Analysis of Gulekno’s Cognitive Styles

Home Page Forums Cognitive Functions Analysis of Gulekno’s Cognitive Styles

  • Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Hi,

    In this thread I’ll be analyzing Viktor Gulenko’s Socionics cognitive styles, from this article: https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/51-Forms-of-Cognition-by-Victor-Gulenko

    I will be doing so from the assumption/premise that CT and Socionics are approximating the same reality or phenomenon underneath — in order to frame the discussion properly as a comparison. However, I hope by the end of the thread that the readers can evaluate for themselves whether or not this is the case.

    Specifically, I will be analyzing whether or not Gulenko’s type distinctions apply to the vultological samples belonging to CT’s categories, but will also compare other aspects such as cognition and behavior. I will go through each section, one post at a time, with my remarks in blue.

    Here is a quick-navigation table:

    • This topic was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Static-Dynamic

    Static Types: NeTi, TiNe, TiSe, SeTi, SeFi, FiSe, FiNe, NeFi
    Dynamic Types: SiFe, FeSi, FeNi, NiFe, NiFe, TeNi, TeSi, SiTe

    Initial impression of division: It appears that this grouping corresponds to CT’s reviser/conductor types.



    Intellectual Level

    Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend towards associative-synthetic thinking. (this sounds to me like J’s discriminatory thought, versus P’s synthetic thought)

    Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. (again, delineation is J in CT) Whereas synthesis is akin to associativity, i.e. the association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries. (yes, this corresponds to P, as is said in the metabolic section:

    Associations made by the perception processes are made on the basis of shared attributes – data is connected so long as it relates to other data, independent of any rational justification for the association within parameters of laws or axioms. (…) The process of discrimination, also known as Judgment, (…) is the recognition and elimination of contradiction – be it logically or ethically)

    The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism. Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. (right, again CT’s P says: The accumulation of information and its integration with existing data, with no necessary excommunication of any part. Synthesis sees everything as a whole, and does not draw barriers. One thing leads into the next, and is perhaps dependent on it. Nothing can be viewed by itself outside of context, since context means everything to the proper comprehension of anything. Synthesis is relativistic in thinking, rather than absolute. It sees spectrums, gradients and fuzzy boundaries (or no boundaries at all).) Later John Locke argued that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the association of ideas against purely semantic connections (semantic categories are J, yes, and opposed to P), which in his opinion were secondary.

    Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. (again CT’s P: Nothing can be viewed by itself outside of context, since context means everything to the proper comprehension of anything.) Here are some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.
    Roman orator Cicero used the ‘method of loci’ to memorize his speeches by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room, mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required. Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk the route, ‘raising’ key concepts they had previously laid there.

    Contemporary advertising cleverly exploits the Dynamic side of human cognition. It is mainly based on the mechanism of association by context (manly cowboy next to a pack of cigarettes) or contrast (ordinary laundry detergent vs. advertised laundry detergent). Judging by this means of consumer inducement, advertising presumably influences Statics much less than Dynamics. (i don’t like the advertisement-gullibility undertone here, as seeing the connections doesn’t mean P types would fall for it, but they may indeed link things that way more readily than J types.) (But actually he’s talking about Conductor types here, and that seems untrue for them.) Statics memorize more effectively when material is structured in rigid semantic relationships, where each concept is fixed in memory cells like a computer.

    Thus, Dynamics are stronger in synthesis operations (not mere simple connections, but confluence of associations), while Statics are stronger in analysis (not just any separation, but clear and precise delineations). (Wait, so he’s saying that Dynamic is not merely about connections, but ‘confluent’ associations, or in other words when connections follow the same vector/flow/direction, hence the connection to “time”, I assume? But I don’t see how this conjunction came about from what he said above, so the “thus” doesn’t make sense to me yet. Next he says Statics are inclined towards analysis, which is not just discrimination, but ‘precise delineation’? I don’t see why one would discriminate without having in mind to do so in order to make precise delineations.)

    Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with the Static–Dynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary Rationality/Irrationality. (I don’t understand how this is the case. It seems to rest on the point above ^ but it was unclear to me.) But then, what exactly is the latter? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over context). (This seems confusing to me. I wasn’t under the impression that Irrational vs Rational was framed this way. Is it Situationality (as contingency?) vs Regularity (as non-contingency?). For now I’ll continue and see if clarity arises.)

    Social Level

    Differences between Dynamic and Static types at this level corresponds to the contrast between initiators and finalizers.

    Dynamics are stronger at the beginning of any activity: they easily move and quickly enter the realm of nominal activity. (this seems to be true of Pe-leads more than Pi-leads, if we’re talking about P-leads) Rapid transitions from a previous state into a new process of change itself—this is their customary life. (again, Pe) Statics better sustain and continue what has already begun—that which is already in motion. (wait, he’s saying that Statics, in other words Reviser types (NeTi, TiNe, TiSe, SeTi, SeFi, FiSe, FiNe & NeFi) are better at sustaining and continuing what has already begun and is already in motion? I don’t see how this applies to them at all. The opposite seems more true.) They must be preliminarily excited.

    However, in the Dynamic is a process of continuous readjustment of focus and ‘drift’ of purposes. (this corresponds to Pe) Because of this, the priorities of Dynamics are volatile and poor in hierarchical coordination. (Pe l—) One wish may be quickly replaced by another and it is difficult for them to concentrate on any one specific long-term goal without external support. (Pe l—) The strength of Dynamics is not in retaining goals, but in achieving them; they are better tacticians than strategists. (I have to remind myself here that by Dynamics he’s talking about conductor types: SiFe, FeSi, FeNi, NiFe, NiFe, TeNi, TeSi, SiTe. I don’t see how their strength is “not in retaining goals”, and I don’t see how Statics are. This seems flipped around to me.)

    The objectives of Statics are more stable and reliable. (The objectives of NeTi, TiNe, TiSe, SeTi, SeFi, FiSe, FiNe & NeFi are more stable and reliable? how so?) They know what they want and are able to maintain long-term focus upon it. (what? that’s conductor.) They arrange priorities in their life and work, with well-differentiated primary and secondary objectives that are rarely reversed. (How does an NeTi fit this description, for instance.) Statics are more successful strategists than tacticians; they know what to do much better than how to do it. (Ok, if he means Revisers can come up with ideas better than following through with them, that part is true. But Revisers as a whole also fail at maintaining long-term focus. Maybe less so in high Se’s but high Ne’s struggle with this a lot.)

    A predominance of Dynamics in any social group renders it unstable, prone to endless change, and sensitive to external interference. Conversely, if predominated by Statics, then rapid transformations prove to be impossible due to excess psychological inertia, rendering the group stabler but more conservative. (This is false. A social group of reviser types (“Statics”) is wholly dynamic and fluid, and resists inertia. We have one on Discord. If anything it’s a group of conductors (i.e. congressmen/businessmen/teachers/politicians) that are more conservative and prone to stay in inertia)

    Psychological Level

    The Static–Dynamic dichotomy controls the degree of equilibrium in the nervous system. Generally, the nervous system of Statics can be regarded as balanced (No, Revisers have more volatility, they are the dramatic artists, musicians and singers in the database) and Dynamics as unbalanced. (No, conductors are the stable ones, all things being equal. They are the CEO’s, the politicians, the teachers, mentors, etc.)

    This is tied to variability in the internal state commonly referred to as ‘mood’. The mood of Dynamics, even if Rational, can substantially change or fluctuate for seemingly insignificant reasons (from an outside observer POV) (again he’s saying the TeSi, TeNi, FeNi and FeSi (dynamic rationals) have fluctuating moods for seemingly insignificant reasons. But from the data we have, these types (Je-leads) are the most conscientious, which means they have the most durability and constancy in terms of staying-on-task and towards a goal, despite things like mood or obstructions). The Dynamic wants total freedom but is more dependent on ambient environmental conditions and needs a solid foundation. (this sounds like Pe, and Se persistence effect)

    Statics possess a relatively autonomous psycho-emotional state; their mood is difficult to spoil, and equally difficult to raise. (maybe Pi?) For Statics, providing reliable support to those psychologically depending on them is a routine situation.

    Dynamics often develop a psycho-physiological phenomenon known as ‘synaesthesia’—a complex relationship between the sensory modalities that results in confluence between them. Synchronized perception of color, sound, smell, and taste as a single complex gives Dynamics a special vividness in their perception of reality. (this is totally Pe, and we’ve heard of this from Se users) Sometimes fusion of sensation is developed to such an extent that internal images appear indistinguishable from reality. (right, but how is this describing TeSi’s, TeNi’s, FeNi’s and FeSi’s?) For Statics, given the discreteness of their mental apparatus, regular synesthesia is usually a rare exception or the result of special training. (so, SeFi’s, NeTi’s, SeTi’s and NeFi’s don’t usually have this? again they’re the artists, musicians and the types that have the most vividity of imagery and synesthetic proclivities)

    Physical Level

    At this level, Static–Dynamic manifests as contrasting impulses to biological homeostasis/heterostasis. Homeostasis I understand as constancy and heterostasis as variability of the organism and its surrounding environment.

    Dynamics are heterostatically inclined to change their material conditions of life such as wardrobe, home interior, or furniture arrangement, for sake of variety or out of boredom. (again, this seems more Pe-lead, I don’t see Je leads here, or Pi-leads) For Statics this tendency is uncharacteristic. (NeFi’s, NeTi’s etc… don’t like changing their wardrobes, because they exist in a homeostatic state?) Only with difficulty do they proceed with changes to their home environment to which they have become accustomed. (NeFi’s? NeTi’s?) They will do so only when it’s easier to yield to circumstantial pressures, than to resist. (Revisers?)

    As types with variable metabolism, Dynamics can rapidly grow stout, though just as quickly lose weight if they fall into a state of emotional distress. Statics have the opposite problem, of a stabler weight and build: if already seriously fat (or thin), they remain so for longer times. Their bodily metabolism is more invariant. (n/a)

    The same laws apply in relation to other physiological parameters such as temperature, blood pressure, perspiration, etc. For example, the body temperature of Dynamics may fluctuate during the day even with no overt symptoms of illness. With sufficient training, Dynamic types can consciously change these parameters in the desired direction. (n/a)

    Overall Thoughts

    At the start of the section, it appeared the distinction he was making coincided with CT’s J vs P, but later it appeared more as a distinction between J-leads (and sometimes Pi’s) vs Pe. Dynamics, the way he described them, applies most to Pe-leads, although it is not a perfect fit. Statics, the way he described them, applies to very J-heavy J-leads, or to certain inertial shades of Pi-leads.

    The things Gulenko says here about the (NeTi, TiNe, TiSe, SeTi, SeFi, FiSe, FiNe & NeFi) types, couldn’t be more false. His view of them being “static” is not simply in them having a particular analysis of something in a universal sense and outside of time-contexts. If so, the Ji-leads at least might fit “Static” to a degree. But instead he frames these types as being overall resistant to dynamic flow, to change of wardrobes, to vividity, to receptiveness to change overall. He paints them as prone to inertia, as stable and reliable. All of these things are overall more characteristic of the Conductor types.

    Inversely, the things he says about the (SiFe, FeSi, FeNi, NiFe, NiFe, TeNi, TeSi & SiTe) types, couldn’t be too much more off the mark. The portrayal of Je-leads (dynamic rationals) in particular was unexpected. Saying they have difficulty with focus on long-term goals, existing in a continual readjustment or drift in purposes. Nothing could be more opposite from them, in their native development.

    ~

    In any case, this category of Static-Dynamic, as described above, would not map onto our database samples (of the same labels) very much at all.

    ~

    I feel as though the dichotomy would almost be useful if it was inverted, so that Dynamics=Revisers, Statics=Conductors, at least at the social level downward. But at the intellectual level, this moreso describes J-vs-P cognition.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Positivist–Negativist

    Positivist Types: NeTi, FeSi, TiSe, NiFe, SeFi, TeNi, FiNe, SiTe
    Negativist Types: SiFe, TiNe, FeNi, SeTi, NiTe, FiSe, TeSi, NeFi

    Initial impression of division: This division, while symmetrical in a sense, doesn’t appear to group types in any way that CT has yet documented. Alpha and Gamma types are divided by E=Positivist, I=Negativist, and Beta and Delta types are divided into E=Negativist, I=Positivist.



    Positivism I understand as the tendency to maximize the positive, Negativism as the tendency to minimize the negative. (this is a nice conceptual symmetry) Positivists primarily perceive the positive side of any phenomenon, and often turn a blind eye to the negative. Negativists won’t overlook problems, and simultaneously mitigate any positive aspects to their situation of interest.

    (…there is no exact concept for this in CT, but two come close:

    Ni/Se vs Ne/Si

    Ni/Se users, with their persistence effect and fatalism, do tend to be more unable to overlook problems, while Ne/Si users have more capacity for an optimism which translates to benefit-of-doubt-giving, at times.

    Pi > Pe

    However, this can also vary depending on whether it’s Si>Ne. In general, Pi is suspicious of enthusiastic positivity, and pessimistic by default. Inversely, Pe tends to be more optimistic or opportunistic, but both require an implicit belief in an upside around the corner.)

    Intellectual Level

    At this level, the Positivism–Negativism dichotomy manifests as identification of similarities or differences in object comparison. In Negativists thought processes prevails contrast, in Positivists leads comparison. Meaning that Positivists more easily hold overall views of an object, without considering its internal divisions (this sounds like P vs J again). Conversely, Negativists more easily distinguish its extreme points of separation and opposing contrasts. (would this make J-leads negativists, by virtue of always seeing the separations in things?)

    Directly relevant to this is a dichotomy known in cognitive psychology as convergent/divergent thinking [5], discovered by J. P. Guilford. In his opinion, divergent thinking, from simple initial data, yields several different solutions to the same problem; a trait characteristic to the alternative-thinking of Negativists. (I would imagine that seeing several different solutions to the same problem would lead to optimism, hence positivism, no? How does this lead to a negativistic perspective? Perhaps because the existence of multiple interpretations diminishes the probability that we know the right one?)

    Opposite this, convergent thinking searches for a single valid encompassing solution (right); a trait more characteristic to Positivist thinking. (okay, got it) For them, a problem is unsolved until the validity of one solution is proven against other alternatives.

    Social Level

    Positivism–Negativism affects the degree of internal group coherence and regulates attraction/repulsion between its members.

    An individual’s ability to assimilate into a group is typologically predictable. (it’s quite a big claim to suggest this follows from cognition and not from other emotional inclinations/states) Negativists are remote types. They need constant assurance, even in a group they consider their own. (wait, what’s similar about the SiFe, TiNe, FeNi, SeTi, NiTe, FiSe, TeSi & NeFi types that would suggest this about them?) Therefore it is more difficult to fully integrate Negativists into a group. (NeFi’s are exceptionally good at integrating into groups) Positivists on the other hand, are inclined to close range communication. They do not polarize contrasts, but smooth them over in one way or another. Thus Positivists facilitate monocentric group structure and unity of purpose. (Wait, FeNi and SeTi are under Negativists, but they thrive in monocentric group structures; re: wolf packs) Whereas Negativists amplify polarizing forces conducive to polycentric group structure.

    Consider the example of SEI, a fairly good-natured type, although Negativist. Is there a behavioral tendency towards remoteness? Yes, it contrasts its subgroup with other subgroups. Thereby disrupting, unintentionally or not, unity of purpose in the whole group overall. (are we talking about the tendency to generate in-group vs out-group dynamics? if so maybe I can see how FeNi and SeTi may be negativists, but why would NiFe and TiSe be positivists? so NiFe’s and TiSe’s are the ones most supportive of wholes while FeNi’s and SeTi’s are the “remote” ones that fragment groups? that seems backwards)

    What process balances internal group cohesion? It is observed that Positivists are drawn towards their opposite, which contributes to overall group solidarity, particularly through the ease of intragroup role distribution. Negativists on the other hand, have an inherent paradoxical attraction to those similar to themselves. The nearer such parallel charged elements converge, however, it becomes increasingly difficult to implement mutual action. Repulsive forces rapidly emerge and fracture group integration.

    (this sounds to me as moreso a feature of Ji and Pi. these are the “remote” types that don’t make for group cohesion as much, by virtue of them holding private paradigms/frameworks, which creates the repulsive forces. and oppositely, i would imagine Pe and Je types, by virtue of a shared extroverted focus, lead more towards social unification. I would imagine I-leads to be negativists and E-leads to be positivists, at this social level, independent of function quadrant. why does it zig-zag based on quadrants?)

    The overall incidence of monolithic or polarized group behavior is a reliable index for gauging Positivist–Negativist tendencies. Negativism generates tension in intragroup relations, leading on one hand to an increase in psychological distance between members, but on the other hand activating its internal momentum to say “Move!”. Positivism by contrast contracts psychological distance and encourages internal group cohesion, but can also bring complacency, carelessness, and ‘vapidity’ of existence.

    (I don’t see this being true of the divisions given. For example, TeNi is listed as a positivist, but this type is very divisive. TeNi’s often cause enemies for themselves, and their opinionated nature causes splinters in groups with those who disagree. (Think Trump, Shapiro, etc). I can see why NeTi and FeSi might be positivists, because of that Ne+Fe duo, and extroversion. But TeNi doesn’t fit this.)

    Psychological Level

    In a psychological sense, this dichotomy can be approximately interpreted as trust/distrust. (oh dear, trust is an emotion and shouldn’t belong in this discussion)

    Each type of person behaves in life according to how they answer the following existential question: is human nature inherently good or evil? (whaaa?) For Positivists, human nature is inherently good, so they are more likely to be trusting. (Again, I know some TeNi’s who disagree.) This does not mean that they consciously consider themselves to be good, just that they conduct themselves as if others were. Negativists even under favorable conditions are inclined to expect the worst. Their degree of trust in others is therefore is much lower. (The database FeNi’s we have, while understanding of human faults, often do believe in humanity’s overall goodness. Think Oprah Winfrey, Mandy Patinkin, Martin Luther King Jr., etc.)

    The relation between Positivists and Negativists is illustrated well by the analogy of electric conductors. Electric-people (Negativists who have accumulated a negative psychological charge) discharge into conductor-people (Positivists), who tend to provoke them in just the right way to do so. All of which happens mostly automatically and unconsciously. The resulting emotional flash establishing temporary balance of psychological (electro-)potentials. This beneficial surge of emotional release, Aristotle in his “Poetics” called ‘catharsis’—psychological purging via intense experience.

    (this seems to be describing jadedness and disillusionment, and having emotional release of it, prompted by a positivist. But I see no reason to see why the SiFe, TiNe, FeNi, SeTi, NiTe, FiSe, TeSi, NeFi types would be more jaded than the NeTi, FeSi, TiSe, NiFe, SeFi, TeNi, FiNe, SiTe. There are plenty of negatively charged FeSi’s (think of Alex Jones, Charles Manson, Acslaterlol) and also NiTe’s (TheWhiteRose, Zinnia Jones, etc). There are also plenty of positively charged TeSi’s (Brene Brown, Martha Becks), etc. All types can be either unifying or polarizing. This seems to be a division that doesn’t cross over into real samples of said types.)

    Physical Level

    The spatial arrangement of conversation parties in front or near is a key factor in communication, its importance first stressed by Harry S. Sullivan. Negativists gain leverage in communication from positions opposite the partner, Positivists from positions alongside or at an angle deflecting a straight-on gaze. (n/a)

    Automatic reductions in confrontation due to being seated side by side (emotional attitudes? adaptive/seelie?), are a common method used by marital psychologists working with couples. Sitting side by side and addressing an imaginary third party, enables couples to gradually decrease the severity of sore conflict. (n/a)

    Clinical psychologists studying nonverbal cues classify gestures indicative of critical attitudes. (right, attitudes. emotional attitudes) Such gestures are typically ‘closed’—for instance, a hand at the mouth. (introversion?) From a Socionics standpoint then, closed demeanor is better explained by Negativism, not Introversion. (or something else, like being emotionally closed in general, which is not related to cognition.)

    Negativism induces tangible bodily tension. Negativists are inclined to accumulate ‘charge’, making highly-charged Negativists easily overexcitable (especially if also Dynamic). In order to compensate against this, Negativists are recommended to engage in physical exercise that relaxes and smooths internal tension. While Positivists are recommended to perform physical exercise that excites and intensifies their physiological processes. (n/a)

    Overall Thoughts

    I was not able to understand the reasoning/maths behind the division of these type groups, but I must say that I don’t think it succeeded in creating categories that have analogs in reality– at least not in the way here described, when related to our database.

    At the intellectual level, it appears he’s speaking about fragmentary thinking, a tendency to see how things are not wholes, and pointing out the lacks. But if this tendency is not rooted in a cognitive category (like J/P, etc) then I wonder what it is rooted in. I don’t see how the group divisions would give one group more of this ability than the other.

    For example, TiSe is a positivist here, but at the intellectual level the TiSe is more inclined to not over-extend concepts (high Se), while TiNe, labeled here as a negativist, would be more inclined to over-extend concepts and thus achieve a sort of ‘cohesion’ that is less divisive or fragmentary. So even at the intellectual level I see problems with this dichotomy’s interference with S/N, as just one example.

    But the distinction gets even more problematic in the consequent layers. It simply doesn’t hold true of our database samples, as there are multiple counter-examples to almost every point raised about those within a given category. TeNi’s can be divisive and polarizing in groups, as can FeSi’s if they’re directive like Alex Jones. FeNi’s can be cohesive and build unification in groups, especially if they’re sufficiently adaptive… which brings me to the next point:

    Emotional Attitude?

    At some level, it almost appears to me that Gulekno starts describing jadedness vs generousness, or some such category. And in a way, this appears to have more parallels to directive/unseelie (negativist) and adaptive/seelie (positivist) than the groups of types he’s postulating.

    I was especially surprised to see him place FeNi and SeTi in a camp that is prone to “disrupting, unintentionally or not, unity of purpose in the whole group overall”, describing them as remote and saying that for them “Repulsive forces rapidly emerge and fracture group integration.” I have observed, personally and in the larger database, the opposite to be true.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Evolution–Involution

    Evolution/Process Types: NeTi, SiFe, FeNi, TiSe, SeFi, NiTe, TeSi, FiNe
    Involution/Result Types: FeSi, TiNe, SeTi, NiFe, TeNi, FiSe, NeFi, SiTe

    Initial impression of division: This division, while symmetrical in a sense, doesn’t appear to group types in any way that CT has yet documented. Alpha and Gamma types are divided by P-lead=Process, J-lead=Result, and Beta and Delta types are divided into J-lead=Process, P-lead=Result.



    In its most general form, I understand this dichotomy as Process–Result; or by its other informal name, Right–Left. More precisely, I refer to the designated Latin words ‘evolutio’: “developing outward” and ‘involutio’: “coalescing inward.”

    Intellectual Level

    Describing Evolution–Involution at this level will initially contrast deductive vs. inductive thinking. (i’ve seen deductive vs inductive used in typology to describe all sorts of things, like Te vs Ti, or J vs P. there seems to be a lot of variability in how certain people choose to describe them. curious to see how he defines these terms, as I don’t think they can be taken for granted, given their diverse interpretations)

    Unfortunately, the bulk of literature on this cognitive dichotomy treats it in at least two different senses (right, at least). In the first sense, deduction is understood simply as a strict formal sequence or expository progression of thought (aka Socionics rationality) (makes sense, especially with Je), while induction is understood as conclusions stemming from practical experience (aka Socionics irrationality). (okay, i can roll with that. P’s synthesis is sort of observation–>then–>theory, right.)

    I will frame this dichotomy in the second sense, namely as simplification vs. complication of thought structure. Meaning that in deductive thinking, given a set of simple and obvious statements (axioms, postulates), the resultant consequences can be necessarily derived (theorem). (right, there’s a “therefore–>this” effect, which he calls complexity, okay.) Reasoning flows in the direction of simple to complex. Evolutionary types therefore mentally complicate the situation. (Evolution types start with simple axioms/postulates and play out their consequences, creating complexity. okay, got it. sounds a bit like Emergentism.)

    In inductive thinking reasoning proceeds the other way around. Observing and comprehending complex phenomena, inductive thinking reduces them to generalized diagrams and models stripped of details. (this sounds a bit like Ni’s convergence in CT) Involutionary types break down and simplify the situation in order to understand it. Reasoning flows in reverse order from complex to simple. (right, Ni treats reality this way. all disparate details and apparent complexity can be traced down to a few simple thematic lines that are responsible for the whole. complexity is captured by the Ni web and synthesized into one/few answers that account for it all. so, so far the closest analog I’m seeing is Ne’s divergence and Ni’s convergence here.

    ^ Corresponds to “M” (Ne/Si)

    ^ Corresponds to “V” (Ni/Se)

    But FeNi and TiSe are titled process/evolution types. how does that work? All the TiSe’s and FeNi’s we have in the database are prone to converge things. FeNi Jordan Peterson explains great complexity down to a few archetypes. FeNi Joseph Campbell does the same, boiling it down to the hero journey. TiSe’s like Elon Musk also narrow things down, in his case to first principles. At least, with these two types, I don’t see evolution but instead involution.)

    The Evolution–Involution dichotomy confers different scales of examination in a problem. Evolutionary types see small to large. (right, emergence again, which Jelle may rightly be correlating to Ne) Details are distinct. Scale is specific and precise like geographical map. (right, Si context contingency) Involutionary types on the other hand, see large to small. (Ni: the all within the specific; immanence) Details are vague. Scale is general and broad. The scale will alternate in Negativists, since they think more alternatively, but the same priority will remain.
    It is worth noting that deductive thinking has always had priority in society over inductive thinking. Constructing a deductively consistent theory to explain a phenomenon, has always been seen as a researcher’s coup de grace. (explaining things from the nitty-gritty little details, and scaling up complexity, does seem to be a scientific-method approach, which is more supported by researchers, yes. It’s also a very Si approach, and Delta approach too.)

    Social Level

    On the social level, differences between these approaches can be contrasted as naturality/artificiality. By ‘naturality’ I refer to primal behavior inherent to nature, and by ‘artificiality’ I refer to behavior accepted by society. For example, in nature, survival of the fittest is law, whereas in society, protection and care of the weak is cultivated. (we seem to be switching topics here. but, which is which?)

    From this stems distinctions in one’s attitudes towards people in close or distant circles. In the life of Evolutionary types, reputation plays a much greater role. Opinions of others in external society tend to be more important to them than opinions of friends or relatives. (I wouldn’t say this is true of NiTe’s or FiNe’s– they tend to be very independent) Involutionary types depend less on social appraisal. (getting into social appraisal is iffy territory, but if we want to go there, how is FeSi an involution type that “depend(s) less on social appraisal”? given what was said before, i would imagine FeSi to care about the opinions of others in external society.) (and how is FeNi different from FeSi in this regards?) They are more accommodating towards people of their inner circle, whose opinions they hold in higher esteem than those of public approval or disapproval.

    (Okay, so FeSi’s, being involution types would care less about societal appraisal but care more about inner-circle appraisal. And FeNi’s would care more about societal appraisal and less about inner-circle appraisal. I might be able to jive with that, based on S vs N differences (?), but then why isn’t this also true of SiFe’s and NiFe’s respectively?

    If FeSi’s care less about societal appraisal and more about inner-circle appraisal, the same should be even more true of SiFe’s, who are very localized in their comfort circles. And oppositely, if FeNi’s care more about broad social appraisal and less about inner-circle appraisal, then NiFe’s should be the most widely attuned in their desire for social appraisal, due to Ni’s wider vision. But that’s not the case. It gets zig-zagged again. I don’t quite get the reasoning here.)

    There is a habit in Involutionary types (so, FeSi, TiNe, SeTi, NiFe, TeNi, FiSe, NeFi & SiTe) to abruptly curtail conversations. (maybe this is true of SiTe’s, but why not for the curt NiTe’s?) They do not simply cut off communication, but specifically wind it up, quickly finish, or summarize what has been said. (this isn’t true of NiFe’s who I’ve known, and in the database. they can go on for a long time in a ramble, like NiFe Garrison Keillor. Linking conversational abruptness here seems besides the point.) They may also suddenly deflect onto tangents, then flip back to the topic at hand. (but, this applies to CT’s NeTi’s and tangent-hopping) Evolutionary types may interpret this mannerism as a sign of tactlessness, disinterest, or resentment.

    Psychological Level

    Evolution–Involution, along with other dichotomies, influences a key parameter of stress in the psyche: Control of asymmetry in the excitatory/inhibitory processes of the nervous system.

    Evolutionary types recover more slowly from stress than Involutionary types. Their inhibitory processes are less amenable to conscious control than their excitatory processes, hence their tendency to dwell on personal issues. (so, personal-stress matters linger longer for evolutionary types: NeTi, SiFe, FeNi, TiSe, SeFi, NiTe, TeSi, FiNe. why is this group specifically prone to this, and not the reverse?) After being pulled in by any process, they are often unable to get out of it. Which can lead to gambling, drug use, alcoholism, or other vices, even Internet-addiction. (why isn’t SeTi here? hehe, jk. but seriously, to make a distinction like this there has to be some premise or reason for it. is it because of high S? no. Is it because of P-lead? no.

    There’s no function operation to explain this from, that I can see at the moment. if i had to say, i might suggest that high S + F priority might be prone to this greater preoccupation with personal issues. but that’s not the dichotomy that’s being portrayed here.)

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

    Thus, Involutionary types more rapidly and less painfully get rid of illusions, imposed opinions, suggested thoughts, fanatic states, etc. It is because of Evolution–Involution differences that quadras are split rings of social progress are formed. (this difference is not following across quadra lines, as per the CT database. phobias appear all over the place, but most strongly in P-leads, such as Pi-leads with anticipatory tendencies. I don’t understand why, for instance, NiFe would be an Involution type but not an NiTe, since both suffer from fatalistic fears.)

    Physical Level

    The Evolution–Involution dichotomy manifests on the lower level of communication through an orientation towards either process or result.

    Evolutionary types are more inclined to procedure, which involves careful study of details. (going back to emergence vs convergence, this makes sense as Ne/Si vs Ni/Se). They are subject to the logic of the development process, which assumes motion from beginning to end and top to bottom. (right)

    Involutionary types rush to obtain a result, frequently neglecting details of the process, which reduces overall quality. Such behavioral patterns lead to a tolerant attitude towards returns and corrections. They don’t mind accepting suboptimal, but convenient solutions. They are characterized by backward motion, from end to beginning and from bottom to top. (not an exact fit, but I see parallels to Ni/Se here too; the end and the beginning loop back around, and are interchangeable. things are not an A-B-C sequence, but the whole alphabet all at once.)

    Let me illustrate this by an example of reading books. Glancing immediately at the end or bottom part of the page is characteristic for Involutionary types. Reading in reverse order does not deprive them pleasure of novelty, on the contrary, it stimulates their activity in assimilating information. (n/a) Involution shouldn’t be confused merely with impatient skimming ahead, after which one continues smooth reading.

    Sharpness of movement is observed in Involutionary types, along with sporadic shifting from one activity to another. These sudden shifts overtly contrast to the smoothness of Evolutionary types. (n/a – bad vultology attempt? ;p) In traditional Socionics, sharp movements are attributed to Rationality (yes, good, J-lead). In my opinion, however, this quality is more determined by Involution. (no…) For counterexample, consider the Evolutionary Rational types LSI and EII (TiSe / FiNe), whose motions are characteristically soft and smooth. Yet the nature of movement in Involutionary Irrationals SLE and IEE (SeTi / NeFi) is so sharp that training them smooth movement is practically impossible. (whaa? SeTi’s and NeFi’s have smooth ongoing movements, dude. Pe-leads are not defined by ‘sharp’ movements.)

    To clarify the fundamental distinction between Involution and Evolution, the following analogy will help. In biology, catabolism and anabolism are the two sides of organic metabolism. Catabolism—the breakdown of complex compounds to release energy and the elimination of decay products from the organism—corresponds to the role of Involutionary types in group dynamics. Anabolism—the assimilation from the external environment of substances necessary for life and their transformation into more complex compounds—corresponds to the communicative role played by Evolutionary behavior. (n/a)

    Overall Thoughts

    Okay, this article took various turns. I don’t think the definitions are consistent across the different levels. At the intellectual level, the category he’s describing appears most similar to emergence vs convergence. In this sense, anabolism (emergence) and catabolism seem to fit, as metaphors. And at this level it corresponds to Ne/Si’s means of forming paradigms by bits-and-pieces, and stacking them atop of each other. And oppositely, Ni/Se corresponds to a sort of convergence of everything into a few simplified thematic strands that hold everything. Cool beans. ….BUT… the types he’s describing are not divide across the P axes. So we have a problem.

    TiNe and NeFi types are seen as involution types, but having known TiNe’s personally and in this community, and in general, I don’t think we follow this sort of pathway. NeFi’s are often science geeks (NeFi Eric Cornell, NeFi Drew Endy, NeFi Tim Urban) who elaborate on the way simplicity turns into complexity, such as via theoretical physics or other natural processes. NeFi’s are the epitome of the Evolutionary/Process types, here. But they’re under Involutionary/Results. Again this would have been a good distinction if it was positioned across the Perceptual axes.

    Next, as the article goes on he switches topics, somewhat, to talk about social appraisal being contingent on inner-circles or the whole of society. This part is also potentially a useful distinction, if only it had been framed more as SF vs NF, for instance, or some other metric. But the zig-zagging of types makes this nonsensical. FeSi and SiFe are not in the same camp, nor are FeNi and NiFe, in a matter that deals with how these types handle social appraisal and inner-circle dynamics.

    He then changes topics again, going into bodily stress and phobias, linking this to Evolutionary types. But again, the lack of sense in the type groupings makes it hard for me to see why this would be the case for NiFe and not NiTe (for instance).

    And lastly, he closes on a rather vultological note, stating, incorrectly, that types like the TiSe and FiNe (while Rational/J-leads) have smooth movements, and that types like the SeTi and NeFi have ‘sharp’ movements. This is a very poor attempt at vultology, and is completely backwards.

    Overall, I don’t see this dichotomy as even being internally consistent within itself; much less consistent to CT’s samples. While some of the points he made may be useful distinctions, they do not map onto the types he’s saying belong to those categories.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Quadrant: Causal-Determinist

    This one is not a dichotomy but a grouping of the three above dichotomies as: Static, Positivist, Evolutionary

    Types Include: NeTi, SeFi, FiNe, TiSe

    Initial impression of division: There is one type per quadrant in this category. All are reviser types. Two Pe-leads, two Ji-leads. The two Ji-leads are of opposite quadrants. The two Pe-leads are of opposite quadrants.

    (Given how all above three dichotomies failed to correspond to CT’s database, or model, I’m inclined to predict their conjunction will be no more paralleled to CT’s readings. But for the sake of completion, i will analyze what he says of these types and reply accordingly)



    Let us now examine the first cognitive form: It is analytic, positive, and deductive. We will call this style Causal-Determinist. Its carriers are Sociotypes ILE, LSI, SEE, EII (ENTp, ISTj, ESFp, INFj, respectively)

    As Statics, their cognitive activity is stable and clear. (corresponds to conductor the most?) As Evolutionary types, they think procedurally without overlooking parts and intermediate details. (corresponds to Si/Ne most?) As Positivists, they aim towards singularly valid solutions. (corresponds to light emotional attitude most?)

    (If we try to get a sense of who is being described here, the types that most fit this category conjunction as defined above, are Conductor Si/Ne types. Or TeSi, FeSi, SiTe and SiFe types with an agreeable/seelie attitude)

    Intellectual Sphere

    Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature. Speech in this cognitive style takes shape with aid of the connectives “because”, “therefore”, “consequently” (causal conjunctions). (high Si+Je, yes) The mental process consists in constructing chains of cause and effect, reducing explanations to deterministic mechanisms. Using the example of Aristotle, who first pointed out four ways to explain phenomena, the reason for the existence of a sculpture is the sculptor who fashioned it directly.

    In the scientific sphere so thinks ILE, in the managerial-administrative sphere is methodical LSI (don’t you mean TeSi?), in the social sphere SEE calculates chains of material interests (FeSi?), in the humanitarian sphere subject to the same categorical imperative is EII.

    Social Sphere

    Aristotle is considered the discoverer of this approach. The basic laws of formal thinking are outlined in his theory of syllogism. However, the first to consistently put them into practice was Euclid, founder of geometry. More recently, its principles grounded rationalist Rene Descartes in his 1637 treatise “Discourse on the Method”. Then it finally took shape in mathematical logic. (again very formal Je+Si stuff being said here. But the NeTi, the SeFi and the FiNe don’t fit this the most. TiSe maybe, but not quite like this.) The Causal-Determinist paradigm reached its apogee in Logical Positivism, then increasingly began to decline in value towards the end of the 20th century. However, as the common stereotype of proof, it still dominates to this day.

    (This is all fine, but again I don’t see how the group of people he chooses to allot to this definition are NeTi, SeFi, FiNe and TiSe. This seems like a hodgepodged bunch. NeTi’s in the CT database are not well represented in these domains, nor are SeFi’s. There are some FiNe’s represented in the domain due to the Delta science proclivity, and some TiSe’s represented, but they hardly make up the bulk of people who fit this criteria. The majority of people who have clear, stable, deductive and procedural thinking are high Je + Si types, especially JeSi. None of which are in this category.)

    I will touch its advantages. First, it is perceived by society as the most authoritative, most convincing, and singularly correct. (TeSi’s have a causal-determinism that gives them this status, hence their over-representation as CEO’s and leaders, because their methodology is straightforward, clear cut and procedural) In mathematics, it is formalized as the deductive-axiomatic method. Use of it requires great intellectual stamina. Second, attributes of greater clarity and concentration are inherent to this style. The type most characterized by singular concentration is LSI. (TiSe, okay, that’s not too bad) However, the irrational SEE argues quite soundly, deriving one consequence from another, implying focus on the chain of events. (with developed Te maybe) 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. (but I don’t think SeFi’s freeze actions for lack of knowing the next procedure in the chain. Flow-based types pivot and improvise)

    At the same time, Causal-Determinism has its drawbacks. It is primarily the most artificial and removed from the laws of functioning life. (right, which is why some TeSi or SiTe can sometimes appear to lack humanity — but he’s talking about SeFi’s and NeTi’s here, and this couldn’t be more false about them.) Its efficacy extends to the ‘logical’ formulation of already existing results, the construction of operating mechanisms, but not fundamentally new discoveries. (not true of these four types: NeTi, SeFi, FiNe, TiSe) The first dead end which formalization risks is scholasticism (again, Je+Si), i.e. pointless albeit logically impeccable reasoning. The second intellectual dead end faced by sequential Determinists is the trap of reductionism, which they fall into on account of fragmenting wholes into their component parts. (right, this is why Jelle was saying Ne/Si is more void-ish) This deficiency was noted even by the ancient skeptics, as well as in modern times by Hume, who doubted that any event could be dictated by strict reason.

    Indeed, in building a long chain of cause and effect, it is difficult to avoid the danger of circularity, the risk of falling into circulus vitiosus—a vicious circle in the proof. Kurt Gödel’s theorem on the incompleteness of formal systems, asserts that any sufficiently complex system of rules is either inconsistent, or contains conclusions that can be neither proven nor refuted by the rules of that system. This established limits in the applicability of formal logic. Using the deductive-axiomatic method, the medieval Scholastics in particular, attempted to rigorously prove the existence of God. Resulting from closure of causes in terms of effects, they circularly arrived at a definition of God as the thought which thinks of itself.

    Psychological Sphere

    Causal-Determinist cognition forges a mentality poorly protected from indoctrination, or in extreme cases, even brainwashing. (huh… well, although it is slight, there is a staistical leaning in the database of JeSi’s that are ‘traditional’ religious, or doctrinal adherents of some form, as opposed to possessing a generalized spirituality. FeSi Harry Lennix, FeSi Tom Cruise, FeSi Paul Washer, SiFe Thomas Moore, FeSi Heresy, etc. There are also just as many ‘non-believers’, like FeSi Yuval Harari and FeSi Alain De Botton — but their non-belief is equally based on a sort of deductive pathway that is literalistic and discrete, which just happens to land on a ‘no’, rather than a ‘yes’. But Se/Ni users seem to exist outside of this binary, whereas Si/Ne users tend to either be more outright nonbelievers or fundamentalists.

    Anyway, this is good for JeSi’s but I have to remind myself he’s actually saying this about SeFi’s, NeTi’s, FiNe’s and TiSe’s — and this is totally off-base in this sense. These four types don’t display any higher proclivity towards doctrinal-fixations to me.) By skillfully combining memorable words and actions, it is possible to gain control over the behavior of specific individuals. Intelligent Determinists in particular, are characterized by a strong dependence on the events of childhood (echoes of Si nostalgia?), which Sigmund Freud discovered in his time, though poorly understood in full. Habits in pronounced Determinists are comparable in their rigidity to conditioned reflexes.

    Standard military interrogation procedures are designed to ensure guaranteed cause-effect impacts upon the psyche. It includes measures of exposure such as sleep deprivation, changes in room temperature and/or humidity, denial of food subsequently followed by its delivery as a reward, etc. Isolation of the detainee and the gradual imposition of regulations, bears fruit sooner or later. In time, the vulnerability of psychological destabilization is manufactured into dependence upon the interrogator. (n/a)

    It is noteworthy that extreme critical situations, trigger a ‘slow-motion film’ state of mind in Determinists. Thinking becomes particularly clear, but stretched out over time, such that seconds can subjectively feel like minutes. Along these same lines, due to an abrupt shakeup of their psyche, the stress of surprise severely impedes their cerebral activity until they can recover in deep sleep. (n/a)

    The psychological school of Behaviorism represents this model of the psyche. Its supporters believe that behavioral learning is achieved through reinforcement—rewarding adherence to rules and punishing their violation. B. F. Skinner formulated the principle of operant conditioning, according to which the behavior of living organisms is completely determined by the cause-effect of this conditioning. (Je epistemic pragmatism, with Si indexing) He proposed the method of ‘successive approximations’, in which students receive positive reinforcement in instances where their behavior conforms to that desired.

    Behaviorists developed the concept of conditioned learning and established a rigid procedural method of action towards the goal as the basis for its operation. (Je)

    Scientific Sphere

    Formal logical thinking in its time gave birth to the deterministic cause-effect worldview. This is the worldview of classical physics whose cornerstone is Newtonian Mechanics, and was the dominant paradigm until the early 20th century. Rigid systems operate according to these rules—organisms and mechanisms. (very E+S+T priority) When faced with multi-factor processes (such as psychology or society), however, reductionism loses its explanatory power to portray complex phenomena in terms of their basic components. Additionally, this classic paradigm has been too influenced by the ideal of ‘progress’, in spite of numerous historical examples of regressive tendencies, setbacks, repetitions, etc.

    A real-life model of Causal-Determinist cognition is given by information represented in the form of a chart or realistic illustration (TeSi’s l— fit this charts/graphs behaviorism squarely, and everything else. He’s basically talking about a Te+Si cognition.) made using a direct perspective. In this technique, objects are depicted larger or smaller in proportion to their distance from the observer. By drawing in this way, following strict instructions, any object can be easily depicted.

    Overall Thoughts

    Well first I have to say that almost none of what he said above seems to be exceptionally true of the types in this category, if we’re talking about database samples. It’s an interesting distinction but it fits far more the high Je+Si types. In fact, it could make a great scaffold for a Je+Si profile. But the problem is he’s saying this about: NeTi, SeFi, FiNe, TiSe. And that’s a total no.

    Curiously though, based on what was said above, in the three dichotomies, when placed together they do produce Je+Si as the grouping, if we’re translating over CT parallels for static/dynamic, positivist/negativist and evolution/involution. The CT parallels would give high-Si Conductors as this “grouping”, and this section describes pretty much that (well, in l— development at least).

    But again, since this is not the group he’s describing, I can’t imagine why he’d think this all applies to NeTi’s or SeFi’s, for instance. And it lets me know we have very different views of the types. The match isn’t even close on this one.

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Quadrant: Dialectical-Algorithmic

    This one’s also grouping of the three above dichotomies as: Dynamic, Negativist, Evolutionary

    Types Include: FeNi, NiTe, TeSi, SiFe

    Initial impression of division: There is one type per quadrant in this category. All are conductor types. Two Je-leads, two Pi-leads. The two Je-leads are of opposite quadrants. The two Pi-leads are of opposite quadrants.



    The second cognitive form is of particular interest: it is synthetic, negative, and deductive. The working name of this style is Dialectical-Algorithmic. Representatives of this style are Sociotypes EIE, ILI, LSE, SEI (ENFj, INTp, ESTj, ISFp, respectively)

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

    (Again, if I try a translation from the conclusions of the three dichotomies above, I get a CT parallel as Dynamic=Reviser, Negativist=Unseelie/Direction or N/A?, Evolutionary=Ne/Si users. In other words, high Ne users. But I don’t know if this will be what he says.)

    Intellectual Sphere

    The essential distinguishing feature of the Dialectical style, is a view of the universe as a unified struggle of opposites. In speech it often uses syntactic constructions “if-then-else”, the predictive branches of a developing process. 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. (I think many types, if not all types, do this. But perhaps N-leads most of all, due to having a proclivity to synthesize as widely as possible, associating everything.)

    Its advantages are obvious: it is the most subtle and flexible style. It can easily switch to an opposite direction (perspective shifting/allocentric?), and possesses predictive ability, accompanied by an effective type of associative memory. Algorithmic thinking is also good at solving problems of classification, given their gift for recognizing complex patterns. Beyond the circumstantial conditions of a problem, it perceives a fundamental algorithm for its solution. (extrapolating away from the discrete conditions of a problem, and thinking in terms of algorithms at play, is very cerebral. but i don’t know what this would be attributed to. can’t anyone do this? is this like theoretical physics thinking?)

    According to Aristotle, Dialecticals prognostic thinking explains reality on the basis of purposive causes. For example, the cause of a sculpture is an idea of it in the head of the sculptor. (okay, so something stands behind. and that thing behind it, is the responsible party. effects/causes are due to algorithms higher upstream) The main role is played by a program, the intention of the creator. (right, algorithm=program) Thus, it can be considered teleological, and hence the most ‘religious’ in its essential thinking (oh?). Many scholars of this type sooner or later come to faith (not necessarily a church confessional). (oh? we’re going into theology? ;p)

    (A few quick thoughts– he’s saying this sort of thinking style views causes/effects as due to purposes coming from algorithms further upstream. So there’s a degree of removal from the ‘circumstantial conditions of a problem’, and a treatment of the situation as a byproduct of some more ‘essential’ property. would a theory-of-everything or a theory-of-mind be an example of this? is this platonic, in a sense?)

    Social Sphere

    Historically, the first representative of a Dialectical worldview would be Heraclitus. Epitomizing the Dynamic dichotomy (CT reviser?), he was of the opinion that “you cannot enter the same river twice” because whenever you enter again, the flow is already of different water. (does seem more CT reviser) In more recent times it developed into Hegel’s comprehensive theory of a rational system. Since Dialectical cognition, compared to other styles, is the most oriented towards creative intention, it invariably leads to ideas of a creator, an absolute, a cosmic intelligence, etc. (I don’t fully understand this, or why he’s bringing theology in. But I can imagine certain creator concepts developing in a sort of crerebral space, i.e. Spinoza or Kant. is that what he’s talking about? In that case, it does seem a bit more Reviser, maybe Ne Reviser — because there’s a focus on idea-consistency in a sort of absolute sense, but non-contingent on circumstances. A sort of sky-castle construction that answers the highest ontological questions? Is that what he’s talking about?)

    Two of its representatives—EIE and ILI—(FeNi and NiTe) are usually recognized in society as the most intellectual types. (eh?? i can’t imagine how to even measure that. lets not equate types with intelligence please.) They form the backbone of intellectual elites, expert clubs, esoteric groups, etc. (bah) They are the best computer programmers, knowing better than other types how to work with moving structures—algorithms. (so far in CT, Delta types of any sort excel at this more than other quadrants) Algorithmic diagrams consist of blocks and arrows showing the order of transitions, branches, and loop cycles. (like this?

    Spoiler:

    …this is FiNe Randal Munroe from XKCD.com) The crux of a program is its dynamic structure—pointers, rather than blocks. The formula “if-then-else” is, in essence, the core of any algorithm. (right, hence computer programming, but this is a very Te-heavy domain in CT, but specifically when it’s Ji>Te. Or high Fi users using their Te for theoretical model building, rather than pragmatism)

    The disadvantages in Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition include instability and uncertainty. Algorithmics suffer from difficulty in making choices and embracing unambiguous decisions. This thinking is more comparable to a symphony of flowing interwoven imagery, rather than a mechanism of clearly established instruction sets. Another problem is increased criticality, which can be so high that it incurs self-destruction (reductio ad absurdum?), plunging them into danger of total detachment from reality, and leading to mental disorders, especially in cases of hereditary predisposition. (n/a)

    Psychological Sphere

    The psyche of Dialectical types is most prone to transformations. (Reviser) From a psychological point of view, an unstable oscillating psyche is fertile ground for suggestibility. (But again we’re talking here about SiFe’s & NiTe’s? I don’t see how this is true of them. They’re not suggestible. Ne-leads are certainly more suggestible than they are, as well as Revisers overall.) Occasionally Dialectics lose control over the parallel streams of thought fluctuating in their heads. They need only tune out their internal oscillation between freedom of choice and fatalism, and reinforce the latter. (ah, so they’re usually juggling ideas, and if they lose the juggle they collapse into one answer) Doctors know that a small but accurately timed shock can throw the heart into a state of fibrillation. Likewise, a successfully directed signal at the right time can throw the Dialectical psyche into a chaotic state.

    The EIE (FeNi) Sociotype has a very suitable psyche for suggestive influence. (eh? FeNi’s in CT are pretty confident, stable and durable psyches that know what they believe and have an Ni convergence that goes along with it, which is hard to rattle) It is characterized by so-called moments of imprint vulnerability. (no…) In these moments an intense suggestion is triggered—an imprint—the prerequisites of which are a state of extreme fear, confusion, or surprise. A ‘No Exit’ sign suddenly seen by a person of Algorithmic psyche at a time of severe emotional turmoil, may catalyze a decision about suicide. (whaaa?) Exploiting this paradoxical nature of Dialectical types, shock therapy is capable of completely reprogramming their conception of reality (dude… this is neither here nor there), including core value judgments.
    A certain, although rare sign of Dialectical cognition—accidents that lead to states similar to a deep trance or coma (whaaa?), followed by sudden enlightenment or the appearance of esoteric abilities.

    The other version is slow suggestion, primarily based on entrainment through rhythmic vocalization and/or sound, multiple repetitions of the same phrase with variation. Variations in this case are particularly significant, working akin to the chorus in a song. Gradually a trance state is reached—external relaxation with internal concentration. The greater the monotony, the sooner a deep trance is reached. Hence why some people rapidly settle down and fall asleep under a monotone ‘bubnezh’ TV. (n/a)

    Scientific Sphere

    Dialectical thinking best corresponds to the quantum-probabilistic worldview of modern physics. According to this paradigm, there are no immutable laws, only tendencies and probabilities. (superpositional thinking does seem more high-Ne; all possibilities simultaneously) Quantum Mechanics is built on the counterintuitive principle of particle-wave duality, according to which microcosmic objects behave as particles and as waves. Two of the 20th century’s greatest physicists disputed over this view—Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr. The former defended causal-determinism as the nature of the universe, the latter advocated a probabilistic ontology. In the aftermath, Bohr won. Though apart from its historical context, the dispute makes little sense, given that these cognitive forms are dual to one other. Jung’s principle of ‘synchronicity’ also lies within the Dialectical paradigm. (in the high-N sense, yes)

    Contemporary British mathematician Roger Penrose has suggested that the human brain uses quantum gravity as a means for intuitive insight. (high N intersectional associative thought) He’s written several books (“The Emperor’s New Mind” and “Shadows of the Mind”) stipulating that the brain is a quantum computer, and that Aristotelian logical thinking is actually alien to human beings. If he is right, it follows that the integral type of humanity is Dialectical-Algorithmic.

    A real-life model of this thinking—double-images periodically passing into each other. Simple example: a projection onto the plane of a truncated pyramid. After examining it awhile it alternately seems convex, with the top facing to the observer, then concave, with the rear wall receding into the distance.

    One more graphical illustration of Dialectical perception. What do you see in the picture: a vase against a black background, or two facial profiles on a white background? It depends on which one for you is the background, and which is the figure. (relativistic thought? angle-shifting again, more Ne, but can also be Ni) Some see a vase and the profiles turn into a dark background, others see two black profiles and the white vase goes into the background. But once a person sees both images, fluctuations of attention begin. The picture seems to pulsate: you see a vase, then the profiles. There is a dialectical exchange of background/foreground. Triggering negative reverse perspective, where distant or darkened objects are perceived more significantly than those located closer to the observer.

    Overall Thoughts

    In this section, at the intellectual level he seems to mention a viewpoint that removes itself from the conditions of a present problem, and instead treats visible effects/causes as due to some upstream algorithm, which is given greater ontological status. But this algorithm is also dialectic, and thus is perspectives-shifting, creating a superposition of viewpoints that aim to harmonize into an explanation of reality, while being removed from its raw parameters.

    This seems to describe a highly cerebral personality, prone to theorizing in an abstract realm, and can apply to any number of physicists and theorists. All types have examples like this, but we see more algorithmic thinkers and programmers among Delta types.

    In other passages he’s describing what appears to be Reviser psychology, a receptivity to transformation and change in perspectives. And he then takes things into a direction related more towards high-N is, in general, with wide associative thinking across domains such as quantum physics, brains, synchronicity, etc. Temperamentally he seems to be describing I+N+T psychology to me, of the sort that is removed from the world, in dialectic conceptual space on every topic, ever-questioning and evolving a perspective that is associativity formed and which stands afar from actual conditions, etc.

    But he says these things about the types: FeNi, NiTe, TeSi, SiFe. His characterizations of the EIE (FeNi) type were way off, imo. He paints them as gullible and impressionable, prone to a sort of suggestive imprinting. As for the other three, TeSi and SiFe were better captured under Causal-Determinist, as mentioned in the post above. And NiTe does fit this camp a bit. But not the other three.

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 4 weeks, 1 day ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Quadrant: Holographic-Panoramic

    This one is not a dichotomy but a grouping of the three above dichotomies as: Static, Negativist, Involutionary

    Types Include: SeTi, TiNe, NeFi, FiSe

    Initial impression of division: There is one type per quadrant in this category. All are reviser types. Two Pe-leads, two Ji-leads. The two Ji-leads are of opposite quadrants. The two Pe-leads are of opposite quadrants.



    In cognitive theory, the third cognitive form is the least studied: it is analytic, negative, and inductive. The provisional name of this style is Holographical-Panoramic. ‘Holograph’ originates from the Ancient Greek words holos “entire, whole” and grapho “write”. This name is derived from the Holographist’s ability to densely pack information via method of ‘like to, similar’ analogy. Sociotypes possessing this form are SLE, LII, IEE, ESI (ESTp, INTj, ENFp, ISFj, respectively)

    As Statics (gulenko revisers, but actually CT conductors?), Holographers attain reliable precision of thought (J?). As Negativists they periodically turn the object of thought to its opposite side. As Involutionary types, they sporadically change the angle of examination or criterion of judgment. (wait, i thought involutionary types saw complex-to-simple, so wouldn’t involutionary types minimize ‘angles of examination’ to a simpler number?)

    Intellectual Sphere

    This cognitive style has much in common with the holographic principle in physics. A hologram (optical) is a statistically recorded interference pattern made by two beams of light which are transmitted and reflected from a single source. Holographic technology allows us to obtain a three-dimensional image of an object. The hologram itself is an aggregation of stripes and spots exactly resembling the embedded object. The two beams of light are superimposed in such a way that every part of the hologram carries information about the whole. (ah! is that how it can be complex-to-simple? different angles are synthesized into one 3D picture?)

    In this way, by mentally superimposing multiple projections of the same object, Holographists reach a holistic view. (right) To do this, they look at the image and select a desired angle of examination. Holographic cognition often utilizes the grammatical conjunctives: “or-or”, “either-or”, “on the one hand, on the other hand”. It actively uses the principle of perspective; unrestricted choice in point of view. (wait, now we’re getting into Ne’s allocentricity? ….the multiplicity of angles from which an object can be viewed, is a feature of Ne which is angle-shifting, or perspective-shifting. but he’s saying this is still involutionary because ultimately it remains “one” object that is being looked at. so there aren’t “multiple-realities” (Ne), but one reality (Ni) seen from multiple angles.) The holographic approach is a progressive approximation towards the purpose, or away from it, accompanied by changes of perspective. The holographic process is carried out as if calibrating focus. (hm, don’t we all do this? and isn’t this part of learning and comprehension in general?)

    Holographic cognition has a characteristic penetrating, skeletal-revealing, ‘x-ray’ nature. (Ji frameworks?) It unhesitatingly cuts away details and nuances, giving a coarsely generalized representation of the subject. (J generalizes things into coarse definitional categories, while omitting real information… but he’s talking about SeTi and NeFi here?) Take for example the two orthogonal cross-sections of a cylinder: the horizontal section looks like a circle, and the vertical section looks like a rectangle. Two different perspectives of an indivisible whole which, when superimposed in the mind, produces transition to a higher level of understanding about the object. (so like this…)

    SLE thinks this way in battle. Analyzing the situation, they simplify it to two or three facets (frontal, flank, and/or rear), but then quickly go to a higher tier of understanding. (I don’t see why this isn’t a general human trait. the tendency to see multiple angles at a time, if they converge on one reality, can be achieved by several different approaches. 

    Ne: for example, i think a J framework can give a sense that there is one categorical reality (i.e. one semantic object) but look at it from a variety of informational angles via Ne’s allocentricity and modularity. Plurality and bifurcation can refocus on one thing this way — like how we can say that a human is an ape from one angle, a sack of atoms from another, and a spirit/soul from another. but a human is a human. the category ‘human’ can exist as a single reality, approached from three or more unrelated angles.

    Ni: Or, it can also be looked at from a variety of paths through Ni’s “web”, which has a variety of conjunctions to a given object:

    ​

    “B” here is approached from S-T-U-B-V, or from A-B-C-D. But in this case the first and second array are themselves connected. In the case of the Ne scenario, the different angles themselves are not connected, except by sharing the same object. But in both cases, we have a single object that has holography to it (i.e. approaches from various angles)

    So holography is attainable, in CT, from both Ne and Ni points of view. Now, technically that is also what Gulekno’s saying here since he has Ne and Ni users in this category– SeTi, TiNe, NeFi, FiSe — but why wouldn’t this apply also to FiNe, SeFi, NeTi and TiSe? I can’t see why this category of four types would be privileged with more holography than other types.) LII grasps the problem from opposite sides, mentally rotating the situation in three dimensions around its semantic axes. (again, but why wouldn’t the FiNe be able to do this too?) ESI first draws near to a person, then moves away, seeming to probe the individual from all sides, cutting off those who could let them down. IEE detects the possible hidden motivations of a person, as if building their psychological ‘hologram’.

    (so, for the NeFi multiplicity (Ne) is applied to motive (Fi), to build holography.)

    (and for TiNe, mental rotation of the situation around semantic axes creates holography)

    (then why wouldn’t NeTi also be able to create holography through mental rotation of multiplicities (Ne) around semantic axes (Ti)?)

    The main advantages of Holographic cognition are as follows. First, it is multi-perspective. (right) As already stated, because of this it attains a dimensionally holistic and complete depiction. Second, it values simplicity and clarity, avoids pretentiousness, and forgoes ‘bells and whistles’. (Ji+Se are most prone to this, I think, in that they’re minimalistic revisers (Ji-lead) with a convergence and linearity (Se/Ni) at play… but I wouldn’t place NeFi’s in this category. NeFi’s do tend to “add bells and whistles”, at least the database seems to show that they’re far from the most prone to simplification) Holographists are particularly effective in crisis situations, when it is necessary to make decisions quickly, and there is no time to weigh all the details.

    The obvious disadvantage of this cognitive style is that it appears too rough, lacking adequate consideration to details which become important when a process flows smoothly. (interesting, so gulenko’s seeing this as a shortcutting process) Its information-dense constructs are often difficult to decompress and unpack; to outsiders, they may seem void of intermediate links for establishing coherency in their connections. (right, establishing a holographic “picture” by knitting together angles, but not necessarily explaining the process of selection for those angles. this seems associative (N) to me, which selects angles by rather difficult-to-trace associative thresholds that cut horizontally across information sets.)

    According to Aristotle, Holographic cognition corresponds to explanation by structural or formative causes. Aristotle called it the structure of form. Returning to the sculptor example, the cause of the sculpture is its latent form, which the sculptor merely sets free by cutting away excess marble.

    (i’m still unsure of how to think about this category, but so far it appears to be a mixture of high-N and J, working together to create a single semantic object (J) that is approached from several perspectives/angles/images, and those angles themselves are not selected in a detailed way but rather ambiguously, and synthesized together into the object. high J + high N working in tandem? this really makes me think of FeNi Jordan Peterson and how he weaves together various things into single categories like Father Archetype, as a holographic 3D object, while not being very explicit about how he wove together those details.)

    Social Sphere

    A vague idea of the holographic concept was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz’s “Monadology”. His monad, a microcosmic reflection of the whole world order, is analogous to a hologram. Ecologists regularly turned to it in attempting to understand why there is stability in nature. Relationships between living and non-living nature arising in a given territory causes biogeocenosis, or ecosystem formation. Ecosystems are primarily characterized by equilibrium of self-similarity over time, where long-term coexistence of opposites without merging (synthesis) is observed. Therefore, Static prevails over Dynamic in such communities. Therein lies the fundamental law of homeostasis in the ecosystem.

    General systems theory was later formed on the basis of these ideas. It was founded by Austrian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who introduced the concept of open systems, which exchange matter, energy, and information with the environment, thus resisting destabilization. (^ I’m not educated in this enough to comment)

    While Determinists attempt to explain the behavior of a system by its component parts and interconnections (high Je+Si), Holographists find novel qualities illustrating emergent features in it that cannot be accounted for solely from its internal structure. (high N + Je?) Therefore, the Holographical paradigm can generally be called a systemic-ecological worldview. (yea, seems Je + N)

    Contemporary ‘green’ ideology is an epitomization of this cognitive form. (oh interesting, …so, reading effects in things, crossing domains such as food production, CO2, gas, animal rights, etc. Very intersectional. Also Al Gore is JeNi) This does not in any way imply that the ideologues of this movement are Holographical types—cognitive styles and proclaimed viewpoints may not necessarily coincide! Manifestations of one cognitive style through another are completely typical. The books of “quantum psychologist” Robert Anton Wilson are a good example of this (I just looked him up, looks solidly Ni-lead), in which his Dialectical-Algorithmic form is laden with multi-perspective, holographic content [5].

    Psychological Sphere

    Holographical cognition corresponds to a stable, self-possessed psyche resistant to conditioning (oh dear, not this again. but okay, this is more correlated to Conductor and Pi stability than anything.). In comparing the conditionability of an LSI psyche to its Involutionary Mirror SLE, (eh? TiSe’s are more condition-able than SeTi’s? But SeTi’s are way more flexible and pivot far more fluidly on matters, if we think of ‘conditioning’ in a positive and environmentally-adaptive way. TiSe’s, as Ji-leads, are less like this.) observation shows that the degree of psychological resistance is much higher in the latter. (no…) How is this explained? By the durable cognitive infrastructure on which it is built. Complete panorama, which allows periodic change of perspective on the subject. Good balance between the immune and nervous systems, as well as the primary sense organs. (n/a)

    In neuro-linguistic programming, this principle is used in a technique called ‘reframing’. Reframing changes the perceptual framework contextualizing an event. If we mentally place a familiar object into an unfamiliar context, then significance of the whole situation changes. For example, imagine a tiger first in a jungle, then in a zoo cage, then on the balcony of your apartment. The standard Socionics type is depicted as immersed in its ‘club’. But what if you shift it to quadra? What if it turns out to be among types with opposite cognitive styles? The chain can continue indefinitely. (more Ne than Ni, but generally N)

    With reframing it is possible to see the familiar with fresh eyes. (Ne takes this the farthest) The type of the psyche in one who resorts to this technique remains constant of course, only their subjective relation to the object of attention is changed. The benefit of this method is primarily in the fact that new perspectives emphasize aspects of a situation that may have been previously underestimated, allowing the possibility of discovering new avenues of growth, and expanding one’s existing range of choices. (I don’t see why NeTi is excluded from this definition and NeFi is kept)

    Scientific Sphere

    A real-life physical model of this multi-perspective intellect is the hologram—a superimposition of multiple images where each one can only be seen when looking at a certain angle. Change of perspective occurs intermittently and does not alter the system itself, only its priorities. In this way, multiple standards can be implemented, making it possible to work with a complex system as if it were a simple sequence. (see my notes above)

    Another real-life prototype of Holographical cognition are fractal objects, discovered by mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in the 1970s. Geometrically, fractals are figures with diffuse outlines, possessing self-similar internal structures. For example, trees, snowflakes, coastlines, etc. They are characterized by multiple internal forms similar in principle to nesting-dolls. Like a hologram, any fragment of a fractal contains complete information about the entire fractal. The part is always structurally similar to the whole. (Ni/Se isomorphism?)

    Socionics types are also like fractal objects. Hence my holographic concept of personality as a nested system of types, one inside another [4]. Which opposes the prevailing flat view of Socionics advocated by people with reductionist thinking.

    Overall Thoughts

    I cannot help but mention again how mismatched this type grouping (of SeTi, TiNe, NeFi, FiSe) is to the database samples. The above two groups have already shown that the lack of continuous root cause (i.e. no single shared axes, no single shared lead process, etc) makes this grouping incoherent within itself.

    The description of holography provided appears to me to be a result of at least two processes working together, and is attainable from a variety of hierarchies. In this, we seem to agree (as none of the samples in this group necessarily share axes). However, this holography is also attainable by others not listed in these four types, causing this category to have a systemic problem.

    As with other categories, it isn’t a perfect fit to any one thing CT describes, but the “holography” being described here appears to be a combination of N > S and J > P usage, with echoes of Ne and Ni intermixing at times, jumping back and forth between the two. He seems to contrast this against the Causal-Determinists (which most correlate to CT’s Je+Si), and appear as Je+N, or Conductor + N. But again, just about every type could generate holography, either natively or by modulating lower functions.

    It seems to be a standard feature of human intelligence to be able to conceptualize an object, and see it three+ dimensionally.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    Quadrant: Vortical-Synergetic

    This one is not a dichotomy but a grouping of the three above dichotomies as: Static, Negativist, Involutionary

    Types Include: FeSi, SiTe, TeNi, NiFe

    Initial impression of division: There is one type per quadrant in this category. All are conductor types. Two Je-leads, two Pi-leads. The two Je-leads are of opposite quadrants. The two Pi-leads are of opposite quadrants.



    The fourth cognitive style: it is synthetic, positive, and inductive. Its most appropriate title is Vortical-Synergetic. This form flows in Sociotypes ESE, SLI, LIE, IEI (ESFj, ISTp, ENTj, INFp, respectively)

    Synergetics—the science of how order emerges from chaos. The word ‘synergy’ in Ancient Greek means “concerted action”. The concept of synergy continues to be discussed at present. In the West, it is called ‘Chaos Theory’ or ‘Nonlinear Dynamics’ [9]. For our purposes, it is important to note that it is characterized by so-called dissipative states—non-equilibrium, nonlinear, unstable. (this appears to be describing a certain kind of P type, as P types experienced reality in a very synergistic, rather than deterministic fashion)

    As Dynamics (CT Revisers?), Synergetics think fluidly with tints of one thought cascading into another. As Positivists, they converge towards a point of attraction. As Involutionary types, they frequently turn backwards and jump over previous levels, displacing the flow of their thoughts like a vortex or fluctuating storm. (this sounds like the erratic flow of a scattered Ne-lead mind, and certain Se-lead minds)

    IEI (NiFe) as if in a kaleidoscope sees whimsical iridescent imagery (whimsical? i wouldn’t call NiFe’s whimsical), dissolving then receding in flux. (this sounds more Ne-lead) LIE thinks very experimentally (don’t we mean Ne-lead?) with many variants rapidly assorted and mentally tested on the fly (Ne sporadic prototyping/brainstorming!) for practical applicability. ESE initiates a social torrent leaving behind a trail of emotional turbulence. (FeSi’s don’t do this… Je is a function of order and deliberation, it’s not erratic or torrential) Thoughts ‘swarm’ and chaotically displace one another (Ne… he’s describing Ne-leads). SLI ‘lies in a drift’ as it were awaiting favorable wind. Once the situation becomes favorable, self-organization immediately takes hold and rapid thinking initiates, scrolling through incoming information, identifying options most and least likely to succeed.

    (Ugh, I gotta pause here for a sec. He’s saying all of this about these conductors: FeSi, SiTe, TeNi, NiFe— but he’s essentially describing Ne-lead‘s brainstorming, rapid thought-prototyping, and it’s torrential, flux-like cognition, to the letter.)

    Intellectual Sphere

    Characteristic of a ‘vortex’ is its self-organizing nature, moving like a whirlwind. This manifests mentally as a rapid search for options, tests, and the subsequent screening of variants which do not yield results. It operates on basis of testing, advancing to the goal through trial and error. (Ne… or even just Pe) In a sense, it is comparable to a perpetual lab experiment in the brain. (Ne)

    The first advantage of Vortical cognition—liveliness and naturalness. It seems to simulate the actual processes occurring in nature. Another advantage—faith in success and luck (Ne’s optimism). Synergetics do not confuse temporary setbacks with error (right, if we’re talking about Ne); they will undertake attempt after attempt until success ultimately comes to them.

    Its chief disadvantage is that the intellectual search is often blind and uneconomical (right, for Pe– how is it that he’s saying this about TeNi’s? The TeNi’s, alongside TeSi’s in the database, appear to be the most affiliated with economics, but all Je-leads and conductors are.). Another difficulty is its randomness and spontaneity. (Ne/Pe) Synergetic intellect is a kind of chain reaction that catalyzes itself. (right, tangent hopping on one’s own tangents) The mechanism of positive feedback operates: if not curbed, then the concentration of effort first leads to an explosion, followed by dissipation.

    Synergetic intellect explains phenomena through substantive reasoning. The very substance (material or substrate) itself generating phenomena through natural movement. In the Aristotle example, the cause of sculpture is the block of marble from which it was made.

    Social Sphere

    Vortical cognition developed into a unique intellectual paradigm that was deemed later than all others to have social merit, despite it being most akin to natural phenomena. It is known that in natural conditions, all processes run in cycles. For example, in laissez-faire economies operating on Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ principle, natural cyclical fluctuations in market supply and demand guide the natural equilibrium prices of goods.

    Studying biological evolution, Charles Darwin discovered its origin as a struggle for existence against natural selection, and survival of the fittest organisms. The main engine of this ‘evolution’, is involution through events of random variation, which abruptly leave no intermediate gradual links between appearances of species. (n/a)

    Biological self-organization is catalyzed by mutation—sudden, unpredictable changes in genetic material. Involution generates pulsating chaos (not true of FeSi, TeNi, etc), as evolution simultaneously selects and propagates useful mutations.

    Following in the involutionary trend of Darwinism, the concept of ‘punctuated equilibrium’ emphasizes the discontinuous development of species observed in nature. Authors Gould and Eldridge conclude from this fact that smooth gradual evolution of species is impossible under natural conditions. To survive, all organs must simultaneously be in working order; there are no creatures present with half-fin wings, half-hoof toes, etc. According to this theory, the lifetime of a species is divided into two unequal stages of duration. The first stage is stasis, long periods where no significant species change occurs. Then the second stage, a time of fracture when the species is rapidly converted into another form, or dies out.

    In the 20th century, as I mentioned, the vortex idea was rediscovered and Synergetics adopted its armament. The motto of Synergetics—order through fluctuation. (would the multiverse theory + anthropic principle, be an example of this sort of order-through-fluctuations vis-a-vis natural selection? if so this echoes what I mention in the book about Ne/Si following an R-selection pattern, of many small trials/errors which eventuate into a solution through aggregate effects. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory) Such fluctuations (local perturbations in the system) are analogous to biological mutation. Order in the chaotic evolution of complex socio-psychological systems, Socionics understands through the law of quadra progression. However, we must not forget that in the irreversible progression of quadras is a series of involutional junctures—jumps, twists, and turns. Because of this, the real non-theoretical quadra progression curve is jagged and looped, its outline resembling the dancing tongues of a burning flame.

    Psychological Sphere

    This cognitive style imbues qualities of endurance and optimism (Ne) to the psyche. However, the psyche of Synergetics is less stable (right, Ne) than that of Holographers (Je+N?). Synergetic types are partially conditionable, but capable of discarding undesired habits. For restoration of normal mental life they need specific, and sometimes long periods of trial and error. Depriving their life of continuous forward movement exerts a bad effect upon their mind. Operating principle: As ambient momentum (Pe momentum) of circumstance declines, their self-determination atrophies. Lack of oncoming circumstantial pressures (some external Je pressure) renders them increasingly worse off. (how does he think this of TeNi’s? this is really backwards)

    The best countermeasure in such situations is positive self-programming. Consisting of forcing disturbing thoughts to the background and dissolving them in positive scenarios. IEI before sleep visualizes a pleasant scene to remove disturbing experiences of the day. LIE casts a desirable goal in its imagination, optimistic it will eventually acquire the necessary persons and resources. (NeTi Jim Carrey does something like this with the law of attraction) ESE simply does not think about past mistakes and its mood is improved by itself. SLI is not the first place puts a positive scenario and awaits the moment possible to implement it.

    It is often forgotten that the synergetic aspect of development makes extended forecasts futile. (right, Pe/Ne is not Pi) American meteorologist Edward Lorenz descriptively coined this phenomenon the ‘Butterfly Effect’. Where a butterfly waving its wings in some part of America can, with specific confluence of circumstances, induce a hurricane somewhere in Indonesia. Complex nonlinear phenomena are unpredictable, because tiny initial influences with time can lead to enormous consequences. (right, but how isn’t the butterfly effect a perfect example of simple-to-complex, and evolutionary style?) In conventional life, this same phenomenon is called the Domino Effect. Where the initial fall of the first domino successfully entails catastrophe of the series. The catalyzing action, whose event occurs on your will, determines which of the scenarios will run—optimistic or pessimistic.

    Scientific Sphere

    This cognitive form reflects the synergy formed by the current worldview. Within this paradigm during the 18th century arose the Kant-Laplace hypothesis about the vortex origin of the sun and planets from cosmic dust.

    The Synergetic paradigm is opposed to Creationism; the emergence of complex systems explains spontaneous creation, not divine intervention. (right, simple-to-complex, Ne emergence, no?) A typical example from the history of science is biochemist A. I. Oparin’s hypothesis on the emergence of life from inanimate matter in the primordial ‘broth’ of Earth’s early existence, which was largely confirmed in Stanley Miller’s famous 1953 experiment.

    Also hailing from the Synergetic paradigm comes the outlook of Nikolai Amosov. According to him it “explains the evolution of the world’s self-organizing structures… miracles can happen, but are of no practical value.” (emergence) He sincerely believes demonstrative simulations can be recreated by computer models.

    Synergetics recognize the critical role of chance and free will in transitional moments of history. Synergetically-minded scholars frequently consider alternative historical outcomes. British historian Arnold J. Toynbee in particular, explored this twist on the course of ancient history—what if Alexander of Macedon did not die (pessimistic version), how would the world have developed then (optimistic version)? (right, this kind of alternate-worlds/alternate-timelines speculating is very classic of Ne thought processes.  the “what if” –insert alternative possibility here– effect)

    A real-life model of Synergetic cognition is the turbulent flow. Turbulence is a liquid or gas flow, in which there is rapid mixing of its moving layers. The behavior of such flows cannot be predicted. Whereas the preceding laminar flow phrase exhibits clear regularities deducible by Causal-Determinism.

    Mathematical modeling of natural growth processes typically uses exponential functions. Such functions describe geometric progressions, rather than arithmetic values. Logarithmic (S-shaped) curves terminating in saturation points are common in dynamic modeling. Implying that self-organization is not omnipotent: after exceeding a certain limit, it exhausts its own momentum. At which point it becomes necessary to either yield to external structure, or create a new nexus of self-organization. Synergetic types naturally select the latter.

    Lev N. Gumilev offers a Synergetic account for involutions of ethnogenesis in the birth, growth, and death process of societies. Social systems dictate rules of selection for specific behaviors of people. Charismatic-personalities (cranks, outcasts, dissenters) engender a variety of diverse social mutations. Society holds them at bay, until such time that it weakens for any reason (due to economic crisis, internal wars, cultural stagnation, etc.). Afterwards, the energy of a new order vigorously sweeps the decrepit system and begins to grow in its place. But sooner or later, the new order itself will age just the same and be forced to give way to an alternative system ripening in its depths, and so forth.

    Vortical cognition is hardest to convey to people of Algorithmic cognition, since to them free choice and the game of chance opposes teleology, fate, the special role of a creator, etc. When Synergetics speak about the implicit order in chaos, if we translate their words to the language of Socionics, they imply that Holographical cognition, with its minimally convoluted ordering structures, is dual to the chaotic vortex.

    Overall Thoughts

    Among the given categories, this one was the easiest to parallel to CT, as it corresponds quite well to an Ne-lead psychology, and more generally to a Pe-heavy psychology. However, the types listed for this category are FeSi, TeNi, SiTe and NiFe. This could not be farther from the truth, which again confirms to me that Gulenko’s category here is not at all describing the same thing as CT is by these four types.

    Oddly enough, what he’s describing here is actually a very interesting elaboration for some of Ne’s cognitive thought processes. And if it was attributed to the right types, it would be quite instrumental. However, given what he says in this article, I would expect little or no parity between his typings and CT’s. There isn’t just a minor difference here or there, there is literally a complete mismatch across this and all of his categories, causing his system to have more parity to CT if it was flipped on its head (180 degrees) in some ways, and rotated 90 degrees in a few other ways.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    Auburn
    Keymaster
    • Type: TiNe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Adaptive

    In Summary:

    Static-Dynamic

    Static Types: NeTi, TiNe, TiSe, SeTi, SeFi, FiSe, FiNe, NeFi
    Dynamic Types: SiFe, FeSi, FeNi, NiFe, NiFe, TeNi, TeSi, SiTe

    Statics:

    Oddly, the closest approximation is Conductor types, specifically J heavy types. So this is inverted. But some very J heavy revisers may fit it.

    Dynamics:

    Oddly, the closest approximation is Reviser types, specifically P heavy types. So this is inverted. But some very P heavy revisers may fit it.

    Positivist-Negativist

    Positivist Types: NeTi, FeSi, TiSe, NiFe, SeFi, TeNi, FiNe, SiTe
    Negativist Types: SiFe, TiNe, FeNi, SeTi, NiTe, FiSe, TeSi, NeFi

    Positivist:

    In the social senses it comes closer to adaptive/seelie, in the intellectual sense it comes closer to P+N (cohesion in thought, wholes rather than delineations). But there is no proper fit in CT for this, and it seems internally incoherent to me.

    Negativist:

    In the social senses it comes closer to directive/unseelie, in the intellectual sense it comes closer to J+S (discrimination in thought, delineations rather than wholes). But there is no proper fit in CT for this, and it seems internally incoherent to me.

    Evolution–Involution

    Evolution/Process Types: NeTi, SiFe, FeNi, TiSe, SeFi, NiTe, TeSi, FiNe
    Involution/Result Types: FeSi, TiNe, SeTi, NiFe, TeNi, FiSe, NeFi, SiTe

    Evolution:

    Corresponds most to CT’s Ne emergentism + bifurcation.

    Involution:

    Corresponds most to CT’s Ni convergentism + holism.

     



    Quadrant: Causal-Determinist
    Static, Positivist, Evolutionary

    Types Include: NeTi, SeFi, FiNe, TiSe

    Corresponds most to CT’s Je+Si types.

    Quadrant: Dialectical-Algorithmic
    Dynamic, Negativist, Evolutionary

    Types Include: FeNi, NiTe, TeSi, SiFe

    Corresponds most to CT’s Delta types, perhaps FiNe and NeFi physicists shades.

    Quadrant: Holographic-Panoramic
    Static, Negativist, Involutionary

    Types Include: SeTi, TiNe, NeFi, FiSe

    Corresponds most to CT’s J+N types, and it could be JeNi or JeNe. But really it has no correspondence, since all types can do this from different approaches. Nor does reviser or conductor hierarchy seem more inclined to it, in the end.

    Quadrant: Vortical-Synergetic
    Static, Negativist, Involutionary

    Types Include: FeSi, SiTe, TeNi, NiFe

    This corresponds most to CT’s Ne-lead types, and perhaps Pe-leads more broadly.

     



     

    ESTIMATED CT TYPE CORRELATIONS, BASED ON COGNITIVE STYLES

    There is no coherent 1:1 translation between CT and Gulenko’s cognitive styles, not even when rotating types 180 or 90 degrees. Certain categories that apply to CT types are not possible to group together, according to Gulenko. Therefore, the following table, even as an approximation, is terribly faulty and a bit ‘forced’. But I’ll present it here for the sake of conversation:

    CT Types Approximate Gulenko Categories Approximate Gulenko Types?
    NeTi Dynamic  / Evolution / Vortical-Synergetic TeNi/TeSi? n/a
    NeFi Dynamic / Evolution / Dialectical-Algorithmic / Vortical-Synergetic FeNi? n/a
    SeFi Dynamic / Involution / Vortical-Synergetic NiFe? n/a
    SeTi Dynamic / Involution / Vortical-Synergetic NiFe? FeSi? n/a
    TiNe Dynamic? / Evolution / (Dialectical-Algorithmic?) NiTe? n/a
    TiSe Dynamic? / Involution SiTe? n/a
    FiNe Dynamic? / Evolution / Dialectical-Algorithmic TeSi /SiFe? n/a
    FiSe Dynamic? / Involution FeSi? NiFe?
    TeNi Static / Involution TiNe?
    FeNi Static / Involution NeFi? FiSe?
    TeSi Static / Evolution / Causal-Determinist NeTi?
    FeSi Static / Evolution / Causal-Determinist SeFi?
    NiFe Static? / Involution SeTi? FiSe?
    NiTe Static? / Involution TiNe?
    SiFe Static? / Evolution / Causal-Determinist FiNe?
    SiTe Static? / Evolution / Causal-Determinist TiSe?
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 3 days ago by Auburn.
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    I know almost nothing about socionics, but I have an interest in the Evolutionary vs Involutionary dichotomy because it relates to a dichotomy I noticed independently – specifically, the “social level” part. I noticed in my own life that some people are more concerned with how they are viewed by their close friends and family and others are more concerned with how they are viewed by people they don’t know as well. I mentioned this on the discord, and someone pointed me to this socionics concept. I don’t know if I buy that all these various aspects of evolutionary vs involutionary really correspond to each other. There seems to be no explanation of why people on the evolutionary side of the social dichotomy would also be on the evolutionary side of the intellectual dichotomy, for example. There is also no explanation of why the types claimed to be evolutionary should be evolutionary – like you said, there is nothing they clearly have in common just based on their cognitive functions. I will say that for me personally, I do fit on the evolutionary side of every dichotomy given, but I’m just one person, so that doesn’t mean much.

    So yeah, given your skepticism that an FiNe would be more concerned with their reputation among a wider social circle than with their family and friends, you may be surprised to learn that that is actually an accurate description of me. It’s not that I’m not independent – I am quite independent. And of course it’s not that I don’t care what the people I love think of me – it’s that I take the love of the people closest to me as a given, so I’m not particularly concerned about maintaining any certain image with them – I can be very blunt and casual with them because I know they know me and love me already. Whereas I get very nervous about what people I don’t know well think of me because they don’t know me very well, and thus could easily form an inaccurate opinion of me. My husband is the opposite, however, and it took me quite a while to understand this difference between us – whenever I would try to peg him as more adaptive or directive, I would be thrown because he is more adaptive with people he’s close to and more directive with people he isn’t close to. Since that’s the opposite of me, I couldn’t make sense of it. (This difference between us sometimes causes stress because in our interactions with each other he tends to be overly accommodating to me and scared to make waves, but then he’ll go yell at the neighbors about not picking up their dog poop while I’m freaking out because I don’t want the neighbors to hate us.) I’m not sure what type my husband is, but I do think he’s on the Se/Ni axis. However I don’t necessarily think that this is all down to Ne/Si vs Se/Ni because my friend Abby, who you typed as NeFi unseelie, is more similar to my husband than to me – she is more unseelie/directive with people she doesn’t know well and more seelie/adaptive with people she’s close to.

    Anyway, I don’t really have any particular point to make here, I just wanted to say that I think evolutionary vs involutionary is a legitimately interesting dichotomy (or perhaps set of unrelated dichotomies), and I’d be curious to explore how it relates to cognitive functions, if it does at all.

    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    Oh, interesting !

    So in most cases the common point seems to be SF or NT or TS or NF…no? Also it looks like our revisers tend to be conductors in Socionics and their conductors revisers in CT?

    Regarding the evolutionary vs. involutionary dichotomy…I pretty much agree with fayest, but I am SeFi, so it could make more sense for me. Just one observation here :

    From this stems distinctions in one’s attitudes towards people in close or distant circles. In the life of Evolutionary types, reputation plays a much greater role. Opinions of others in external society tend to be more important to them than opinions of friends or relatives.

    Ok…but opinions of society will be REFLECTED in opinions of our close circle. If society views someone as a complete loser with no perspectives (just a common example :)) ) => this person’s close circle will most likely view him/her the exact same way. So basically though someone can be pretty much only interested in close people’s opinions, in the end these close people’s opinions will reflect the general opinion, hence the general opinion is extremely important.

    I don’t even know if this tendency to obtain reputation in order to be appreciated by close people falls under “evolutionary” or “involutionary”… I just wanted to highlight the fact that from the outside it might look like one wants to impress society at large (for example by accumulating wealth or by becoming famous ) but in fact this person might very well simply do this to impress a couple of people BY having impressed society. I think this is really obvious in case of many singers, who create a stage persona but rarely sing about being famous or rich :)) or only limit 2 or 3 of their songs to this theme, while their repertoire is rather focused on their relationships to their family and significant other.

    Reputation can simply be a CURRENCY. That we may attempt to exchange for acceptance/friendship/attraction/forgiveness/appreciation of close people. In which case the whole dichotomy is based on a false assumption to start with and “evolutionary and “involutionary” should be redefined, at least in what regards the social sphere.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Bera.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Bera.
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    If society views someone as a complete loser with no perspectives (just a common example :)) ) => this person’s close circle will most likely view him/her the exact same way.

    I don’t think this is true. At least not necessarily. I do take your larger point though that someone might use their reputation with the general public as a tool to influence their reputation with their close circle. But in general I think the way people who don’t know you very well view you can be extremely different from the way your close circle views you. Just think of any person you’ve met who you initially thought was one way until you got to know them better and then discovered they were quite different than your first impression of them suggested. I know this is the case for me – people who don’t know me well tend to view me as very quiet, demure, sheltered, and pliant. The people who know me best, however, know that I am actually very stubborn and opinionated, and I have an adventurous streak. And I’ll note that this is not the result of me consciously trying to create either of these images for myself. It is just a natural result of my level of comfort changing how I behave as I get to know someone better.

    But the way I see this concept of evolutionary vs involutionary play out in me and the people I know has more to do with whose view of you you worry about. Of course I care what the people I love think of me, but I don’t worry about it because I assume they think well of me. However I worry quite a bit about what neighbors, coworkers, and cashiers think of me. Whereas some people seem to worry more about conflict with their loved ones, which they see as more dangerous because if it goes badly the results would be more devastating, while they are relatively unconcerned with whether the cashier thinks they’re a nice person because the cashier doesn’t play much of a role in their lives.

    (Random side note: there’s a funny example of this mentality in John Mulaney’s stand-up (1:48-4:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL_dhpvb-ZM&t=1m48s)

    Ninth
    Participant
    • Type: TiSe
    • Development: l--l
    • Attitude: Directive

    TiSe
    Dynamic? / Involution

    It’s a veeery long thread so I still need to finish my reading, but I visited Gulenko’s cognitive styles and I related to these two immediately + negativist.
    Now, I’ll keep reading (I will edit this post as I progress).

    Spoiler:

    Each type of person behaves in life according to how they answer the following existential question: is human nature inherently good or evil? (whaaa?)

    omg I laughed


    just some typing errors:

    Spoiler:
    > parappels


    > Oddly, the closest approximation is Reviser types, specifically P heavy types. So this is inverted. But some very P heavy revisers may fit it.


    Agreed with fayest abt General Public vs Close Circles: it’s not necessarily true, it also depends on how socially inclined (and in what way) those in your close circles are. There are some circles of mine who care about social image and they behave as Bera tsaid, but there are others who range from being less prone to it to not being like that at all.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Ninth.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Ninth.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Ninth.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks ago by Ninth.
    Bera
    Moderator
    • Type: SeFi
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Seelie

    @fayest – yeah, I didn’t mean it’s always true. I just think it’s likely. I honestly find it hard to imagine another reason to obtain reputation than to powerfully impact someone who matters to you.

    People might not express it like “I obtained reputation because this way I knew mom/dad/my significant other would love me”. But if you take down the glitter…in many cases I really think this is the motivation behind it.

    I was only talking about people who seek reputation though. There are for sure also people who don’t. So, this would apply only to those who do.

    Then…about the larger circle vs. the close circle, I totally agree ! Close people also see many sides of me that simple acquaintances don’t.

    I don’t worry about it because I assume they think well of me. However I worry quite a bit about what neighbors, coworkers, and cashiers think of me. Whereas some people seem to worry more about conflict with their loved ones, which they see as more dangerous because if it goes badly the results would be more devastating, while they are relatively unconcerned with whether the cashier thinks they’re a nice person because the cashier doesn’t play much of a role in their lives.

    Hmmm…I think I understand what you mean ! I can’t separate the cashier from close people like that though. I can’t really explain it, I simply feel I MUST treat everyone well.

    I can actually be a little more aggressive to close people, not necessarily because I assume they love me (because I…actually…don’t)…but because I know them well and I can see when they need to be told a harsh truth or when I would need to intervene to stop them from doing something harmful. When it comes to others, I am only concerned with not hurting them…with close ones, ethics is more nuanced and I may feel close enough to hurt them a little, for their own good. Like yelling at my cat to make her stop licking the floor. :))

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by Bera.
    fayest42
    Participant
    • Type: FiNe
    • Development: ll--
    • Attitude: Unseelie

    @bera I think what we’re finding here is that, like most things, this close circle vs wider circle thing is more complex than it initially appears. I think if I had to more carefully define the aspect of it I’ve been focused on, it has to do with which group you feel more comfortable being in conflict with. Would you be more comfortable being in conflict with a cashier/coworker or with a romantic partner? I initially connected it to seelieness/adaptiveness and unseelieness/directiveness in my mind (as in evolutionary people are more seelie/adaptive with people they don’t know as well and become more unseelie/directive the better you know them and vice versa for involutionary people). I have no idea if that’s the same idea Gulenko had in mind though.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
© Copyright 2012-2020 | CognitiveType.com
This website's articles, its reading methodology and practices are the intellectual property of J.E. Sandoval.
Animated GIFs, images and videos belong to their respective owners.