Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deleted Member 44" data-source="post: 34624" data-attributes="member: 44"><h2>Introduction</h2>From the standpoint of their structure, cognition in my opinion is most successfully modeled by combinations of these three dichotomies: Static–Dynamic, Positivism–Negativism, and Evolution–Involution. Why these?I came to understand this relationship in two ways. First, I noted that the most rapid and complete exchange of information occurs through Supervision rings, which are formed by these dichotomies. Second, finding Socionics analogies to other models of comprehending reality (worldviews) I found that information exchange in each of the four Supervision rings embodied fundamental forms of intellectual activity found across the history of established thought.If my conclusions are valid, then the mental activity of Supervision rings constitutes that which cognitive psychology typically refers to as styles (or forms) of cognition. A strict deductive proof of this theory is not my aim. Instead I will simply present the results obtained. Coming from the practice of consultation, teaching, and training work, inductive generalizations have more weight for me than the mathematical calculations so dear to the hearts of some Socionists.How do you determine that a person is actively thinking? Let us examine from the side. He first loses internal composure, then recovers it (he is using Static–Dynamic). First doubts, then confidently asserts something (he using Negativism–Positivism). First specifies concretely, then generalizes, moving from one logical level to another (a process controlled by the Involution–Evolution dichotomy as I will show below). Emotional coloring, judgment speed, following the present pattern (i.e. Logic/Ethics, Extro/Introversion, Rational/Irrational) all play their specific role here, of course. But the three dichotomies which unite Sociotypes into Supervision rings, exert a more noticeable impact on aggregate social intelligence in the form it has historically developed.I emphasize that in this article I will investigate the structural forms of cognition, not their content. My attention will not be directed on what a person thinks, but how they think. In other words, the subject of my discussion will be on the instrumental and technical aspects of thinking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deleted Member 44, post: 34624, member: 44"] [HEADING=1][B]Introduction[/B][/HEADING] [B] From the standpoint of their structure, cognition in my opinion is most successfully modeled by combinations of these three dichotomies: Static–Dynamic, Positivism–Negativism, and Evolution–Involution. Why these? I came to understand this relationship in two ways. First, I noted that the most rapid and complete exchange of information occurs through Supervision rings, which are formed by these dichotomies. Second, finding Socionics analogies to other models of comprehending reality (worldviews) I found that information exchange in each of the four Supervision rings embodied fundamental forms of intellectual activity found across the history of established thought. If my conclusions are valid, then the mental activity of Supervision rings constitutes that which cognitive psychology typically refers to as styles (or forms) of cognition. A strict deductive proof of this theory is not my aim. Instead I will simply present the results obtained. Coming from the practice of consultation, teaching, and training work, inductive generalizations have more weight for me than the mathematical calculations so dear to the hearts of some Socionists. How do you determine that a person is actively thinking? Let us examine from the side. He first loses internal composure, then recovers it (he is using Static–Dynamic). First doubts, then confidently asserts something (he using Negativism–Positivism). First specifies concretely, then generalizes, moving from one logical level to another (a process controlled by the Involution–Evolution dichotomy as I will show below). Emotional coloring, judgment speed, following the present pattern (i.e. Logic/Ethics, Extro/Introversion, Rational/Irrational) all play their specific role here, of course. But the three dichotomies which unite Sociotypes into Supervision rings, exert a more noticeable impact on aggregate social intelligence in the form it has historically developed. I emphasize that in this article I will investigate the structural forms of cognition, not their content. My attention will not be directed on what a person thinks, but [B]how[/B] they think. In other words, the subject of my discussion will be on the instrumental and technical aspects of thinking.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification