- IJ vs EP temperament. IJs have to carefully analyze any information that they encounter, which makes ESI more probable typing than IEE.


----------



## cyamitide

FreeBeer said:


> This swould explain why I constantly attempt to look at the same thing (personality) from the perspective of multiple theories, trying to connect all into one transparent system. To me it doesen't matter if its INFP, IEE, Supine, RCUAI or whatever the designation and point of view is, because all these systems look at the same thing, they have some interconnection visible or not and adress maybe the same part maybe a different part of the same thing, overlapping or compllementary.


If you're looking for "inner" inter-connectedness that could indicate Ni-mobilizing -- converging all theories into a single essence. 

Does this sound familiar? The points about having to break away to resolve inner conflicts?



> *Ni as mobilizing function of LSI (ISTj; Maxim Gorky) and ESI (ISFj; Dreiser)* - the area of self-esteem of these types is the "wholeness" of the internal situation, internal harmony, ideological consistency and consistency of principles, internal tranquility. In order to protect this point, they usually just need a little break away from the people on this issue to resolve the inner conflicts, so they almost always cope successfully with this task. From the side, they always seem to be very consistent and principled people. They always think, do and say the same things, that is, they never contradict themselves and expect the same out of others.


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/193-Aspects-in-the-Valued-Functions-Dmitry-Golihov


----------



## LibertyPrime

cyamitide said:


> If you're looking for "inner" inter-connectedness that could indicate Ni-mobilizing -- converging all theories into a single essence.
> 
> Does this sound familiar? The points about having to break away to resolve inner conflicts?
> 
> 
> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/193-Aspects-in-the-Valued-Functions-Dmitry-Golihov


Internal ideological consistency, consistency of principles...hmm. I do contradict myself and internally I only recognize chaos, constant fluctation based on incoming information. I have this problem with not knowing what exactly is going on with me internally, I tend to rely on external systems to explain things and base a lot on self observation from the outside in.

I was thinking the same regarding IEE & ESI, will need to look into it again. Unsure about being a feeling rational dom as I tend to be analitical, can hold some views and opinions that would seem rather cold hearted to people, which is why I have said before that I walk a fine line between F & T, however I know this really depends on function order, something which I find difficult to figure out (internally blind).

EDIT: currently reconsidering ESI as my type again. Considering ISFP as my type as well again.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> Internal ideological consistency, consistency of principles...hmm. I do contradict myself and internally I only recognize chaos, constant fluctation based on incoming information. I have this problem with not knowing what exactly is going on with me internally, I tend to rely on external systems to explain things and base a lot on self observation from the outside in.
> 
> I was thinking the same regarding IEE & ESI, will need to look into it again. Unsure about being a feeling rational dom as I tend to be analitical, can hold some views and opinions that would seem rather cold hearted to people, which is why I have said before that I walk a fine line between F & T, however I know this really depends on function order, something which I find difficult to figure out (internally blind).
> 
> EDIT: currently reconsidering ESI as my type again. Considering ISFP as my type as well again.


After getting a better grasp of the theory I'm pretty sure you're not an IEE and I got nothing more substantial to add than vibe typing but so far it's been pretty accurate. I think you're correct at trying to look into ESI again because you're most likely an Se valuing type based on the posts I've read from you. I would even consider SEE with Fi subtype.


----------



## LibertyPrime

LeaT said:


> After getting a better grasp of the theory I'm pretty sure you're not an IEE and I got nothing more substantial to add than vibe typing but so far it's been pretty accurate. I think you're correct at trying to look into ESI again because you're most likely an Se valuing type based on the posts I've read from you. I would even consider SEE with Fi subtype.


Well considering some ISFP-ish things that were noted (especially my creative writing style amongst other things), my best guess is ESI Fi subtype. There seem to be several indicators that make this type the most plausible choice. This may explain why I have more of an ISTP-ish streak regarding machines and less of an INTP-ish inclination towards abstract preference in this area.

Its funny how I don't score Sensor on the tests thou, but I'm starting to see why.


----------



## cyamitide

FreeBeer said:


> Its funny how I don't score Sensor on the tests thou, but I'm starting to see why.


ESI Fis have strong Ni so it could veer your test results towards an intuitive type. 

It's a tell-tale sign of mobilizing Ni that you're trying to find some kind of common, uniting underlining between different systems and concepts. An example of this kind of mindset would be Chris Langan, "the smartest man on earth", who in socionics gets typed as LSI, which is the other Ni-mobilizing type -- he says he is developing a united "Theory of Everything". What he is going is a larger scale, much more ambitious project that is similar to what you're doing trying to find common ground between different typological systems.

IEEs don't direct their mental efforts into finding this kind of common ground. Dominant Ne works in the opposite to mobilizing Ni -- it differentiates, recombines, brings hypothetical alternatives to the mind that "destroy" this kind of theoretical unity. This is how Ne types manage to annoy Ni types 

Another thing I've noted is that EIIs don't strive to find common ground between MBTI and Socionics. They are perfectly fine to study them as separate systems. I attribute this to their lack of Ni -- this is something that differentiates them from ESIs and LSIs.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> ESI Fis have strong Ni so it could veer your test results towards an intuitive type.
> 
> It's a tell-tale sign of mobilizing Ni that you're trying to find some kind of common, uniting underlining between different systems and concepts. An example of this kind of mindset would be Chris Langan, "the smartest man on earth", who in socionics gets typed as LSI, which is the other Ni-mobilizing type -- he says he is developing a united "Theory of Everything". What he is going is a larger scale, much more ambitious project that is similar to what you're doing trying to find common ground between different typological systems.
> 
> IEEs don't direct their mental efforts into finding this kind of common ground. Dominant Ne works in the opposite to mobilizing Ni -- it differentiates, recombines, brings hypothetical alternatives to the mind that "destroy" this kind of theoretical unity. This is how Ne types manage to annoy Ni types
> 
> Another thing I've noted is that EIIs don't strive to find common ground between MBTI and Socionics. They are perfectly fine to study them as separate systems. I attribute this to their lack of Ni -- this is something that differentiates them from ESIs and LSIs.


Yes about Ne, haha. I always see us Ne types destroying the fabric that holds the logic together for Ni types. The battle never ends :tongue:

And yes about wanting to keep MBTI and socionics kind of separate. That's how I see it too, although I doubt this view is unique for Ne or Ni think. I think for example that Kanerou is probably correct in looking into Se creative (ESI-Fi) and she holds a similar view as I do in this area, and so does Promethea as IEI-Fe. And then I see someone as bearotter (LII-Ti) trying to merge the systems into one new larger system for example.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@LeaT @cyamitide

Hmm, well yeah. MBTI ISFP for example lives in the present and thinks little of the future, however since AMD APUs arrived and HSA has been looming on the horizon :\ I have been patiently waiting for the right moment to switch and it will arrive this year in the form of the Kaveri model.

Similarly I have a tendency to connect the present with the past and forecast into the future, then base decisions on that logic. For example I am not building a house in the town I grew up anymore (originally planned to build it) , because right now the chances are high a formaldehyde factory will be authorized and built. This sort of throws a wrench in my original plan as now I have to consider the negative environmental effects that will have, the impact on my health if I stay here and also how much value the land and property in the town will lose, future chance of selling the property if I want to move etc. Currently my project is on hold and I'm evaluating other variables that may negatively impact me if I choose to go forward with the original plan. Atm common sense dictates: relocate, do your research and make sure.

Other situations would include the recent one where my dad was remodeling the basement and we had to work in a very dusty environment, him scoffing at the idea of wearing some kind of mask at least, while my concern was mainly that we can potentially get sick from this (as I outlined in what can happen) and then would need to factor in medication costs and downtime into the total cost of the project, which would then surpass the cost of 2 masks lol. :\.

This is what I mean by me seeing the negatives and planning accordingly to evade them. :\ this kinda sux when I can see where a relationship with a woman is going and I can predict the future based on how she has been in the past, how she is right now in the future. Once that is established and the horrid gut feeling plus sense of impending doom and suffocation kicks in....I know its time to get the fuck out of the relationship, such things can be expanded to include different life situations. Its frequent that I don't get into or buy something or avoid some people based on these estimations. For example a good reason to never start smoking in the first place would be the cost and strain it puts on my wallet along side of me continuously poisoning my lungs which eventually ends in cancer preceded by other annoying shit I'd rather not deal with.

Ofc the possibility exists that I walk outside & something falls on my head, which leads to my untimely demise, in which case living life & partying would have been preferable, sadly ^^; I don't have impulses towards that as I find it boring & stressful.

<.< so yeah there is a definite split here somewhere or as usual I just don't see the full picture. Its often very easy to type someone else, especially in the Enneagram, or to predict tendencies, actions and even what someone will become given past and present inclinations....but when it comes to dissecting and understanding myself....its beyond difficult and I feel the need to constantly get external input because I feel as if I were internally blind....I just can't spot the complete picture of how I actually function. 

Note that when I say plan for the future, I don't mean write it down step by step graphs and such things. I mainly have it in my head visualized sort of like dots connected towards a distant goal.* There is a definite internal chaos from which order and logic bubbles too the surface and there is a physical external manifestation of this underlying chaos (messy & disorganized), but there is also a method to my madness and I'm kinda highly calculated, I think a LOT before I act, thou sometimes I do get impulsive, especially when I don't seem able to find the answers....so far this is limited to myself and not understanding how I function, thus being unable to chose a path of development. :/ this really frustrates me, that one question..."What to do in life, what to be in life? Where lie my preferences?"*

I find this to be highly unusual given the standard MBTI description of what Se means in ISFP. Impulsive & living in the present.


----------



## Zero11

@Rim

damn :laughing: @FreeBeer

This stuff is useless the thing you are describing is the Enneagram - for your JCF type you need to compare yourself with other people.


----------



## Aleksei

Cognition style is one of the most central features of one's type. It's the main reason I self-type ESE over anything else.

Protip: If your cognition style does not describe you accurately, either you didn't understand it or *your type is wrong*. Please consider making a type-me thread if that's the case.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> @_LeaT_ @_cyamitide_
> 
> Hmm, well yeah. MBTI ISFP for example lives in the present and thinks little of the future, however since AMD APUs arrived and HSA has been looming on the horizon :\ I have been patiently waiting for the right moment to switch and it will arrive this year in the form of the Kaveri model.
> 
> Similarly I have a tendency to connect the present with the past and forecast into the future, then base decisions on that logic. For example I am not building a house in the town I grew up anymore (originally planned to build it) , because right now the chances are high a formaldehyde factory will be authorized and built. This sort of throws a wrench in my original plan as now I have to consider the negative environmental effects that will have, the impact on my health if I stay here and also how much value the land and property in the town will lose, future chance of selling the property if I want to move etc. Currently my project is on hold and I'm evaluating other variables that may negatively impact me if I choose to go forward with the original plan. Atm common sense dictates: relocate, do your research and make sure.
> 
> Other situations would include the recent one where my dad was remodeling the basement and we had to work in a very dusty environment, him scoffing at the idea of wearing some kind of mask at least, while my concern was mainly that we can potentially get sick from this (as I outlined in what can happen) and then would need to factor in medication costs and downtime into the total cost of the project, which would then surpass the cost of 2 masks lol. :\.
> 
> This is what I mean by me seeing the negatives and planning accordingly to evade them. :\ this kinda sux when I can see where a relationship with a woman is going and I can predict the future based on how she has been in the past, how she is right now in the future. Once that is established and the horrid gut feeling plus sense of impending doom and suffocation kicks in....I know its time to get the fuck out of the relationship, such things can be expanded to include different life situations. Its frequent that I don't get into or buy something or avoid some people based on these estimations. For example a good reason to never start smoking in the first place would be the cost and strain it puts on my wallet along side of me continuously poisoning my lungs which eventually ends in cancer preceded by other annoying shit I'd rather not deal with.
> 
> Ofc the possibility exists that I walk outside & something falls on my head, which leads to my untimely demise, in which case living life & partying would have been preferable, sadly ^^; I don't have impulses towards that as I find it boring & stressful.
> 
> <.< so yeah there is a definite split here somewhere or as usual I just don't see the full picture. Its often very easy to type someone else, especially in the Enneagram, or to predict tendencies, actions and even what someone will become given past and present inclinations....but when it comes to dissecting and understanding myself....its beyond difficult and I feel the need to constantly get external input because I feel as if I were internally blind....I just can't spot the complete picture of how I actually function.
> 
> Note that when I say plan for the future, I don't mean write it down step by step graphs and such things. I mainly have it in my head visualized sort of like dots connected towards a distant goal.* There is a definite internal chaos from which order and logic bubbles too the surface and there is a physical external manifestation of this underlying chaos (messy & disorganized), but there is also a method to my madness and I'm kinda highly calculated, I think a LOT before I act, thou sometimes I do get impulsive, especially when I don't seem able to find the answers....so far this is limited to myself and not understanding how I function, thus being unable to chose a path of development. :/ this really frustrates me, that one question..."What to do in life, what to be in life? Where lie my preferences?"*
> 
> I find this to be highly unusual given the standard MBTI description of what Se means in ISFP. Impulsive & living in the present.


But you are posting in the socionics forum. Anyway, I think you should focus less on descriptions (I am not sure why you do this) but focus more on actual function preferences where Se is simply the preference to see the world in a very concrete "as is" manner. I still suggest SEE-Fi as I think perhaps part what you wrote in the bold could be indicative of Ni seeking. You need the theoretical groundedness of Ni with Te. Actually, scratch just the bold. I think a lot of what you wrote in general here is indicative of Ni seeking. And with regards to cognitive style, you seem vaguely closer to casual-deterministic and I fail to see the leading IJ temperament. EP makes far more sense. Also, this inability to stick to a logical framework along with CP6 could be indicative of Ti vulnerable. 

In other words, Rim, find your INTp partner and chill the fuck down


----------



## cyamitide

FreeBeer said:


> Similarly I have a tendency to connect the present with the past and forecast into the future, then base decisions on that logic. For example I am not building a house in the town I grew up anymore (originally planned to build it) , because right now the chances are high a formaldehyde factory will be authorized and built. This sort of throws a wrench in my original plan as now I have to consider the negative environmental effects that will have, the impact on my health if I stay here and also how much value the land and property in the town will lose, future chance of selling the property if I want to move etc. Currently my project is on hold and I'm evaluating other variables that may negatively impact me if I choose to go forward with the original plan. Atm common sense dictates: relocate, do your research and make sure.


If you had a Ni-ego dual around they would come up with alternative plans already, so that you don't have to wait and waste your time because something has wrecked your original plans. 



> Other situations would include the recent one where my dad was remodeling the basement and we had to work in a very dusty environment, him scoffing at the idea of wearing some kind of mask at least, while my concern was mainly that we can potentially get sick from this (as I outlined in what can happen) and then would need to factor in medication costs and downtime into the total cost of the project, which would then surpass the cost of 2 masks lol. :\


Is self-preservation instinct your primary? You seem to worry a lot about environment and healthiness.



> This is what I mean by me seeing the negatives and planning accordingly to evade them. :\ this kinda sux when I can see where a relationship with a woman is going and I can predict the future based on how she has been in the past, how she is right now in the future. Once that is established and the horrid gut feeling plus sense of impending doom and suffocation kicks in....I know its time to get the fuck out of the relationship, such things can be expanded to include different life situations. Its frequent that I don't get into or buy something or avoid some people based on these estimations. For example a good reason to never start smoking in the first place would be the cost and strain it puts on my wallet along side of me continuously poisoning my lungs which eventually ends in cancer preceded by other annoying shit I'd rather not deal with.


That's how negativism works. It does suck that it hampers your personal life. All I can say is hang out with positivist types more ^_^


----------



## LibertyPrime

LeaT said:


> But you are posting in the socionics forum. Anyway, I think you should focus less on descriptions (I am not sure why you do this) but focus more on actual function preferences where Se is simply the preference to see the world in a very concrete "as is" manner. I still suggest SEE-Fi as I think perhaps part what you wrote in the bold could be indicative of Ni seeking. You need the theoretical groundedness of Ni with Te. Actually, scratch just the bold. I think a lot of what you wrote in general here is indicative of Ni seeking. And with regards to cognitive style, you seem vaguely closer to casual-deterministic and I fail to see the leading IJ temperament. EP makes far more sense. Also, this inability to stick to a logical framework along with CP6 could be indicative of Ti vulnerable.
> 
> In other words, Rim, find your INTp partner and chill the fuck down


I'm calm I'm calm. ^^

I'd like to view it as me being able to become what the situation requires, unless it requires being very social for more then 2 hours (that is freaking draining) or needing to express emotions through my face..crying and being super happy :\...can't fucking do that for some reason.

I think ESI makes sense, I certainly become relentless & willful when any value of mine is challenged or trampled upon. Fi base makes the most sense to me if combined with Se creative. That is like my default mode.

*What I'm trying to get at is that you can't put people into boxes, because they can break the mold if they want to and think/behave differently if they want to. It may be draining or annoying if taken too far, but it can be done. And the crappy descriptions are freaking bothering me, why don't we rewrite the damn things!? XD*

Something interesting too look at is high vs. low self monitoring in ppl as this may explain why some introverts seem extroverted on the surface, but don't have the needs of one (aka they are faking it and good at it: high self monitoring). For example I am one and I can keep it up for about 2 hours after which I drift into a lethargic melancholic state.

^^; ok ok, I'll stop derailing now...BIG CANADIAN SORRY ^^;;;;;


@cyamitide Yeah most likely SP/SX, definitely SO last. ^^; I'm a freaking 6 lol its only natural I avoid problems and danger as much as I can, unless I feel like I need to beat it down before it beats me down (going to kill this formaldehyde factory before they build it. Protests are already on the way.)


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> If you had a Ni-ego dual around they would come up with alternative plans already, so that you don't have to wait and waste your time because something has wrecked your original plans.


This^^^^

@Rim, yeah, I would only see SEE and ESI as options for you anyway although if ESI why not Se subtype? Also, your mind is _not_ calm lol.

As for descriptions being poor, meh, it doesn't matter how much we rewrite. They will probably never truly capture the essence anyway although I think some things could definitely be clarified/expanded upon like EIIs not liking swear words because of Se PoLR. -.- WTF?


----------



## LibertyPrime

LeaT said:


> This^^^^
> 
> @Rim, yeah, I would only see SEE and ESI as options for you anyway although if ESI why not Se subtype? Also, your mind is _not_ calm lol.
> 
> As for descriptions being poor, meh, it doesn't matter how much we rewrite. They will probably never truly capture the essence anyway although I think some things could definitely be clarified/expanded upon like EIIs not liking swear words because of Se PoLR. -.- WTF?


Still looking at the subtypes, however I'm sure I'm ESI ISFP. Unsure how to explain it in other words then this: All the pieces fell together and I could finally see why, I can see how the functions make sense for me now and can connect it to actual personal experience. The functions really seem like the proper way of figuring out one's type.

 thx @cyamitide, @LeaT.

:/ I always felt like some kind of fucked up INFJ tbh....its what started this whole type search.


----------



## human

*On Vectors of Social Progress by A. Dovgan*



Zero11 said:


> It makes only sense if you are aware of the Static - Dynamic distinction and Process - Result Types and therefore you need to read this:
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - On vectors of social progress - Dovgan (translation)
> Part 2: Socionics - the16types.info - On Waves of Aging and Renewal: Progress Orientation in Combination with Jungian Aspects Socionics (only additional)
> 
> to understand the "Forms of Thinking"
> 
> makes total sense to me :mellow: now.



Thank you for posting these!

As an IEI, I do think the cognitive style fits me pretty well. I liked the whole kaleidoscope metaphor. However, the direction that Dovgan took Gulenko's work is chilling for me -- not because of anything particular he said but because he uses type (not an individual's personal choice) to suggest where a person belongs in society. I am concerned when systems of type have consequences that are not driven by the individual but from some outside source -- especially when those systems could be used against people for power, gain, or economic reasons. (MBTI is already used by some employers.)

To be honest, reading this throws into question what I think about the nature of type in general. How exciting!
Thanks for doing that--


----------



## tangosthenes

According to what I was just typed as, the vortical-synergetic style tends to follow my natural stance towards thinking pretty well. Let the current take you, just be lucky and smart enough to know where the current is.

Also, weirdly enough, I have been thinking about a topic for my thesis this fall... I stumbled upon(internally) the idea of building economic systems out of rules of thumb based on chaos theory, but the idea had already been written(except I haven't looked at the data, so might still be something there)


----------



## Sixty Nein

I'm generally having a difficult time seeing which attitudes are truly myself, but I can see myself as being Vortical-Synergetic or Holographical-Panoramic. Seeing as how what I agree and disagree with is largely entirely random and kind of chaotic, yet also seeking to fit things in a complete picture somehow. Mostly I just focus on things that appeal to my sensibilities though, and disregard anything I don't find to be very interesting.


----------



## The Exception

I see myself in all four of them and it's hard for me to determine which one is my dominant style. I self-type as LII, so I should be an H-P style. From what I read, it does fit me pretty well but the other styles fit too. It's hard to make heads or tails out of some of the stuff. My interpretation of it may not be the interpretation that Gulenko intended. I think more everyday examples would be helpful. Take an everyday situation and compare how each of the four styles would approach it.


----------



## cyamitide

St Vual said:


> I'm generally having a difficult time seeing which attitudes are truly myself, but I can see myself as being Vortical-Synergetic or Holographical-Panoramic. Seeing as how what I agree and disagree with is largely entirely random and kind of chaotic, yet also seeking to fit things in a complete picture somehow. Mostly I just focus on things that appeal to my sensibilities though, and disregard anything I don't find to be very interesting.





Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I see myself in all four of them and it's hard for me to determine which one is my dominant style. I self-type as LII, so I should be an H-P style. From what I read, it does fit me pretty well but the other styles fit too. It's hard to make heads or tails out of some of the stuff. My interpretation of it may not be the interpretation that Gulenko intended. I think more everyday examples would be helpful. Take an everyday situation and compare how each of the four styles would approach it.


Looking at some of the examples instead of analyzing oneself in isolation helps. Then you realize "whoa! this is definitely not me!" There is a sense of strain trying to understand thinking styles that are alien to your own. What they are saying doesn't easily sink into your mind and assimilate.

I used to see myself in all 4 styles of thinking, too, until I started paying more attention to how people of other types express themselves. Then I saw that V-S and H-P were naturally easier for me to understand and relate to, while C-D was like hearing someone's nails scratch across the board -- it induced a lot of mental strain and frustration in me. That's how I narrowed it down from 4 styles down to 2 styles that are more native and familiar to me. From there is was easy to narrow it down further by seeing that I am more dynamic than static, so V-S was my native style.


----------



## cyamitide

human said:


> However, the direction that Dovgan took Gulenko's work is chilling for me -- not because of anything particular he said *but because he uses type (not an individual's personal choice) to suggest where a person belongs in society*. I am concerned when systems of type have consequences that are not driven by the individual but from some outside source -- especially when those systems could be used against people for power, gain, or economic reasons. (MBTI is already used by some employers.)


Both Dovgan and Gulenko display such attitudes in their treatment of socionics subjects, and I don't like it either. Such strict categorization, assigning precise societal roles to each type, is probably a consequence of both of these writers being dominant Ti users. What they are saying seem too rational and cold to me, too limiting and restricting, too much in denial of human agency and existence of free will. It's like they are seeing people as ants or bees playing out their role for the hive.


----------



## The Exception

cyamitide said:


> Looking at some of the examples instead of analyzing oneself in isolation helps. Then you realize "whoa! this is definitely not me!" There is a sense of strain trying to understand thinking styles that are alien to your own. What they are saying doesn't easily sink into your mind and assimilate.
> 
> I used to see myself in all 4 styles of thinking, too, until I started paying more attention to how people of other types express themselves. Then I saw that V-S and H-P were naturally easier for me to understand and relate to, while C-D was like hearing someone's nails scratch across the board -- it induced a lot of mental strain and frustration in me. That's how I narrowed it down from 4 styles down to 2 styles that are more native and familiar to me. From there is was easy to narrow it down further by seeing that I am more dynamic than static, so V-S was my native style.


Going by dichotomies, I'm pretty sure I'm a result type. 

The other two are more iffy but I think I lean towards static and negativist. Which all matches H-P.


----------



## Entropic

I made some pictures to represent how DA works for me, now realizing that I'm not CD at all and I wish I could unvote on the stupid poll. 





After conversing with an identified and confirmed ILE-Ti about this, it is apparent I do _not_ think in terms of CD, not even close. I thought my thinking pattern was somewhat linear the way Gulenko described CD because I still seek some kind of result and I'm interested in cause-effect, but my definition of cause-effect is clearly different to that of actual CD types. I also see what Gulenko means that CD types have a lot of focus. They seem to keep so much information in their head it's ridiculous. It's like they generate more and more content instead of how it works for me, which is all about stripping things down to one singular component. 

As a whole, the styles that make the most sense to me are probably HP, CD and VS in that order. I find VS as a cognitive style extremely mindboggling, now that I understand it and can identify it properly in others. It's like you take DA and turns it inside out, so what I think is a rational and logical conclusion VS types think entirely opposite of. 

I find it extremely difficult to actually hold rational conversation with VS types for this reason, because they always seem to interpret what I say the exactly opposite way of how I intended it to be interpreted. It really feels like if I say YES, they automatically read it as NO because according to their logic (?), YES can also mean NO.


----------



## Bardo

INFJ/INFp/IEI reporting in, vortical synergetic, chaotic thresholds, opportunistic, trial and error philosophy, all of these words that my eyes have heard taste good to the tongue of my brain. The concept of vortex especially. 

I appear inactive for extremely long periods and then burst into action. 

This is much like a how a vortex situation works in nature, dust forming a planet, the whirlpool of draining bathtub water, you have the looseness of the peripheral slowly spiraling inwards, becoming faster and more concentrated into a beam at the center or some kind of crystallization. 
I attempt to make the beam land in the most appropriate moment for maximum damage in whatever endeavor. If get struck down or burn out from attempting a scheme above my station then the life lessons get added to the cloud and I come back stronger on the next one. Order from chaos! It describes my nature in the short, mid and long term perfectly in both mentality and action, my emotion, the way I figure people out from their innocuous day to day behavior, my creativity, everything.

All styles have their merit, and it is particularly satisfying to have yours heavily doubted by jokers of no worthy position only to collapse reality from under them. Air seems like nothing until it forms and tornado and rips up some houses, and the eye of the storm is just as calm as the ambient cloud that was doubted. 

I admit that I have done the same with INFJ grandma, my ENTJ brother and father, only to blink and miss serious achievements.


----------



## aestrivex

Bardo said:


> INFJ/INFp/IEI reporting in, vortical synergetic, chaotic thresholds, opportunistic, trial and error philosophy, all of these words that my eyes have heard taste good to the tongue of my brain. The concept of vortex especially.
> 
> I appear inactive for extremely long periods and then burst into action.
> 
> This is much like a how a vortex situation works in nature, dust forming a planet, the whirlpool of draining bathtub water, you have the looseness of the peripheral slowly spiraling inwards, becoming faster and more concentrated into a beam at the center or some kind of crystallization.
> I attempt to make the beam land in the most appropriate moment for maximum damage in whatever endeavor. If get struck down or burn out from attempting a scheme above my station then the life lessons get added to the cloud and I come back stronger on the next one. Order from chaos! It describes my nature in the short, mid and long term perfectly in both mentality and action, my emotion, the way I figure people out from their innocuous day to day behavior, my creativity, everything.
> 
> All styles have their merit, and it is particularly satisfying to have yours heavily doubted by jokers of no worthy position only to collapse reality from under them. Air seems like nothing until it forms and tornado and rips up some houses, and the eye of the storm is just as calm as the ambient cloud that was doubted.
> 
> I admit that I have done the same with INFJ grandma, my ENTJ brother and father, only to blink and miss serious achievements.


Playing socrates:

Your description is extremely abstract and vague. What is meant by "order from chaos?" The only words you mention that speak to tangible characteristics are "creativity", "opportunistic" and "trial and error." How are these related to "order from chaos?" Can you illustrate the emphasis on "order from chaos" cognition with a tangible (anecdotal) example or set of examples?


----------



## cyamitide

Kamishi said:


> After conversing with an identified and confirmed ILE-Ti about this, it is apparent I do _not_ think in terms of CD, not even close. I thought my thinking pattern was somewhat linear the way Gulenko described CD because I still seek some kind of result and I'm interested in cause-effect, but my definition of cause-effect is clearly different to that of actual CD types.


Can you go over this in more detail regarding the differences you discovered between your thinking style and CD style of your friend? How is your perception of cause-effect different from his? I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say about it ^_^



Kamishi said:


> I also see what Gulenko means that CD types have a lot of focus. They seem to keep so much information in their head it's ridiculous. It's like they generate more and more content instead of how it works for me, which is all about stripping things down to one singular component.


Both CD and DA are evolutionary cognitive styles. Evolutionary thinking seeks to increase information complexity. Hence you see your friend add more and more content. And I totally get what you mean -- I've seen ILEs, EIIs and other process types do this many times. This is also why Gulenko comments in this ILI profile that ILIs have a propensity to overcomplicate very simple things.

As for your stripping down of information to singular components, this sounds most like you use HP. DA is actually like CD -- they are both evolutionary and they both grow information complexity in thoughts rather than stripping it down like you describe of yourself.



> I find it extremely difficult to actually hold rational conversation with VS types for this reason, because they always seem to interpret what I say the exactly opposite way of how I intended it to be interpreted. It really feels like if I say YES, they automatically read it as NO because according to their logic (?), YES can also mean NO.


Would you say that I interpret what you say in the opposite manner (since VS is my style)? roud:


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> Can you go over this in more detail regarding the differences you discovered between your thinking style and CD style of your friend? How is your perception of cause-effect different from his? I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say about it ^_^


Well, maybe she can explain herself @Vergil. Essentially, the primary difference seems to be that we both agree on that there is a starting point in logic, let's call it A. Now, the way DA works is that it looks at what came before A, what caused A. CD doesn't do this. Instead CD is interested in what comes _after_ A, and in particular it's not so much interested in point B but the relationship between A and B, how A leads to B. 

Now, if we were to assume that the starting point is B, I would still be focused on B in the sense of how did B cause A and then how did A cause A- and so forth? CD doesn't seem to be interested in going backwards like DA does, but CD doesn't seem to be interested in looking at how say, what parts of B and C cause D. Instead there is a linear flow I do not grasp that seems to dictate CD cognition. An entirely different way of viewing cause and effect. Vergil doesn't seem to think what I think is cause and effect, that is, what is the cause of D?, is cause and effect at all.

CD seems to frankly hold more information in their heads than DA does. I can compare 1000 pairs of opposites but CD just keeps moving forward and it expands more and more. At least I try to look for what unites these pairs so at least to me, the amount of information doesn't feel that grand. I can control the flow at some level, or the input. 


> Both CD and DA are evolutionary cognitive styles. Evolutionary thinking seeks to increase information complexity. Hence you see your friend add more and more content. And I totally get what you mean -- I've seen ILEs, EIIs and other process types do this many times. This is also why Gulenko comments in this ILI profile that ILIs have a propensity to overcomplicate very simple things.





> As for your stripping down of information to singular components, this sounds most like you use HP. DA is actually like CD -- they are both evolutionary and they both grow information complexity in thoughts rather than stripping it down like you describe of yourself.


Not quite. The way I understand HP isn't so much stripping things down as much as it reviews sides. You got side A, side B and side C. What do they say about E? It examines each point of as an individual component which is why it's static. 

It's exactly what Gulenko says, it's like an X-ray. So say we have X-rays of a body, so we X-ray the head, the chest, pelvis, legs and so forth. Then the way HP works is that it puts all these images together somehow so instead of having individual X-ray parts we now have the X-ray of an entire body. I understand it intellectually and it's closer than CD but I don't understand how it works in practice. 

The synethetic nature of DA is different. I relate very strongly to what Gulenko notes about the negativist nature of DA, that is, you got A and B, they are two irreconcilable forces. It's about seeing how they are similar in their differences, I guess it's the best way of putting it. I'm just going to copy this part from Gulenko, it's easier:



> Within limits, the Dialectic strives to find an intermediate point of dynamic equilibrium between contrasting extremes. Dialectical cognition is born from the colliding flow and counterflow of thought, the consciousness and unconsciousness. Thinkers of this style are characterized by an express inclination towards the synthesis of opposites, the removal of contradictions, which they so keenly perceive.


Take for example the concept of love and hate. They are two opposite forces, defined as so because they are each other's opposites. Remove one and the other one loses its entire existential meaning. It's kind of like what light would be without darkness. Yet what they have in common is that they are both human emotions. Why? Because it is the _purposive cause_. With the proper intent, human emotion can both give rise to love or hate, depending on which. 

I see why Gulenko notes why many who favor DA cognition turn religious and how the thinking itself is "religious", because the purpose of DA is always to look for meaning, intent, cause and purpose and I also see why many DA types seek out theoretical physics and quantum mechanics. It fits the cognitive style so well because the entire scientific body is built around DA.


> Would you say that I interpret what you say in the opposite manner (since VS is my style)? roud:


Yes, since you thought what I described was HP, not DA, for example


----------



## Cantarella

I agree with pretty much everything about Dialectical-Algorithmic, but this part puzzles me...




> Two of its representatives—_EIE and ILI—are usually recognized in society as the most intellectual types. They form the backbone of intellectual elites, expert clubs, esoteric groups, etc._


I definitely agree that ILIs and EIEs display a distinct intellectual bent, but I think the positivist nature of IEIs and LIEs actually aids them more in their intellectual pursuits. Much of the time they just seem _better_ at what they do, though I will say that they are generally appear much less perfectionistic.


----------



## Flatlander

Cantarella said:


> I agree with pretty much everything about Dialectical-Algorithmic, but this part puzzles me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that ILIs and EIEs display a distinct intellectual bent, but I think the positivist nature of IEIs and LIEs actually aids them more in their intellectual pursuits. Much of the time they just seem _better_ at what they do, though I will say that they are generally appear much less perfectionistic.


I wonder how much of that vaunted 'intellectuality' you would perceive in either type comes along with societal standards.


----------



## Cantarella

Flatlander said:


> I wonder how much of that vaunted 'intellectuality' you would perceive in either type comes along with societal standards.


wut


----------



## Flatlander

Cantarella said:


> wut


I intended it as a general statement. I wonder how much of what you vs the Russians who founded Socionics see as intellectual is founded on societal standards of what being intellectual means.


----------



## Cantarella

Flatlander said:


> I intended it as a general statement. I wonder how much of what you vs the Russians who founded Socionics see as intellectual is founded on societal standards of what being intellectual means.


Oh, okay. Sorry, I got a little confused by the wording. And yeah, that's a good point.


----------



## Kisshoten

Kamishi said:


> Well, maybe she can explain herself @_Vergil_. Essentially, the primary difference seems to be that we both agree on that there is a starting point in logic, let's call it A. Now, the way DA works is that it looks at what came before A, what caused A. CD doesn't do this. Instead CD is interested in what comes _after_ A, and in particular it's not so much interested in point B but the relationship between A and B, how A leads to B.
> 
> Now, if we were to assume that the starting point is B, I would still be focused on B in the sense of how did B cause A and then how did A cause A- and so forth? CD doesn't seem to be interested in going backwards like DA does, but CD doesn't seem to be interested in looking at how say, what parts of B and C cause D. Instead there is a linear flow I do not grasp that seems to dictate CD cognition. An entirely different way of viewing cause and effect. Vergil doesn't seem to think what I think is cause and effect, that is, what is the cause of D?, is cause and effect at all.
> 
> CD seems to frankly hold more information in their heads than DA does. I can compare 1000 pairs of opposites but CD just keeps moving forward and it expands more and more. At least I try to look for what unites these pairs so at least to me, the amount of information doesn't feel that grand. I can control the flow at some level, or the input.


I have gone through CD description. Part of it describes my thinking, but some parts don't fit. I don't recall and I will not go into details. 

I do remember this conversation though and I will recount my side to the best of my ability. 

When it comes to my cognition, I will not bother what was in the past, unless it is necessary to know what came before to see what can come after. I am primarily interested in what is and what can become of it. 

If I have A now and if I can envision B, C, D, etc. I wouldn't care what came before A. But assuming that I am not able to see anything after A, I might look behind to find, say, Z that came before A and I will think about what can become of A and Z together. I will think about whether or not it is possible to have E, F, G through A and Z. 

Another thing is that I think CD views things as connected, or, disconnected not purely in a causal manner. 

Connection =/= causation

Everything happens for a cause, but not all related entities can be said 'cause' each other. 

Taking the same example of life and death -

Life and Death are connected. But Life is not the cause of Death. The cause of death is more concrete. 

Consider also the following example:
A gave rise to B
B gave rise to C and D
D gave rise to E F and G

Now, sequentially, A came first and is the origin of everything else. This is accurate. But to say that A caused D doesn't seem as accurate to me. My thinking goes along these lines -

If A caused D then why it not give rise to D directly rather than creating B first? That B HAD to come before suggests that the way things happened must have a reason. That there was a reason why D came from B rather than from A directly. 
^ this is how I think.

I don't know how good an example of CD I am because I don't remember and I did not read up. I also recall that I did not like how Gulenko described CD. So, be warned before you take my thoughts as an example of CD.

EDIT: I have written of myself as a 'CD' thinker but I do so only because ILE is supposed to be CD. Personally, I do not relate too well to the descriptions.


----------



## Kintsugi

I'm struggling to get my head around this....

I've narrowed it down to either Holographic-Panoramic or Casual-Determinist. The descriptions aren't really helping me either; can anyone give me some examples of both these styles?


----------



## Mostly Harmless

These descriptions are about as clear as mud.


----------



## cyamitide

KookyTookie said:


> I'm struggling to get my head around this....
> 
> I've narrowed it down to either Holographic-Panoramic or Casual-Determinist. The descriptions aren't really helping me either; can anyone give me some examples of both these styles?


There are examples posted in the commentary to that article on 16types. I've also reposted a few earlier in this thread.



Mostly Harmless said:


> These descriptions are about as clear as mud.


This is not easy material. It requires one to invest mental effort to understand. Took me a couple of months to get a good grasp on it.


----------



## Entropic

KookyTookie said:


> I'm struggling to get my head around this....
> 
> I've narrowed it down to either Holographic-Panoramic or Casual-Determinist. The descriptions aren't really helping me either; can anyone give me some examples of both these styles?


I would first try to focus on the basic dichotomies like positivist/negativist and so on and see how you fit in those because Gulenko describes them pretty well and in great detail, and then see how it lines up the best with the types he's offered. 

If it doesn't line up it most likely suggests you misunderstood something about yourself and your cognition so then introspection is the simple answer.


----------



## Entropic

A great example of HP that I thought of the other day is the game Assassin's Creed. You can go to a building referred to as "viewpoint", and what it does is that it's a very tall building and you can scan a portion of the area if you access the viewpoint properly, providing you with more information than you had before.

The information is static, it doesn't change. It says exactly what building is where, what street is where, what person is doing what and so on, what missions are available etc., but it also shows the detailed depth of HP for each "scan" that it does. And as you have explored every viewpoint, you have also explored the entire map and thus gained a complete understanding of the map itself. 






Even if you don't see the map reveal effect and the additional details added in this video, you can still see the logic of HP in the visual depiction of the video itself. Notice how when you reach the viewpoint (the ledge), the camera starts rotating around the entire area like it takes in all this information from this very perspective. 

I think the reveal map effect found in most video games where the game map is hidden is an example of HP logic, especially that of SLE. I mean, the map doesn't change, it actually remains the same. It constains the same information like before, you just couldn't see it before you actually "scanned" each area, taking detailed snap shots of it. So yes, it's very similar to to the holographic principle in this regard. 

The way to distinguish HP and DA apart is to look for whether the person appears to be static or dynamic. HP types take snap shots of reality because they all favor Pe, the content of the information doesn't actually change. Se logic for example, would if you take a photo of an object, you see all the details of the object and the photo will remain like this until it detoriates. In such a sense I don't think it's too bad to compare the way Pe snap shotting works to that of photos. 

Pi is different since it's dynamic, so if Pe is like taking a lot of photos is a rapid succession with a high-speed camera Pi is more like actually filming what's going on. There is an internal mechanism of metamorphosis to DA and VS cognition that DA and HP lack. DA and VS can take an object and transform it into something else, DA and HP cannot because they are static.


----------



## Helios

aestrivex said:


> Playing socrates:
> 
> Your description is extremely abstract and vague. What is meant by "order from chaos?" The only words you mention that speak to tangible characteristics are "creativity", "opportunistic" and "trial and error." How are these related to "order from chaos?" Can you illustrate the emphasis on "order from chaos" cognition with a tangible (anecdotal) example or set of examples?


Hmmm. Well I'm constantly hearing that the universe is just a series of random events giving rise to others. But I think it's really silly to deny that there is order in that randomness. So operating under the assumption that the universe is indeed random, let's use endosymbiotic theory as an example to explain order in chaos. If I remember correctly, after the earth was formed by a series of processes which gave rise to new elements, certain chemical combinations randomly formed to carry out certain processes. Gradually they come together to form primordial cells, which later forge interactions with other forms of primordial cells/organelles to form the cells in organisms that we study today. The random movement and interactions among early molecules gave rise to a concept that we now refer to as life, as well as an array of other cycles that happen to exist. 

Now in explaining this to you, I was not just operating with respect to the basic knowledge that I have of endosymbiotic theory alone, but I had a series of other theories and processes in mind at the time. I was thinking of what I have learned of the Big Bang theory, what I know various biological processes, and other cycles that occur in nature. Some might take what I posted as a tangent on a subject that they don't really care or know a whole lot about. However it's part of what I do when think about anything: I analyze and think with respect to several different systems in order to generate a universal pattern or template that can be used to explain phenomena. When it comes to my goals, I use whatever available means there are to get there. However, when planning I leave room for new advantages/disadvantages arising out of factors beyond my control. I can adjust my strategy as many times as necessary because I know that things do come up, but the objective will be met one way or another. 

It's like finding random parts along the road and trying to build a car with them. As one travels along a road, they find new parts that they have not seen before, and slowly incorporate them into the original model by modifying it's design. The objective is to build a car, and to use whatever is available to do so. 

And the funny part is that in typing this post, is that what I've outlined here explains my writing process and a few other things that I do.


----------



## aestrivex

Pavane said:


> However it's part of what I do when think about anything: I analyze and think with respect to several different systems in order to generate a universal pattern or template that can be used to explain phenomena. When it comes to my goals, I use whatever available means there are to get there. However, when planning I leave room for new advantages/disadvantages arising out of factors beyond my control. I can adjust my strategy as many times as necessary because I know that things do come up, but the objective will be met one way or another.
> 
> It's like finding random parts along the road and trying to build a car with them. As one travels along a road, they find new parts that they have not seen before, and slowly incorporate them into the original model by modifying it's design. The objective is to build a car, and to use whatever is available to do so.
> 
> And the funny part is that in typing this post, is that what I've outlined here explains my writing process and a few other things that I do.


I have omitted the "theory" explanation that does not pertain to personality processes. Which consisted of half of your post -- it is not what I am focusing on.

So, what you are describing as vortical synergetic cognition, effectively, is a certain flexibility in behavior -- your goals are flexible and constantly updated in the face of new information. That behavior, itself, is quite sensible in the context of your self-typing of LIE, which as you know I agree with. And, it makes complete sense to think of this behavior using the descriptive words Bardo posted -- "opportunistic" and "creative" -- creative at least in a certain sense of the word creative, that of finding a novel tool and making use of it in a particular fashion.

So it seems reasonable that we are explaining Te and Ni with this set of descriptive words and behaviors which we have associated as characteristic of this idea of vortical synergetic cognition.

Now, since I am still Socrates, explain to me in what way these descriptive phrases of vortical-synergeticness apply to ESEs, the opposite quadra type of LIEs who lack the impatience/independence and creativity-with-respect-to-goal-flexibility that LIEs characteristically possess.


----------



## Helios

aestrivex said:


> I have omitted the "theory" explanation that does not pertain to personality processes. Which consisted of half of your post -- it is not what I am focusing on.
> 
> So, what you are describing as vortical synergetic cognition, effectively, is a certain flexibility in behavior -- your goals are flexible and constantly updated in the face of new information. That behavior, itself, is quite sensible in the context of your self-typing of LIE, which as you know I agree with. And, it makes complete sense to think of this behavior using the descriptive words Bardo posted -- "opportunistic" and "creative" -- creative at least in a certain sense of the word creative, that of finding a novel tool and making use of it in a particular fashion.
> 
> So it seems reasonable that we are explaining Te and Ni with this set of descriptive words and behaviors which we have associated as characteristic of this idea of vortical synergetic cognition.
> 
> Now, since I am still Socrates, explain to me in what way these descriptive phrases of vortical-synergeticness apply to ESEs, the opposite quadra type of LIEs who lack the impatience/independence and creativity-with-respect-to-goal-flexibility that LIEs characteristically possess.


I'm assuming that their vortical process is not that much different than mine, but it just operates in a different plane than mine does. I think that this would be more apparent in their social interactions than it would be mine. I would think that in order for them to promote a certain kind of emotional atmosphere, in the a similar manner that SLI apparently does--ESE would probably take the actions that they think are necessary to achieve that atmosphere (I know I'm phrasing this in terms of goals or objectives, but if you think about it, wanting a certain environment is a goal in itself). But rather than waiting for favorable conditions in which they should act, I think in terms of human interactions the ESE would be more inclined to create these conditions than observe them extensively. 

Through these actions, I'm assuming they'd gauge how other people responded to whatever changes they introduced to the setting and perhaps file that information away for another time. It's like trying to learn about what other people like or dislike so that you can get them a gift or take them somewhere for an occasion. You expose them to different activities and things, and then gauge the emotional response that the person gives in return. Not only that, but the person's orientation towards that occasion and their present emotional state need to be considered in this process as well. So in order to recreate or slightly modify (if the person did not respond how they were expected to within certain conditions) those scenarios, I'm thinking the ESE would try to find anything that meets whatever criteria that they know will produce a certain response in someone else. 

Is this adequate?


----------



## aestrivex

Pavane said:


> I'm assuming that their vortical process is not that much different than mine, but it just operates in a different plane than mine does. I think that this would be more apparent in their social interactions than it would be mine. I would think that in order for them to promote a certain kind of emotional atmosphere, in the a similar manner that SLI apparently does


How do SLIs promote an emotional atmosphere?



> --ESE would probably take the actions that they think are necessary to achieve that atmosphere (I know I'm phrasing this in terms of goals or objectives, but if you think about it, wanting a certain environment is a goal in itself). But rather than waiting for favorable conditions in which they should act, I think in terms of human interactions the ESE would be more inclined to create these conditions than observe them extensively.
> 
> Through these actions, I'm assuming they'd gauge how other people responded to whatever changes they introduced to the setting and perhaps file that information away for another time. It's like trying to learn about what other people like or dislike so that you can get them a gift or take them somewhere for an occasion. You expose them to different activities and things, and then gauge the emotional response that the person gives in return. Not only that, but the person's orientation towards that occasion and their present emotional state need to be considered in this process as well. So in order to recreate or slightly modify (if the person did not respond how they were expected to within certain conditions) those scenarios, I'm thinking the ESE would try to find anything that meets whatever criteria that they know will produce a certain response in someone else.
> 
> Is this adequate?


You haven't really said anything other than that ESEs try to create an emotional atmosphere and that they pay attention to the reactions of others in doing so.

If we are using the descriptive criteria provided by Bardo and yourself referring to vortical synergetic cognition as characterizing creativity, opportunism, flexibility with respect to goal-directed outcomes, it is not clear in what way any of that applies to "creating an emotional atmosphere" and "paying attention to the reactions of others." How, for instance, does any of what you have described draw on a creative process?

The way you related the characteristics Bardo mentioned to yourself, appropriately, drew on Te and Ni characteristics. In truth, the failure to extend them to ESEs, really, is just a failing of the theory of cognitive styles -- the idea that ESEs and LIEs, as well as IEIs and SLIs who all come from different quadras and value diametrically opposing elements, share deeply meaningfully cognitive characteristics is silly. Reinin dichotomies and almost everything in theories of small groups possess the same problems.


----------



## cyamitide

aestrivex said:


> In truth, the failure to extend them to ESEs, really, is just a failing of the theory of cognitive styles -- the idea that ESEs and LIEs, as well as IEIs and SLIs who all come from different quadras and value diametrically opposing elements, share deeply meaningfully cognitive characteristics is silly.


That's because you're trying to examine cognitive styles from a restrictive point of view of distinct types and isolated quadra, which is fundamentally wrong imo. Cog-styles were not designed to explain the differences between types of different quadras -- instead they represent something that types from different quadra have in common -- they form the conduits that allow for information and energy exchange to happen between the quadra that allows quadra progression to happen, which is one of the most important principles of socionics. Gulenko's work on cognitive styles explains the possible pathways by which this transfers between the quadra occur by identifying what types united into supervision rings share in common. There is nothing silly about this -- quite to the contrary, Gulenko is looking way beyond the boundaries of types and quadra to explain how Socion functions as a whole.


----------



## Helios

aestrivex said:


> How do SLIs promote an emotional atmosphere?


I meant to say that the way ESE gathers information to formulate how to promote an emotional atmosphere operates similarly to SLI waiting for favorable conditions in which to act on something.



> You haven't really said anything other than that ESEs try to create an emotional atmosphere and that they pay attention to the reactions of others in doing so.
> 
> If we are using the descriptive criteria provided by Bardo and yourself referring to vortical synergetic cognition as characterizing creativity, opportunism, flexibility with respect to goal-directed outcomes, it is not clear in what way any of that applies to "creating an emotional atmosphere" and "paying attention to the reactions of others." How, for instance, does any of what you have described draw on a creative process?
> 
> The way you related the characteristics Bardo mentioned to yourself, appropriately, drew on Te and Ni characteristics. In truth, the failure to extend them to ESEs, really, is just a failing of the theory of cognitive styles -- the idea that ESEs and LIEs, as well as IEIs and SLIs who all come from different quadras and value diametrically opposing elements, share deeply meaningfully cognitive characteristics is silly. Reinin dichotomies and almost everything in theories of small groups possess the same problems.


I expected this response from you since I realized that I pretty much ended up phrasing what VS looks like in regards to my valued IEs. 

Also, if you're going to write off Reinin and other small groups and things as bunk, you can throw the concept of Quadra (which are usually defined in terms of 3 of the 15 Reinin traits anyway, in addition to valued IE's) in that pot too.

But thank you for that nugget of wisdom, Socrates.


----------



## aestrivex

Pavane said:


> Also, if you're going to write off Reinin and other small groups and things as bunk, you can throw the concept of Quadra (which are usually defined in terms of 3 of the 15 Reinin traits anyway, in addition to valued IE's) in that pot too.


Nonsense, quadras are not defined in terms of reinin traits, they are defined in terms of IM elements. Reinin did not generate his dichotomies until years after quadras had been described by Augusta


----------



## aestrivex

cyamitide said:


> they form the conduits that allow for information and energy exchange to happen between the quadra that allows quadra progression to happen, which is one of the most important principles of socionics.


Quadra progression is not one of the most important principles of socionics in my book. In my book, it is nonsense, just as cognitive styles.


----------



## Helios

aestrivex said:


> Nonsense, quadras are not defined in terms of reinin traits, they are defined in terms of IM elements. Reinin did not generate his dichotomies until years after quadras had been described by Augusta


Why must those sharing valued IEs have anything else in common other than that fact? Sharing IE's does not guarantee smoother relations or even higher degrees of similarity in cognitive patterns.


----------



## aestrivex

Pavane said:


> Why must those sharing valued IEs have anything else in common other than that fact? Sharing IE's does not guarantee smoother relations or even higher degrees of similarity in cognitive patterns.


I don't suggest that those are absolute rules, but IM elements are and have always been the core foundation of socionics. So, what you are saying is at best a splinter theory.


----------



## Entropic

But IM elements also give rise to cognitive styles and your inability to see that which cannot be seen by failing to understand how VS cognition is applied to ESE's just shows your own failure to understand the theory. It does not disprove it. 

That you think Pavane just expressed VS cognition in LIE just emphasizes this fact. If you want to understand how VS cognition looks like in the LIE, I would honestly recommending study Figure's posts. He's clearly utilizing Te as a preferred dominant element. 

There's also a certain irony that the people who have responded in this thread and see merit in Gulenko’s cognitive styles are all intuitives is quite telling. Trying to relate the theory to useless buzz words like 'creative' is entirely useless to me. It's not 'creativity' that defines VS since any style can be creative for various reasons.


----------



## Helios

Kamishi said:


> But IM elements also give rise to cognitive styles and your inability to see that which cannot be seen by failing to understand how VS cognition is applied to ESE's just shows your own failure to understand the theory. It does not disprove it.
> 
> That you think Pavane just expressed VS cognition in LIE just emphasizes this fact. If you want to understand how VS cognition looks like in the LIE, I would honestly recommending study Figure's posts. He's clearly utilizing Te as a preferred dominant element.
> 
> There's also a certain irony that the people who have responded in this thread and see merit in Gulenko’s cognitive styles are all intuitives is quite telling. Trying to relate the theory to useless buzz words like 'creative' is entirely useless to me. It's not 'creativity' that defines VS since any style can be creative for various reasons.


Well then Aristotle, what is your spin on what I expressed?


----------



## Entropic

Pavane said:


> Well then Aristotle, what is your spin on what I expressed?


I simply agree, because I don't see the problem how what you expressed in disconnected between types.


----------



## aestrivex

Kamishi said:


> But IM elements also give rise to cognitive styles and your inability to see that which cannot be seen by failing to understand how VS cognition is applied to ESE's just shows your own failure to understand the theory. It does not disprove it.
> 
> That you think Pavane just expressed VS cognition in LIE just emphasizes this fact. If you want to understand how VS cognition looks like in the LIE, I would honestly recommending study Figure's posts. He's clearly utilizing Te as a preferred dominant element.
> 
> There's also a certain irony that the people who have responded in this thread and see merit in Gulenko’s cognitive styles are all intuitives is quite telling. Trying to relate the theory to useless buzz words like 'creative' is entirely useless to me. It's not 'creativity' that defines VS since any style can be creative for various reasons.


your post does not articulate the actual qualities of vortical synergetic cognition, other than to say that you think it is not related to creativity in a broad way. I would ask, but I know there is no point.

I am not able to see figure as LIE.


----------



## Entropic

aestrivex said:


> your post does not articulate the actual qualities of vortical synergetic cognition, other than to say that you think it is not related to creativity in a broad way. I would ask, but I know there is no point.
> 
> I am not able to see figure as LIE.


My point wasn't to articulate the qualities about VS cognition to begin with, so try again.


----------



## cyamitide

I've interacted with Figure briefly and he is definitely NOT my supervisor type LIE. I don't feel the kind of pressure from his posts as I can pick up from LIE writing and his reasoning seems evolutionary.

So I tend to agree with his ILI-Te self-typing. He is very dynamic and he utilizes a lot of Te, being the Te-subtype, but it is only his creative function. He does make more optimistic and personable impression than is typical of ILI stereotypes, but I think this is due to him being type 9 in enneagram (type 9 is in positive outlook triad) which makes him different from most ILI 5s.


----------



## Helios

cyamitide said:


> I've interacted with Figure briefly and he is definitely NOT my supervisor type LIE. I don't feel the kind of pressure from his posts as I can pick up from LIE writing and his reasoning seems evolutionary.
> 
> So I tend to agree with his ILI-Te self-typing. He is very dynamic and he utilizes a lot of Te, being the Te-subtype, but it is only his creative function. He does make more optimistic and personable impression than is typical of ILI stereotypes, but I think this is due to him being type 9 in enneagram (type 9 is in positive outlook triad) which makes him different from most ILI 5s.


Figure is 8w7 though. Lol.


----------



## cyamitide

Pavane said:


> Figure is 8w7 though. Lol.


he was a number of other types before that lol, you sure he's serious each time?


----------



## Helios

cyamitide said:


> he was a number of other types before that lol, you sure he's serious each time?


Well I've been talking to him for some time, and I was the one who told him that 8 seemed a better fit than 5 upon his return. However I think 8w9, but he's pretty settled with 8w7. He's serious.


----------



## aestrivex

I do not wish to derail this thread, but I do not see Figure as ILI or 8 either.

With regards to people self-typing conjointly as e.g. EII and 8 or things like this, well, it is easy to resolve such a confusing combination when you have no interest in either self-typing.


----------



## cyamitide

We won't ever agree on all the typings. 

Anyways, I'm out of this for now. Will go try doing something more productive.


----------



## Flatlander

aestrivex said:


> I do not wish to derail this thread, but I do not see Figure as ILI or *8 *either.
> 
> With regards to people self-typing conjointly as e.g. EII and 8 or things like this, well, it is easy to resolve such a confusing combination when you have no interest in either self-typing.


I'd be curious to know what your view on Enneagram types is in the first place. You seem awfully quiet on that forum, enough that it's odd to see you give an opinion on someone's e-type.


----------



## aestrivex

Flatlander said:


> I'd be curious to know what your view on Enneagram types is in the first place. You seem awfully quiet on that forum, enough that it's odd to see you give an opinion on someone's e-type.


What do you want to know? Feel free to take this discussion somewhere else.


----------



## Flatlander

aestrivex said:


> What do you want to know? Feel free to take this discussion somewhere else.


I'd like to know things like..what you consider a type to be in the first place, how you view the different types, how you think it matters within a typing, etc. On the front of enneagram matters within a socionics typing, perhaps this does deserve a new thread.


----------



## Entropic

@cyamitide I don't think every intertype relationship is going to be the same since people are not the same. I'm confident enough in my self-typing to strongly feel that Figure is not an ILI, even an Te subtype. Why? Because I'm one. I don't expect everyone to be like me but I'd expect some kind of cognitive reverberation that is suggestive of shared IM makeup. 

He is also an 8, that I will not dispute. 

Also, I don't feel that pressure from supervision from Canterella either and exchanged a few posts with her. I think personal makeup is very important when we interact with other people. Socionics does not consider enneagram into account and how that affects how type comes across.


----------



## cyamitide

Kamishi said:


> @_cyamitide_ I don't think every intertype relationship is going to be the same since people are not the same.


Isn't that what intertype relations describe, however? They describe the aspects of relationships _that are going to be same_, despite each person and each situation being different. This is basically what these descriptions are about -- that no matter who you are dealing with, if they are of certain type, there will be some aspects of your relationship with them that will progress along the same lines. If the relationship was different every time then there wouldn't be intertypes in the first place.

I've had quite a bit of interaction with LIEs and learned to identify the kind of pressure that I feel from them. And there is none of that coming from Figure. With him I felt the same kind of evolutionary-involutionary thinking backwards/forwards confusion that I get from ILIs and other evolutionary types, but at the same time a lot of ease in communication because as an irrational type he doesn't hold on to any notion too tightly (just watch how quickly he has changed his enneagram types).



> I'm confident enough in my self-typing to strongly feel that Figure is not an ILI, even an Te subtype. Why? Because I'm one. I don't expect everyone to be like me but I'd expect some kind of cognitive reverberation that is suggestive of shared IM makeup.


Aestrivex is typed as ILI by pretty much everyone in 16types socionics community, but from your discussions I wouldn't say that you have much cognitive resonance with him either, even though you type yourself as his identical.



> He is also an 8, that I will not dispute.


This is from Naranjo's profile on type 8:

_I will therefore use the word “lust” to denote a passion for excess, a passion that seeks intensity, not only through sex, but in all manner of stimulation: activity, anxiety, spices, high speed, the pleasure of loud music, and so on. ... __Lust is mapped in the enneagram next to the upper vertex of the inner triangle, which indicates a kinship to indolence, to a sensory-motor disposition, and the predominance of cognitive obscuration or “ignorance” over “aversion” and “craving” (at the left and right corners respectively). The indolent aspect of the lusty may be under-stood not only as a feeling of not- alive-enough-except-through-over-stimulation but also in a concomitant avoidance of inwardness. We may say that the greed for ever more aliveness, characteristic of the lusty personality, is but an attempt to compensate for a hidden lack of aliveness. ... __The characterological syndrome of lust is related to that of gluttony in that both are characterized by impulsiveness and hedonism. ... __As usual, the character stands in polar opposition to each of those connected with it by the inner ow of the enneagram: just as ennea-type II is over-feminine and sensitive, ennea-type VIII is over- masculine and insensitive; and just as ennea-type V is intra-punitive and shy, ennea-type VIII is extra-punitive and bold. ...__Just as the envy-centered character is the most sensitive in the enneagram, ennea-type VIII is the most insensitive. ... __The anti-social personality disorder described in DSM-III may be regarded as a pathological extreme and a special instance of ennea-type VIII The broader syndrome may be better evoked through Reich’s label of “phallic narcissistic”2 character or Horney’s description of the vindictive personality. The word “sadistic” seems particularly appropriate in view of its position opposite the masochistic character of ennea-type IV. ... __Reich’s description was first presented at the Vienna Psychoanalytic society in 1926 and was later included in his Character Analysis. He observes that in terms of physique this character is predominantly athletic, “hardly ever an aesthenic type,” while his behavior is never cringing, but usually arrogant, either coldly reserved or contemptuously aggressive. The “narcissistic element, stands out in the attitude towards the object, including the love object, and is always infused with more or less concealed sadistic characteristics.”_

And here is video of the guy we're talking about. There is no "indolence" or dullness, no insensitivity, crudeness, nor pushiness that the 8 profiles mention. Figure doesn't fit the 8 profile in the least bit.








> Also, I don't feel that pressure from supervision from Canterella either and exchanged a few posts with her. I think personal makeup is very important when we interact with other people. Socionics does not consider enneagram into account and how that affects how type comes across.


You've changed your type several times and Canterella's type is under question also, so I wouldn't take your interaction as characteristic of supervision. With your supervisor you will feel like when they are making an argument you have little to respond to. Discussions often don't even take place because supervisee shies away from challenging their supervisor or fully agrees with them.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> Isn't that what intertype relations describe, however? They describe the aspects of relationships _that are going to be same_, despite each person and each situation being different. This is basically what these descriptions are about -- that no matter who you are dealing with, if they are of certain type, there will be some aspects of your relationship with them that will progress along the same lines. If the relationship was different every time then there wouldn't be intertypes in the first place.
> 
> I've had quite a bit of interaction with LIEs and learned to identify the kind of pressure that I feel from them. And there is none of that coming from Figure. With him I felt the same kind of evolutionary-involutionary thinking backwards/forwards confusion that I get from ILIs and other evolutionary types, but at the same time a lot of ease in communication because as an irrational type he doesn't hold on to any notion too tightly (just watch how quickly he has changed his enneagram types).


Agree to disagree then. I think he's a pretty obvious LIE to me.


> Aestrivex is typed as ILI by pretty much everyone in 16types socionics community, but from your discussions I wouldn't say that you have much cognitive resonance with him either, even though you type yourself as his identical.


And nothing says the 16types community is good at typing, either. They typed me as LSI and I don't know what else, and I'd say aestrivex is pretty obviously a static Ti-Fe type of some sort, with most likely strong S-valued element in his ego block judging by how most of his descriptions and need to type people always seem to come from this S-perspective. It matters more whether people seem creative or how they appear quadra-wise than what IMs that seem to be the cause behind that behavior. That is not an intuitive way of approaching it, especially not Ni.


> This is from Naranjo's profile on type 8:
> 
> _I will therefore use the word “lust” to denote a passion for excess, a passion that seeks intensity, not only through sex, but in all manner of stimulation: activity, anxiety, spices, high speed, the pleasure of loud music, and so on. ... __Lust is mapped in the enneagram next to the upper vertex of the inner triangle, which indicates a kinship to indolence, to a sensory-motor disposition, and the predominance of cognitive obscuration or “ignorance” over “aversion” and “craving” (at the left and right corners respectively). The indolent aspect of the lusty may be under-stood not only as a feeling of not- alive-enough-except-through-over-stimulation but also in a concomitant avoidance of inwardness. We may say that the greed for ever more aliveness, characteristic of the lusty personality, is but an attempt to compensate for a hidden lack of aliveness. ... __The characterological syndrome of lust is related to that of gluttony in that both are characterized by impulsiveness and hedonism. ... __As usual, the character stands in polar opposition to each of those connected with it by the inner ow of the enneagram: just as ennea-type II is over-feminine and sensitive, ennea-type VIII is over- masculine and insensitive; and just as ennea-type V is intra-punitive and shy, ennea-type VIII is extra-punitive and bold. ...__Just as the envy-centered character is the most sensitive in the enneagram, ennea-type VIII is the most insensitive. ... __The anti-social personality disorder described in DSM-III may be regarded as a pathological extreme and a special instance of ennea-type VIII The broader syndrome may be better evoked through Reich’s label of “phallic narcissistic”2 character or Horney’s description of the vindictive personality. The word “sadistic” seems particularly appropriate in view of its position opposite the masochistic character of ennea-type IV. ... __Reich’s description was first presented at the Vienna Psychoanalytic society in 1926 and was later included in his Character Analysis. He observes that in terms of physique this character is predominantly athletic, “hardly ever an aesthenic type,” while his behavior is never cringing, but usually arrogant, either coldly reserved or contemptuously aggressive. The “narcissistic element, stands out in the attitude towards the object, including the love object, and is always infused with more or less concealed sadistic characteristics.”_
> 
> And here is video of the guy we're talking about. There is no "indolence" or dullness, no insensitivity, crudeness, nor pushiness that the 8 profiles mention. Figure doesn't fit the 8 profile in the least bit.


But have you read Figure's posts and how his behavior and personality lines up with the type 8 motivations? I have, and he's clearly a type 8. This was even more obvious when he typed as 5 since he is many things but definitely not a type 5. I don't think he's 5-fixed either but most likely 6w7 for head.


> You've changed your type several times and Canterella's type is under question also, so I wouldn't take your interaction as characteristic of supervision. With your supervisor you will feel like when they are making an argument you have little to respond to. Discussions often don't even take place because supervisee shies away from challenging their supervisor or fully agrees with them.


I've changed my type once since I got into socionics and twice since I got into the MBTI. I wouldn't call that changing several times. The only reason why I'd change type now would be that something extremely unexpected would be revealed about myself that would change my entire impression of myself and my typing, but I honestly find it unlikely since that reveal has already happened. 

And I don't take the socionics intertype descriptions to always be applied by that, by the way. For one I think it's highly context-related but shouldn't occur in every scenario. Whether Canterella is properly typed or not I won't argue since I don't have a good sense of what type she'd be, but I haven't gotten an impression that she is clearly mistyped either.

On the question whether she did express that force from supervision or not, yes, I think she did once.


----------



## aestrivex

cyamitide said:


> Isn't that what intertype relations describe, however? They describe the aspects of relationships _that are going to be same_, despite each person and each situation being different. This is basically what these descriptions are about -- that no matter who you are dealing with, if they are of certain type, there will be some aspects of your relationship with them that will progress along the same lines. If the relationship was different every time then there wouldn't be intertypes in the first place.
> 
> I've had quite a bit of interaction with LIEs and learned to identify the kind of pressure that I feel from them. And there is none of that coming from Figure. With him I felt the same kind of evolutionary-involutionary thinking backwards/forwards confusion that I get from ILIs and other evolutionary types, but at the same time a lot of ease in communication because as an irrational type he doesn't hold on to any notion too tightly (just watch how quickly he has changed his enneagram types).
> 
> 
> Aestrivex is typed as ILI by pretty much everyone in 16types socionics community, but from your discussions I wouldn't say that you have much cognitive resonance with him either, even though you type yourself as his identical.
> 
> 
> 
> This is from Naranjo's profile on type 8:
> 
> _I will therefore use the word “lust” to denote a passion for excess, a passion that seeks intensity, not only through sex, but in all manner of stimulation: activity, anxiety, spices, high speed, the pleasure of loud music, and so on. ... __Lust is mapped in the enneagram next to the upper vertex of the inner triangle, which indicates a kinship to indolence, to a sensory-motor disposition, and the predominance of cognitive obscuration or “ignorance” over “aversion” and “craving” (at the left and right corners respectively). The indolent aspect of the lusty may be under-stood not only as a feeling of not- alive-enough-except-through-over-stimulation but also in a concomitant avoidance of inwardness. We may say that the greed for ever more aliveness, characteristic of the lusty personality, is but an attempt to compensate for a hidden lack of aliveness. ... __The characterological syndrome of lust is related to that of gluttony in that both are characterized by impulsiveness and hedonism. ... __As usual, the character stands in polar opposition to each of those connected with it by the inner ow of the enneagram: just as ennea-type II is over-feminine and sensitive, ennea-type VIII is over- masculine and insensitive; and just as ennea-type V is intra-punitive and shy, ennea-type VIII is extra-punitive and bold. ...__Just as the envy-centered character is the most sensitive in the enneagram, ennea-type VIII is the most insensitive. ... __The anti-social personality disorder described in DSM-III may be regarded as a pathological extreme and a special instance of ennea-type VIII The broader syndrome may be better evoked through Reich’s label of “phallic narcissistic”2 character or Horney’s description of the vindictive personality. The word “sadistic” seems particularly appropriate in view of its position opposite the masochistic character of ennea-type IV. ... __Reich’s description was first presented at the Vienna Psychoanalytic society in 1926 and was later included in his Character Analysis. He observes that in terms of physique this character is predominantly athletic, “hardly ever an aesthenic type,” while his behavior is never cringing, but usually arrogant, either coldly reserved or contemptuously aggressive. The “narcissistic element, stands out in the attitude towards the object, including the love object, and is always infused with more or less concealed sadistic characteristics.”_
> 
> And here is video of the guy we're talking about. There is no "indolence" or dullness, no insensitivity, crudeness, nor pushiness that the 8 profiles mention. Figure doesn't fit the 8 profile in the least bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed your type several times and Canterella's type is under question also, so I wouldn't take your interaction as characteristic of supervision. With your supervisor you will feel like when they are making an argument you have little to respond to. Discussions often don't even take place because supervisee shies away from challenging their supervisor or fully agrees with them.


cyamitide, I just want to say that obviously I don't agree with you about everything -- far from it -- and I don't know who you are on 16t if anyone. But when you first showed up I thought you were a completely clueless hack, and from posts like these my opinion has changed considerably.


----------



## Recede

I seem to relate a little bit to all of the thinking styles, but recently it was pointed out to me that I seem to use the Causal-Determinist style (which is a bit ironic because I actually thought I didn't relate to that one at all at first). This paragraph I wrote may be especially CD: 



> Imagine someone commits suicide. What caused it? Was it the depression? What caused the depression? A break-up? What caused the break-up? Differing values? What caused the differing values? Different upbringings? What caused the different upbringings? Different values of the parents?...With causality you could go on and on to infinity. The fallacy is to think that one thing causes one other thing, or any limited number of things. Everything is affecting everything simultaneously because everything is interconnected and changing together.


So I guess I'm a CD thinker who doesn't believe in simple causality, because I've seen beyond it. People all too often look for someone to blame when things go wrong, believing that someone must be responsible. And when they find the person they think is responsible, then that person is entirely responsible and all other factors that contributed are overlooked. And if the person tries to explain that there were other factors involved, that's considered trying to divert the blame and is looked down upon. In that way people can justify their blame and avoid looking deeper. They don't see the deeper level in which everything is interconnected. People want simple black-and-white answers, but in reality nothing is ever black-and-white. No one is ever entirely innocent or entirely guilty.


----------



## Helios

Kamishi said:


> And nothing says the 16types community is good at typing, either. They typed me as LSI and I don't know what else, and I'd say aestrivex is pretty obviously a static Ti-Fe type of some sort, with most likely strong S-valued element in his ego block judging by how most of his descriptions and need to type people always seem to come from this S-perspective. It matters more whether people seem creative or how they appear quadra-wise than what IMs that seem to be the cause behind that behavior. That is not an intuitive way of approaching it, especially not Ni.


But nothing says that they are complete shit at typing, either. They were merely incorrect in their assessment of your type. After all, when most people type others some types are incorrect, while others are on point. You keep speaking in terms of him having this strong S-valued element in his ego block without explicitly outlining to us what an "S-perspective" specifically entails and how aestrivex meets those criteria. Also, I don't think focusing on how behaviors and quadra values manifest in people over IM valuation is something exclusive to sensing types, when I've seen plenty of self-typed intuitives focusing on behaviors that don't line up with what they believe or perceive to be "intuitive" or "sensing" behaviors in regards to typing people. That would depend more on whether or not an individual of a given type sees some kind of merit in using a particular method, rather than the IE's valued. For if an Ni or Ne ego type sees the merit in typing by quadra manifestation, they will do it. Just in a more abstract and less involved way than S ego types would.


----------



## Animal

Behold 2 pages of discussion on the socionics forum [complete with video] about the enneagram type of a user who has not posted on this thread even once.

I am amused that typing at 8 merits so much attention. :kitteh:


----------



## Flatlander

Maybe said:


> Behold 2 pages of discussion on the socionics forum [complete with video] about the enneagram type of a user who has not posted on this thread even once.
> 
> I am amused that typing at 8 merits so much attention. :kitteh:


I don't really think it's about typing at 8 here, not in the same way as on the enneagram forum. If there's tension here, it's largely over sociotype.


----------



## Animal

Flatlander said:


> I don't really think it's about typing at 8 here, not in the same way as on the enneagram forum. If there's tension here, it's largely over sociotype.


Except for the long block of Naranjo quotes and video... and argument over his type...


----------



## Flatlander

Maybe said:


> Except for the long block of Naranjo quotes and video... and argument over his type...


You know what I meant.


----------



## Entropic

Pavane said:


> But nothing says that they are complete shit at typing, either. They were merely incorrect in their assessment of your type. After all, when most people type others some types are incorrect, while others are on point.


I simply assume most people are shit until proven otherwise, especially considering if they as a whole, agree on someone's type when I think it's so clearly not the case. 



> You keep speaking in terms of him having this strong S-valued element in his ego block without explicitly outlining to us what an "S-perspective" specifically entails and how aestrivex meets those criteria.


I did, prior. I for example mentioned how he's more interested in people's behavior and how that lines up with quadras or for the matter, how things seem to line up with his personal experiences, than looking at the causes that would give rise to such behavior. 



> Also, I don't think focusing on how behaviors and quadra values manifest in people over IM valuation is something exclusive to sensing types,


You're missing the point I was making. It's not that he's focused on quadra values themselves, it's _how_ he's focused on them. Have you ever seen him make an IM assessment of me as a person? No. He just thinks that based on some arbitrary random standards, I seem to appear/behave/whatever as an IEI when it's so obvious I'm not one. 



> when I've seen plenty of self-typed intuitives focusing on behaviors that don't line up with what they believe or perceive to be "intuitive" or "sensing" behaviors in regards to typing people.


What says they are intuitives? Just because they self-type a certain way it doesn't mean they actually think the way they type. I think it's pretty clear what separates intuition and sensation apart, as well. 



> That would depend more on whether or not an individual of a given type sees some kind of merit in using a particular method, rather than the IE's valued.


Again, missing the point. If someone wants to type by quadra be by guest, but then at least show how it relates to the rest of the theory. Just saying "that person seems soft like how I think EIIs are" is a really useless way of typing people, and that's pretty how much aestrivex types people, and the reason he seems to type people that way seems to be because he favors Fe + S, I lean Si, data. To an FeSi type (those that value those elements/functions), descriptors such as "soft" is meaningful. To me, not so much.



> For if an Ni or Ne ego type sees the merit in typing by quadra manifestation, they will do it. Just in a more abstract and less involved way than S ego types would.


And I have no problem with RosoDude typing by quadra as long as I think it makes sense and he can justify it functionally. aestrivex doesn't even seem to look at functions and elements.


----------



## Helios

@Kamishi, saying that Fe + Si values descriptors such as "soft" while you do not is a superficial and insubstantial interpretation of how Si+Fe valuing types might be inclined to type. Now if you said something more along the lines of "Fe+Si might be more inclined to see valuation in using such descriptors because the person (serving as the object) elicits this kind of emotional response in others that generates relationship patterns that this user has categorized as soft," that could be valid. Because then you're actually trying to find the best means of actually explaining how certain IE's may give rise to things rather than blatantly stating "X type does things this way because they have these valued information elements." Doing that is really no different than what you repeatedly accuse aestrivex of doing. 

Otherwise, how does calling something "soft" as a descriptor necessarily demonstrate Si gauging interactions of physical states between objects when it could be a metaphorical construct for what personalities meeting whatever criteria in his head should be referred to as? Especially when the concept of cognitive theory/personality is more of an abstract construct; and generally speaking, metaphoric descriptors and artful language are a means by which a person can convey abstract constructs in concrete form. I will agree however, that it is more effective to place IE's in typing to make sense of a person's cognition, rather than traits and behaviors supposedly derived from valuing said IE's.


----------



## Entropic

Pavane said:


> @Kamishi, saying that Fe + Si values descriptors such as "soft" while you do not is a superficial and insubstantial interpretation of how Si+Fe valuing types might be inclined to type. Now if you said something more along the lines of "Fe+Si might be more inclined to see valuation in using such descriptors because the person (serving as the object) elicits this kind of emotional response in others that generates relationship patterns that this user has categorized as soft," that could be valid. Because then you're actually trying to find the best means of actually explaining how certain IE's may give rise to things rather than blatantly stating "X type does things this way because they have these valued information elements." Doing that is really no different than what you repeatedly accuse aestrivex of doing.


Missing the point again. Do I need to spell it out to such a degree in order to convey my point? I thought it was obvious.


> Otherwise, how does calling something "soft" as a descriptor necessarily demonstrate Si gauging interactions of physical states between objects when it could be a metaphorical construct for what personalities meeting whatever criteria in his head should be referred to as?


As I already outlined several times, it depends on _why_ you do it. 



> Especially when the concept of cognitive theory/personality is more of an abstract construct; and generally speaking, metaphoric descriptors and artful language are a means by which a person can convey abstract constructs in concrete form. I will agree however, that it is more effective to place IE's in typing to make sense of a person's cognition, rather than traits and behaviors supposedly derived from valuing said IE's.


Again, it depends on the why. I never once rejected the idea of referring people metaphorically. It depends on _why_ you do it.


----------



## Helios

@Kamishi, quite frankly, your post seemed more reflective of your bias against aestrivex and Fe-Si rather than something based on how IE's actually operate to manifest certain behaviors. So nothing is as "obvious" as you constantly claim it is.


----------



## Entropic

Pavane said:


> @Kamishi, quite frankly, your post seemed more reflective of your bias against aestrivex and Fe-Si rather than something based on how IE's actually operate to manifest certain behaviors. So nothing is as "obvious" as you constantly claim it is.


My bias? I'm willing to consider that he could also be an Se-Ni type but I honestly find it less likely based on his reasoning processes that I've seen from him thus far.

Perhaps if you proved to me how I was biased and how this bias is shown in my reasoning processes instead of just accusing me of being biased I'd consider it. I have absolutely no problem setting my bias aside when typing him and I've considered many types for him in the past. Ni dominant is however, not one of them.


----------



## dizzycactus

slightly old thread? But I'd like to say that the article really added something to my understanding of my own cognition, and perhaps to other's as well. It explains my own so well. The part about being penetrating especially (holographic-panoramic). Stripping away all the irrelevant outer particular details, leaving the bones. Moving from angle to angle to grasp the whole. Sometimes it feels to me almost a harsh way to judge things. It's piercing, revealing, merciless and without remorse. But it's also great. In my opinion 
It helps to have an idea of how other types cognitively operate, too, outside of merely understanding their function combinations. I understand INTJs, for example, now, as a kind of flow of associations leading to a kind of linear-progression (perhaps with certain parallel paths generated by Ni?) to a goal. A sequence of events to get somewhere. That, I think, is why they are good with making plans and specific logical systems, but weaker in terms of understanding the logical fundamentals and construction of things.


----------



## ShadoWolf

It seems a bit overdone? I could see any of the definitions applying to anyone really, just depends on a situation. I gave it a look though, and maybe ill read further into it.


----------



## cyamitide

dizzycactus said:


> I understand INTJs, for example, now, as a kind of flow of associations leading to a kind of linear-progression (perhaps with certain parallel paths generated by Ni?) to a goal. A sequence of events to get somewhere. That, I think, is why they are good with making plans and specific logical systems, but weaker in terms of understanding the logical fundamentals and construction of things.


The ILI thinking styles (D-A) is more like a rocking progression where the topic is analyzed by flipping between constrasts and comparisons. There is some amount of uncertainty associated with it. The thinking style closest to a linear progression that is always moving forward, building a precise chain of reasoning, was the C-D one.



ShadoWolf said:


> It seems a bit overdone? I could see any of the definitions applying to anyone really, just depends on a situation. I gave it a look though, and maybe ill read further into it.


There is always one that forms a better fit than the others. It's rare that a person uses all four at an exactly even distribution.


----------



## Zero11

Zero11 said:


> I can confirm this :crazy: it happens incredibly fast. (EIE Supervisor)


Was a Ne leading type sorry, damn stereotyping.


----------



## MNiS

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Another thing I've noticed about my thinking is that when looking at objects, I tend to view it as a whole and sometimes don't see the more minor details. Are other H-Ps like this?


Yes although I've always attributed it to being a results type but Gulenko's cognitive styles makes sense. I do however find it peculiar that H-P is described as being reductionist in nature which flies in the face of MBTI that says Ni and Ti are responsible for reductionism.

At any rate it's certainly interesting and it's pretty clear why H-P and V-S cognitive thinking styles are complimentary as well as D-A and C-D.


----------



## Bluemint

I have a teacher whose way of getting class participation is primarily through letting us fill in the blanks, even when it doesn't reflect the subject. Example: A student gave the correct answer. Teacher: "You hit the nail on..." Wants students to call out: "the head". She's extremely precise with every word. Her questions are very precise, and she looks for the answers to be specifically with the words she wants. However, her questions lack straightforward clarity. I need an extra second to process them before responding. What's her style?


----------



## Flatlander

Bluemint said:


> I have a teacher whose way of getting class participation is primarily through letting us fill in the blanks, even when it doesn't reflect the subject. Example: A student gave the correct answer. Teacher: "You hit the nail on..." Wants students to call out: "the head". She's extremely precise with every word. Her questions are very precise, and she looks for the answers to be specifically with the words she wants. However, her questions lack straightforward clarity. I need an extra second to process them before responding. What's her style?


Fishy.

Offhand, maybe vortical-synergetic? Sounds like she has the potential to be an ESE.


----------



## cyamitide

Bluemint said:


> I have a teacher whose way of getting class participation is primarily through letting us fill in the blanks, even when it doesn't reflect the subject. Example: A student gave the correct answer. Teacher: "You hit the nail on..." Wants students to call out: "the head". She's extremely precise with every word. Her questions are very precise, and she looks for the answers to be specifically with the words she wants. However, her questions lack straightforward clarity. I need an extra second to process them before responding. What's her style?


High precision in choosing words and linear thought style that always goes forward and never loops back is most expressed in C-D rational types: the LSI and the EII.

My ILE friend has been complaining a lot lately about her professor, who from her words fits the description is of Vortical-Synergetic style and is likely LIE, her quasi-identical. She says that this woman doesn't explain the theory clearly and instead "drowns" them in a whole lot of examples. She says her LIE prof should devote more of their class time to talking about the theory and explaining it more clearly and precisely, otherwise my ILE friend doesn't know how to solve her examples. As a result, she is really struggling in that class and panicking over whether she'll pass it 

I really wish that Socionics was more mainstream and students would know the types of their professors. I remember having the same ordeal with an ILI professor whose explanations I found to be nearly useless, such that I even started skipping lectures and felt very stressed about passing the exams. Later I took a similar course from an LII prof who explained things in exactly the way that I understood them, whose lectures I enjoyed and got high grades on her tests. Goes to show how important it is to match thinking styles of students and professors (the explainer and the explainee).


----------



## Monkey King

cyamitide said:


> High precision in choosing words and linear thought style that always goes forward and never loops back is most expressed in C-D rational types: the LSI and the EII.
> 
> My ILE friend has been complaining a lot lately about her professor, who from her words fits the description is of Vortical-Synergetic style and is likely LIE, her quasi-identical. She says that this woman doesn't explain the theory clearly and instead "drowns" them in a whole lot of examples. She says her LIE prof should devote more of their class time to talking about the theory and explaining it more clearly and precisely, otherwise my ILE friend doesn't know how to solve her examples. As a result, she is really struggling in that class and panicking over whether she'll pass it
> 
> I really wish that Socionics was more mainstream and students would know the types of their professions. I remember having the same ordeal with an ILI professor whose explanations I found to be nearly useless, such that I even started skipping lectures and felt very stressed about passing the exams. Later I took a similar course from an LII prof who explained things in exactly the way that I understood them, such that I enjoyed coming to her lectures and got high grades on her tests. Goes to show how important it is to match thinking styles of students and professors (the explainer and the explainee).



It's funny you say that because the former teaching style would utterly bore me. High precision and linear type of discussions are found in textbooks. I see no reason in attending classes that will only repeat what assigned readings already do. Application of theory and examples of it facilitate my understanding of the concept better. 

LMAO This definitely should become more mainstream.


----------



## Bluemint

Yup. Different learning styles... at least most teachers try to incorporate as many of them as possible. (I say this for my fellow classmates' benefit, for me, any one of them once suffices, or none at all, especially if I'm able to apply it on my own. More than that is boring.)

Btw, more about the teacher I described, she tries to show herself as cool-headed, logical and dignified at all times. Unfortunately, she gets very flustered and even antagonistic when people question her or try to argue. As for logical... see my post. She does have a logical though complex train of thought, and that process is explained well. The problem is that most things just require a strait-forward simple and short explanation.


----------



## Entropic

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Some questions and thoughts that came up as I was reading about cognitive styles:
> 
> Do you think people learn best from people who share the same cognitive style? I noticed that all members of the same supervision/instruction loop all have the same cognitive style so it would make sense. However they do apply the same cognitive style in very different ways.


That's how Gulenko came up with his idea. He noticed that people within each supervision ring shared information more easily than others. I for example notice this with SEIs. Despite completely opposite cognition I have no problem to actually theoretically communicate with them. 



> How does each cognitive style perceive each of the other cognitive styles? As an H-P myself, I can sometimes struggle with C-D styles because as process types, they seem to need the whole process laid out in front of them. As a result type, I'm less aware of that. I know what kind of result I want to get on the end, but I'm often fuzzy about the process. Also I seem to automatically extract the most salient points of something and what ever is deemed irrelevant to the result I'm seeking is ignored. This means I sometimes have trouble explaining how I get from A to B specifically enough for someone more process oriented.


Depends too much on the type.

Anyway, speaking about cognitive style clashes, I was trying to explain to my math prof how I made sense of second grade functions and how I solved them. Prof likely LII by the way. He didn't understand no matter how I tried to explain. Eventually another class member chimed in (SEI? Definitely Fe ego) and made it make sense to him. Quite hilarious albeit frustrating.


----------



## The Exception

Don't know how much this relates to my cognitive style but I can't stand it when people just throw a bunch of information at me or start showing me how to do something when they haven't even given me an overall picture of what we are trying to accomplish in the first place or why it even matters. Are there certain types or cognitive styles that are more prone to doing that sort of thing?


----------



## clay

sounds more like Ti and being result oriented in the Reinen dichotomy. I'm the same way. If I don't know the end goal I feel lost.


----------



## cyamitide

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Don't know how much this relates to my cognitive style but I can't stand it when people just throw a bunch of information at me or start showing me how to do something when they haven't even given me an overall picture of what we are trying to accomplish in the first place or why it even matters. Are there certain types or cognitive styles that are more prone to doing that sort of thing?


The Result types. 

Some people say it's Ti but I've talked to an ESI, IEE, and LIE about this and they all confirmed the same -- that they feel lost if somebody doesn't give them the overall plan or goal, despite being Te types. So this isn't Ti-related.

When I'm around Process types it feels like they are always moving somewhere in these small steps, adding them one by one, but without a clear end in sight. They'll even talk in this manner. This makes me feel disoriented. As a Result type, I'd like to see an end point to where I'm going. The process of getting there, however, often feels too boring and tedious.


Result way of thinking can be through as "top-down" thinking style: you climb on top to survey where you're going first, but have poor view of all the small steps along your journey.

Process way of thinking is "bottom-up": you've on the path itself and have very good view of all the little steps you're making, but you don't bother with the overall survey of the map.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> They'll even talk in this manner.


Care to give an example?


----------



## cyamitide

ephemereality said:


> Care to give an example?


a couple from 16types forum:
ILI poster's response: full of detail
another poster who considered ILI for himself and would otherwise fit process type: same detalization
which is also described in LSI profiles, another process type

process types work out the details "steps" first, their style of thinking flows from detail to the big picture and that's how it is easiest to comprehend for other process types; however, result types feel lost and wonder why they are being flooded with all these details in the beginning of the argument or discussion, this style of discourse is disorienting for them


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> a couple from 16types forum:
> ILI poster's response: full of detail
> another poster who considered ILI for himself and would otherwise fit process type: same detalization
> which is also described in LSI profiles, another process type
> 
> process types work out the details "steps" first, their style of thinking flows from detail to the big picture and that's how it is easiest to comprehend for other process types; however, result types feel lost and wonder why they are being flooded with all these details in the beginning of the argument or discussion, this style of discourse is disorienting for them


Hm, I see. I think I understand what you mean now. How would a result type phrase this? Just a summary kind of?


----------



## Tainted Streetlight

The article is incredibly dense... and parts of it seem rather unfounded in observation.

For instance in Casual-Determinist and the Social sphere it talks about psychological depth and reverts to a very Freudian-analysis, which is just kind of curious, but makes me doubt perhaps the validity of the analysis. This is really an article I'm going to have to warm up to though, because I can tell that there is probably some really good information and analysis behind the complex ideas. But I think this would take near 15 minutes or so to digest, and I really don't have the time right now.


----------



## KCfox

On first reading I thought this was a sci-fi thread.

Besides the psychobabble, I certainly do see others' possible hidden motivations but on the overall I am positive in my thinking so the context is limited.
This wasn't very friendly to my comprehension.


----------



## cyamitide

-Ephemeral- said:


> Hm, I see. I think I understand what you mean now. How would a result type phrase this? Just a summary kind of?


Result type would provide a quick summary, a couple of sentences with the gist of what they were trying to say or main conclusions -- they'd follow up on it and elaborate only _if_ they were asked to do so.


----------



## cyamitide

Tainted Streetlight said:


> The article is incredibly dense... and parts of it seem rather unfounded in observation.
> 
> For instance in Casual-Determinist and the Social sphere it talks about psychological depth and reverts to a very Freudian-analysis, which is just kind of curious, but makes me doubt perhaps the validity of the analysis. This is really an article I'm going to have to warm up to though, because I can tell that there is probably some really good information and analysis behind the complex ideas. But I think this would take near 15 minutes or so to digest, and I really don't have the time right now.


It's part observation -- part independent analysis. The author's type is LII so he tends to branch out into philosophical tangents. It took me months to digest and compare this to my observations of friends whose types I knew to decide that most of what he's written seems to hold up. He's done a good job desribing VS and HP styles, but wasn't so keen on the causal-determinist one -- EIIs, ILEs, SEEs, and LSIs have the most trouble trying to relate to it.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> It's part observation -- part independent analysis. The author's type is LII so he tends to branch out into philosophical tangents. It took me months to digest and compare this to my observations of friends whose types I knew to decide that most of what he's written seems to hold up. He's done a good job desribing VS and HP styles, but wasn't so keen on the causal-determinist one -- EIIs, ILEs, SEEs, and LSIs have the most trouble trying to relate to it.


I would say DA is pretty good too but it's obvious how clearly biased he is towards DA. I also think that a combination of broken Russian English and Gulenko's way of reasoning in general doesn't ease how easy it is to understand the paper. Took me several readings as well.


----------



## Elyasis

I found it easy to read but disagreed with his assumptions.


----------



## cyamitide

Elyasis said:


> I found it easy to read but disagreed with his assumptions.


which ones?


----------

