.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 03:12 AM.
This clears a lot of things up. I was having trouble conceptualizing VS since the other three styles seem so easy to strip down to their fundamentals while VS just seemed like... Random Fucking Chaos: The Thought System. Which it is. But now I understand how that actually works towards creating a kind of coherence.Originally Posted by Ashton
I thought you endorsed Reinin dichotomies? I mean, really, all this strikes me as is taking a given type's Reinin dichotomies and extrapolating how that type would think based on them.
That seems to be the reason why future prediction is attributed toIt's basically saying that in any system—complex or simple—not all causal influences or conditions can ever been fully accounted for. Thus its behavior can never be reliably predicted with 100% certainty, especially over longer time periods (which should induce one to think twice before attributing future prediction to). The usual gedanken for this is the Butterfly Effect:
"The behavior can never be reliably predicted with 100% certainty" - Wouldn't all the cognitive styles would be susceptible to this in the eyes of a Vortal synergetic, but its just the VS thinker is aware of their own uncertainty?
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 03:15 AM.
That makes Ni-egos strongly experience-dependent, naive to start with then increasingly better at "forecasting" as they accumulate experience.Yes and no.
Yeah. To me it sounds like sucking the intuition out of Ni...
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 03:14 AM.
Yeah, this is much more helpful for solidifying my self-typing than, "OH MY GOD, YOU ARE A FUCKING MAGIC MAN ON THE MOUNTAIN WHO SEES THE FUTURE AND IS GOOD AT TIME!"Probably a good thing, and suggests how.
Intuition () gets over-vaulted as being more imaginative and airy-fairy than it really is.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 03:14 AM.
What I think I mean is that it actually sounds more likeProbably a good thing, and suggests how
Intuition (
No, it is quite Ni. It's about forming a mental image of a process by abstracting from concrete points.What I think I mean is that it actually sounds more like
It's rather like drawing a graph: Se supplies the data points and Ni models the graph that connects them. Without Se, Ni won't have enough data points to guess accurately what the graph will end up looking like since it won't have enough points to properly guess all the slopes and angles and such, while without Ni, Se will just have a whole bunch of unconnected points and won't really understand what connects them (or if they even connect at all).
I mean the direct linear process of prediction of grouping certain situations into categories and saying "they play out this way" and then saying that another situation you group into that category will then play out the same way because all the "ones" before did. I see this as how Se does this (it can't anticipate that which isn't already following the established pattern it has logged by its experience). It can be the Se-Ni process, but I see it as the Se end of the process that can't see outside of these ruts but that can make all of this highly concrete.
I mean it would be Ni making the connections, but I'm trying to say that this simple rut way of doing things is more what I see Se types doing; not what I see Ni ego types doing.
.
Last edited by mfckr; 12-25-2014 at 03:13 AM.
I just can't tell if I agree with the root of your conception... I know what you're saying but I feel the notion it's stemming from may be several shades off from my own notion about it (although the mechanism described, I take no issue with, at least I don't think). It's perhaps partially because it sounds like a logical process the way you put it, but since you're trying to describe the inner workings of the process in a logical way I can see why it may have that feel. But still something is off. I also disagree with your sense of authority on the matter, knowing what others are "rightly" and "wrongly" attributing to what.
I guess one difference is that generally with intuitives I see things as more just occurring to them. At the time of the occurrence they may be able to pull up several examples from the past as justification for their strong feeling it's just happening all over again, but that generally they may not be aware of or able to put in a concrete fashion how all of their occurrences are generally arrived at. They may be able to call up abstract symbols from their minds and how something playing out reminds them of it and so it comes up as a warning, but they may not be able to say where it's coming from exactly. Their ability to clearly articulate their processes may come and go, both because they can't find the words and because there are too many processes and ideas about them. They can appear to wisely know things out of nowhere and the experiences they collect may be simply processed in a more abstract form where the details fall out, but the abstract meaning is retained and added to the "soup." (I would say Ne is far better at being concrete about this than Ni). But mainly I see intuition as relying heavily on its insights and imagination (which although Ne tends to put this far more concretely exposing the symbols for what they are, Ni is very inwardly focused and abstract about it often).
As an example with someone I know who I believe is ESI (although I've considered LSI from time to time, but am every time thwarted by her shit Ti) tends to note certain trends (although they are limited in number) and say in a voice of absolute certainty that she knows from her experience that this is how these things play out and can others "see the trend". She tends to stick in trend-ruts, having identified certain "trends" from her experiences and feeling sure that she can see them coming and wisely get out of the way ahead of time. Although I think she used her Ni HA and all, the concrete manner in which she addresses these things and the certainty she has, say Se (although this is not why I think she's Se, that's another matter that is even more difficult to try to explain, but it's just very obvious to me). Also despite her belief about being right about these things, she's actually wrong quite often because she can't see outside of her ruts so if anything from outside of them comes it sends her off guard and plunges her into uncertainty (and she hates uncertainty which is why she devotes a lot of effort to trying to find tried and true processes which will account for any number of unforeseen things that may go wrong, using experience to identify these things). Anyway at first what you were saying reminded me more of this than it did of something I would see more as Ni or intuition.
Now I do not know what I think and will wait for other things to arise.
As an aside I at least think I agree that Wentworth Miller below is Ni/Se quadra at the very least and I see "Ni" present in what he says.
??
The story is almost too good to be true: While shooting the pilot, David Lynch was so struck by the image of a crew member crouched behind Laura Palmer's bed that he insisted on filming it, despite having no idea what he could possibly use it for. Later, while shooting Sarah Palmer awakening from a nightmarish vision, he discovered he's accidentally captured that same crew member's reflection in a mirror seen in that very shot. The rest – the identity of Laura Palmer's murderer and the single most frightening character ever to appear on TV – is history.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists...#ixzz3GWqNMl7r
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Precisely lecter. (And to be quite honest, I had to learn to become comfortable with this style of cognition even before I knew what VS cognition was.)
For whatever reason, some VS cogs already know to act in this way while others still must learn; those who have a good handle on this form of cognition will judiciously allow events to unfold without needing to contrive anything.
The benefits to living through opportunities are lowered stress levels, lowered expectations inherently associated with fewer disappointments, and greater flexibility.
The drawback is aimlessness, which can be overcome so long as "Synergetics do not confuse temporary setbacks with error."
Lyric examples:
"I can't help it, the road just rolls out behind me" - Fiona Apple IEI
"And your old tricks no longer work" - Amy Winehouse SLI
"Look, if you had one shot, or one opportunity - Eminem SLI
To seize everything you ever wanted in one moment
Would you capture it or just let it slip?"
...
"You better lose yourself in the music, the moment
You own it, you better never let it go
You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow
This opportunity comes once in a lifetime yo"
i actually have to reformulate that. Result is the mentality of opportunism and vortex cognition is one lopsided half of it. i would actually not describe it as "making use of" as it's too shallow and inconstant to qualify. it's more like an activity of finding, relating and sharing opportunities, juggling them, in a word, whilst being at a loss as to how to deal with them potently.
Subtle, fine action is preferred over labored, crude action.
Well, however you prefer to phrase it, it's quintessentially the recognition and then subsequent utilization of an opening within a process or structure wherein exquisite precision is valued over fallout.
recognition yes, but utilization in an impactful non-trivial sense is typically a break from the style. it is something vortex thinkers can do but vortex thinking can't. understand that distinction and you do fine.
Without exquisite precision, this becomes your result:
"Wrecking Ball"
"I came in like a wrecking ball
I never hit so hard in love
All I wanted was to break your walls
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
I put you high up in the sky
And now, you're not coming down
It slowly turned, you let me burn
And now, [I am] ashes on the ground
...
I came in like a wrecking ball
Yeah, I just closed my eyes and swung
Left me crashing in a blazing fall
All you ever did was wreck me
Yeah, you, you wreck me
I never meant to start a war
I just wanted you to let me in
And instead of using force
I guess I should've let you win"
valuing precision and avoiding fallout is more of a dialectical/algoritmic thing (negative/process). positive/result avoids a sense of missing out. it doesnt care about quality in a primary sense, more about volume.
you probably use & value your adjacent negative/process styles (isfp & intp) more than you realize.
Utilization deviates from the norm for all types of cognition...
To be honest, I've been 'collecting' from all types for quite a while now.
Yes, that's correct imho.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
nope ... wrong emphasis ... deductive vs inductive
"This particular scene really resonates with me. It's like you go through high school and university, not even that for many, and then BOOM, you're on your own, life changes completely almost overnight. Suddenly you go from being a kid to being expected to be a success by everyone around you. If, like me, you're still single at that point, suddenly the race is on to find a partner on top of it all. You're likely not even 22 years old, but suddenly everything you've ever known has gone out the window and you are under immense pressure to succeed on your own two feet, when really there are many who only want to be in the position of least possible responsibility until they can figure out what it is they want from life because they genuinely are not ready for what's suddenly befallen them. For some, this extends into mid life, or even late life. This pressure to be a success or to please those around you is incredibly damaging for some people. It's that pressure that killed my best friend ultimately. He wasn't ready for it, and neither was I. I don't plan on following the same path that he did, but I understand why he did it." - Youtube comment by Yella Dart
Possible examples of V-S thinking style:
Summary by V. Gulenko: This is imprecise, but holistic, single-course style of thinking. It works according to principles of natural selection - method of trial and error. This style of thinking is the most natural one. It can successfully solve the problems of self-organization. It is stimulated by competition. The society it is often rejected due to its random, chaotic nature.
Quotes:
"My thinking is alike mucking about in puddles - randomized, but following some sort of direction. Playing some music, my head clicks together properly and thoughts come into focused torrents. I live in a world of organized chaos, headwise." - IEI.
"Sometimes the connections and perceptions in my mind are so abstract there are no words to explain. A lot of times I just know something and can’t explain it—a premonition that’s hard to articulate. If it’s strong I usually say something or explore where it’s coming from, but I will keep it to myself if people don’t seem to understand. Informed decisions require lots of information and looking at a situation from as many different points of view as possible. I find it amusing, the absurdity in everyday situations." - IEI.
"I love to deconstruct complex concepts, organize ideas, form conclusions or arguments by looking at it through several different lenses. I love that "Aha!" moment when everything clicks together for me." - IEI.
"To be blunt, I arrived at this typing out of gestalt. Since I know myself better than anybody else, and since I am the common denominator in all of my inter-type relations, my self typing becomes the focal point around my understanding of socionics coalesces. Imagining myself to be different types is akin to playing around with the focus on a pair of binoculars. Everything comes out blurry at all focal settings other than this one. At this point, everything snaps into focus and I am taken aback by how well socionics premises appear to jive with my own experiences. Every other focal setting produces a jumbled mess of incoherence from which nothing of value can be gleaned." - IEI.
"Vortex thinking believes the system is not perfectly counter balanced, and the connections of all the data imply the value of an unknown variable (all the information points toward its value). The value of the variable is what brings the system back into balance. That's why vortex thinking is opportunistic. Vortex thinking is searching for something." - IEI.
"You imply that nature intends something. That's just you projecting your own human notions unto something that's utterly inhuman in every way. There is no natural equilibrium, no balanced system that we're parts of. There is no thought behind it. Nature is purposeless, mindless, violent, self consuming chaos, only it's so slow we barely notice it. It does not "hint" and it does not "intend" us to reproduce. We're completely meaningless results of a 4 billion long, automatic and completely mindless process of small random changes and sifting by natural selection. Whatever purpose you see here is made up by you." - LIE.
"Sometimes the time gap in between Point A and Point B is so far in between that it allows me to think of all the things I could have improved upon to have a better point B (interestingly enough while this is happening my mind is also hovering over Point C). It's this point that I begin spiraling as the immensity of all the ways I could have made it better weighs on my shoulders. Somewhere in that chaos, the thought of "OMG I'm running out of time" crosses, until of course one settles. An epiphany hits and BAM you realize, "You're way ahead in time and all things are falling into place (not perfect as envisioned) but they are aligning as you've imagined." At this point, I think Point B is just about to meet you face-to-face at the exact moment you've predicted and Point C is already peaking over in the horizon." - LIE.
"For inspiration I look to those great players who consistently found original ways to shock their opponents. None did this better than the eighth world champion, Mikhail Tal. The "Magician of Riga" rose to become champion in 1960 at age twenty-three and became famous for his aggressive, volatile play." - LIE-Te
"Interviewer: You do mention in part of your book about the part of creativity is to do sort of the back-of-the-napkin sort of experiment. You just have an idea, you're not going to even make notes about it, you're not going to keep track of it, you're just going to try something.
Respondent: Yeah, glad you brought that up, Ira. I didn't use the expression, but I'm in it, and that's the value of dirty experiments. The image of doing good science, that is the popular, the public image, is the scientist conducting careful experiment after careful experiment, taking abundant notes - time of day, every condition used and making an advance into a subject. But the best way to do it is - to make discoveries - is to make short imperfect experiments. Don't worry about taking notes, in most cases, but just try things out. Shove nature around a little bit. Disturb it. Disturb an organism, disturb a small system and find out - to see if anything happens." - SLI.
"We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers - people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely." - SLI.
"Having spent a lifetime analyzing the game of chess and comparing the capacity of computers to the capacity of the human brain, I've often wondered, where does our success come from? The answer is synthesis, the ability to combine creativity and calculation, art and science, into a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. Chess is a unique cognitive nexus, a place where art and science come together in the human mind, and are then refined and improved by experience." - LIE-Te
Tim Harford's TED talk: http://tinyurl.com/5vegfyn - SLI. Presentation summary: "Economics writer Tim Harford studies complex systems — and finds a surprising link among the successful ones: they were built through trial and error. In this sparkling talk from TEDGlobal 2011, he asks us to embrace our randomness and start making better mistakes."
Possible example from a blog - https://randomgraphs.blogspot.com/20...-thinking.html
An MMO game incepted by a likely LIE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq2oxt7Nrxo
V-S section from Gulenko's article for reference:
Alan Watts (Te-LIE imo) explaining VS cognition:
Last edited by silke; 06-10-2017 at 10:02 AM.
There is no thing like cognition in Vortical-Synergetic cogition
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
It's in the moment strategic coping, and I love it. Certainly cognition.
I always wondered how ESEs fit into VS cognition and today I heard a guy I previously typed as ESE suddenly discuss his research about turbulent flows, which characteristics sounded pretty similar to the VS cognition articles out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulence
krieger:"recognition yes, but utilization in an impactful non-trivial sense is typically a break from the style. it is something vortex thinkers can do but vortex thinking can't. understand that distinction and you do fine."
That's a very confident statement ...without any proof.
I guess all the LIE everyone's always fawning over embarassingly throughout history are actually only impacting the world in a trivial sense--not to mention the SLI that keep everything running, and the IEI that have massive insights and along with the ESE keep everyone going....
good god. that you don't understand vortical cognition's workings or effects doesn't mean it has no impact on the course of human events.
I am this hypothetically. Uh. So I respond to whatever I see fit to respond to in whatever way I see fit as a response using whatever information I see, leading to myself copying others as needed.
People get angry and say they don't understand, when it's easy to parse through if you follow along the dotted line. I reuse bits of information to make it easier on people, but also try not to keep it too static, as that would be boring. It's because I need to keep thinking, and if I'm going 123 directly, I will miscount eventually. As such, I go 1. 23 123, 123. ECT. This is easiest for me.
It's chaotic, yes, and doesn't make sense, yes, but it is what it is. It took me a fairly long time to recognize I can count by grouping more efficiently than directly counting. IE, count 3, then 2, then 3, then count the 3s and 2s, then count another group of 3s and 2s, and so on and so forth. This is beginning to seem like homestuck stack calls.
Anyways, it made marching band really hard. You can't swap between right and left foot at will, and I would. I can explain it in not counting, but I think you get it.
My mind is otherwise incredibly orderly. I can pull any single thing at any time and hyperfocus on the implications of it with thought experiments. Like I just did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
An optimist - does not get discouraged under any circumstances. Life upheavals and stressful events only toughen him and make more confident. He likes to laugh and entertain people. Enters contact with someone by involving him with a humorous remark. His humor is often sly and contain hints and double meanings. Easily enters into arguments and bets, especially if he is challenged. When arguing his points is often ironic, ridicules the views of his opponent. His irritability and hot temper may be unpleasant to others. However, he himself is not perceptive of this and believes that he is simply exchanging opinions.
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=LIE_Profile_by_Gulenko
Going to bump this for discussion
Does anyone even fully get the Cognitive styles?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
4w5 sp/sx
