Twitter youtube Discord Contact us

Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deleted Member 44" data-source="post: 34625" data-attributes="member: 44"><h2>Causal-Determinist Cognition</h2>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.As Statics, their cognitive activity is stable and clear. As Evolutionary types, they think procedurally without overlooking parts and intermediate details. As Positivists, they aim towards singularly valid solutions.<h3>Intellectual Sphere</h3>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 &quot;because&quot;, &quot;therefore&quot;, &quot;consequently&quot; (causal conjunctions). 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, in the social sphere SEE calculates chains of material interests, in the humanitarian sphere subject to the same categorical imperative is EII.<h3>Social Sphere</h3>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 &quot;Discourse on the Method&quot;. Then it finally took shape in mathematical logic. 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.I will touch its advantages. First, it is perceived by society as the most authoritative, most convincing, and singularly correct. 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. However, the irrational SEE argues quite soundly, deriving one consequence from another, implying focus on the chain of events. 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.At the same time, Causal-Determinism has its drawbacks. It is primarily the most artificial and removed from the laws of functioning life. Its efficacy extends to the 'logical' formulation of already existing results, the construction of operating mechanisms, but not fundamentally new discoveries. The first dead end which formalization risks is scholasticism, 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. 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.<h3>Psychological Sphere</h3>Causal-Determinist cognition forges a mentality poorly protected from indoctrination, or in extreme cases, even brainwashing. 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, 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.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.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. 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.<h3>Scientific Sphere</h3>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. 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 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.<h2>Examples</h2>This is not a formal part of the article.This section contains examples of statements that have been collected over time from various sources and that possibly reflect and illustrate the workings of different cognitive styles.<h2>Examples</h2>This is not a formal part of the article.This section contains examples of statements that have been collected over time from various sources and that possibly reflect and illustrate the workings of different cognitive styles.<h3>Causal-Determinist Cognition (CD)</h3>LSI, SEE, ILE, EII<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I see flashes of instantaneous understanding of the cause and effect of every possible action I could take at that very moment, and I choose extremely quickly which one is the best choice.&quot; - LSI</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;There is like a flowchart in my mind. Every single possible if-then statement is recorded and stored in my brain and I have an amazing memory for it. My plans for the future can be written in C++ format if I wanted. (If I get this job, I will stay for 6 months. Else I will find a new job &amp; work on my real estate liscence simultaneously). When I was younger, interacting with people was a huge flowchart for me, because I had no emotional intelligence (and it is debatable if I still do). I would make a complete flowchart in my mind so I could control the interaction and know exactly how a person was going to react so I wouldn't get my feelings hurt. For example, I would plan an entire interaction in my mind, &quot;I'm going to say &quot;hi, how are you?&quot; her possible responses will be: nothing, something non-commital, and something engaging. If the person says nothing, I will try again and stop conversation if they don't respond. If the person says something non-committal, I'll leave. If the person says something engaging, I will start such-and-such topics of conversation with him or her: X, Y, Z.&quot; - LSI</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">How DA and CD thinking styles complement each other, described by ILE: &quot;The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing. DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution. So for function A(param X) {if X = b then Y else Z} DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable. By supply X, Y or Z is determined. I don't create if-then-else propositions. By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result.&quot;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;If one asks how one's mind works, he notices areas where it is (perhaps incorrectly) understood, that is, where one recognizes rules. One sees other areas where he lacks rules. One could fill this in by postulating chance or random activity. But this too, by another route, exposes the self to the same indignity of remote control. We resolve this unpleasant form of M** by postulating a third part, embodying a will or spirit or conscious agent. But there is no structure in this part; one can say nothing meaningful about it, because whenever a regularity is observed, its representation is transferred to the deterministic rule region. The will model is thus not formed from a legitimate need for a place to store definite information about one's self; it has the singular character of being forced into the model, willy-nilly, by formal but essentially content-free ideas of what the model must contain.&quot; - LSI or ILE</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I think here lies the problem with the system. There has been no consistent principle put forth in the past five years, of how the system actually works. Frankly I thought Socionics was a good theory until baseless arguments begin on how the system works.&quot; - LSI</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;This is why socionics is so confusing. For some people it means one thing, for another something else. There needs to be a set description with no chance for uncertainty.&quot; - LSI, (People of types with C-D style of thinking seem to experience the most difficulty learning socionics, perhaps because some of basic axioms of socionics have never been clearly stated. The high levels of ambiguity embedded in socionics present a challenge to C-D thinkers in attempting to grasp it. V. Gulenko has also made a comment that socionics is easier to grasp for Result types, which rely on VS or HP thinking styles.)</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deleted Member 44, post: 34625, member: 44"] [HEADING=1][B]Causal-Determinist Cognition[/B][/HEADING] [B]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 [I]ILE[/I], [I]LSI[/I], [I]SEE[/I], [I]EII[/I]. As Statics, their cognitive activity is stable and clear. As Evolutionary types, they think procedurally without overlooking parts and intermediate details. As Positivists, they aim towards singularly valid solutions. [HEADING=2]Intellectual Sphere[/HEADING] 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). The mental process consists in constructing chains of cause and effect, reducing explanations to [I]deterministic mechanisms[/I]. 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 [I]ILE[/I], in the managerial-administrative sphere is methodical [I]LSI[/I], in the social sphere [I]SEE[/I] calculates chains of material interests, in the humanitarian sphere subject to the same categorical imperative is [I]EII[/I]. [HEADING=2]Social Sphere[/HEADING] 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. 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. I will touch its advantages. First, it is perceived by society as the most authoritative, most convincing, and singularly correct. 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 [I]LSI[/I]. However, the irrational [I]SEE[/I] argues quite soundly, deriving one consequence from another, implying focus on the chain of events. 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. At the same time, Causal-Determinism has its drawbacks. It is primarily the most artificial and removed from the laws of functioning life. Its efficacy extends to the 'logical' formulation of already existing results, the construction of operating mechanisms, but not fundamentally new discoveries. The first dead end which formalization risks is scholasticism, 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. 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 [I]circulus vitiosus[/I]—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. [B][HEADING=2]Psychological Sphere[/HEADING] Causal-Determinist cognition forges a mentality poorly protected from indoctrination, or in extreme cases, even brainwashing. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. [HEADING=2]Scientific Sphere[/HEADING] 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. 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 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. [HEADING=1]Examples[/HEADING] This is not a formal part of the article. This section contains examples of statements that have been collected over time from various sources and that possibly reflect and illustrate the workings of different cognitive styles. [B][HEADING=1]Examples[/HEADING] This is not a formal part of the article. This section contains examples of statements that have been collected over time from various sources and that possibly reflect and illustrate the workings of different cognitive styles. [HEADING=2]Causal-Determinist Cognition (CD)[/HEADING] LSI, SEE, ILE, EII [LIST] [*]"I see flashes of instantaneous understanding of the cause and effect of every possible action I could take at that very moment, and I choose extremely quickly which one is the best choice." - LSI [*]"There is like a flowchart in my mind. Every single possible if-then statement is recorded and stored in my brain and I have an amazing memory for it. My plans for the future can be written in C++ format if I wanted. (If I get this job, I will stay for 6 months. Else I will find a new job & work on my real estate liscence simultaneously). When I was younger, interacting with people was a huge flowchart for me, because I had no emotional intelligence (and it is debatable if I still do). I would make a complete flowchart in my mind so I could control the interaction and know exactly how a person was going to react so I wouldn't get my feelings hurt. For example, I would plan an entire interaction in my mind, "I'm going to say "hi, how are you?" her possible responses will be: nothing, something non-commital, and something engaging. If the person says nothing, I will try again and stop conversation if they don't respond. If the person says something non-committal, I'll leave. If the person says something engaging, I will start such-and-such topics of conversation with him or her: X, Y, Z." - LSI [*]How DA and CD thinking styles complement each other, described by ILE: "The way I look at CD logic and DA thinking is that they form a state(static)-operator(dynamic) pairing. DA thinking provides the algorithmic form. CD logic provides the variable which determines the solution. So for function A(param X) {if X = b then Y else Z} DA thinking provides the algorithmic form while CD thinking provides the variable. By supply X, Y or Z is determined. I don't create if-then-else propositions. By supplying variables to pre-existing functions, I determine the singular result." [*]"If one asks how one's mind works, he notices areas where it is (perhaps incorrectly) understood, that is, where one recognizes rules. One sees other areas where he lacks rules. One could fill this in by postulating chance or random activity. But this too, by another route, exposes the self to the same indignity of remote control. We resolve this unpleasant form of M** by postulating a third part, embodying a will or spirit or conscious agent. But there is no structure in this part; one can say nothing meaningful about it, because whenever a regularity is observed, its representation is transferred to the deterministic rule region. The will model is thus not formed from a legitimate need for a place to store definite information about one's self; it has the singular character of being forced into the model, willy-nilly, by formal but essentially content-free ideas of what the model must contain." - LSI or ILE [*]"I think here lies the problem with the system. There has been no consistent principle put forth in the past five years, of how the system actually works. Frankly I thought Socionics was a good theory until baseless arguments begin on how the system works." - LSI [*]"This is why socionics is so confusing. For some people it means one thing, for another something else. There needs to be a set description with no chance for uncertainty." - LSI, (People of types with C-D style of thinking seem to experience the most difficulty learning socionics, perhaps because some of basic axioms of socionics have never been clearly stated. The high levels of ambiguity embedded in socionics present a challenge to C-D thinkers in attempting to grasp it. V. Gulenko has also made a comment that socionics is easier to grasp for Result types, which rely on VS or HP thinking styles.) [/LIST][/B][/B][/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification