Twitter youtube Discord Contact us

Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deleted Member 44" data-source="post: 34626" data-attributes="member: 44">[USER=1]@KJ[/USER] <h2>Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition</h2>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.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.<h3>Intellectual Sphere</h3>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 &quot;if-then-else&quot;, 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.Its advantages are obvious: it is the most subtle and flexible style. It can easily switch to an opposite direction, 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.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. The main role is played by a program, the intention of the creator. Thus, it can be considered teleological, and hence the most 'religious' in its essential thinking. Many scholars of this type sooner or later come to faith (not necessarily a church confessional).<h3>Social Sphere</h3>Historically, the first representative of a Dialectical worldview would be Heraclitus. Epitomizing the Dynamic dichotomy, he was of the opinion that &quot;you cannot enter the same river twice&quot; because whenever you enter again, the flow is already of different water. 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.Two of its representatives—EIE and ILI—are usually recognized in society as the most intellectual types. They form the backbone of intellectual elites, expert clubs, esoteric groups, etc. They are the best computer programmers, knowing better than other types how to work with moving structures—algorithms. Algorithmic diagrams consist of blocks and arrows showing the order of transitions, branches, and loop cycles. The crux of a program is its dynamic structure—pointers, rather than blocks. The formula &quot;if-then-else&quot; is, in essence, the core of any algorithm.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, plunging them into danger of total detachment from reality, and leading to mental disorders, especially in cases of hereditary predisposition.<h3>Psychological Sphere</h3>The psyche of Dialectical types is most prone to transformations. From a psychological point of view, an unstable oscillating psyche is fertile ground for suggestibility. 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. 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 Sociotype has a very suitable psyche for suggestive influence. It is characterized by so-called moments of imprint vulnerability. 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. Exploiting this paradoxical nature of Dialectical types, shock therapy is capable of completely reprogramming their conception of reality, including core value judgments.A certain, although rare sign of Dialectical cognition—accidents that lead to states similar to a deep trance or coma, 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.<h3>Scientific Sphere</h3>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. 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.Contemporary British mathematician Roger Penrose has suggested that the human brain uses quantum gravity as a means for intuitive insight. He's written several books (&quot;The Emperor's New Mind&quot; and &quot;Shadows of the Mind&quot;) 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. 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.<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>Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition (DA)</h3>EIE, ILI, SEI, LSE<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;But I do think in complications and contingencies, and balance a lot of conflicting possibilities in my mind all at once.&quot; - EIE</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;... my thinking style mostly consists of balancing opposites, finding middle grounds and relative truths based on the relative strength of opposing internal dispositions; when I'm under stress it kind of feels like I'm walking a tight rope, trying to balance what's going on in my head. To me it feels like a constant balancing act of my own internal tendencies for the things that I consider good and evil, the things I consciously do to improve myself and the world and my ability to promote my own vision of how I think things should be vs. the evils I am compelled to do either by my own impulses that I struggle to control or by circumstance. Everything I do is weighed on these scales, every word that comes out of my mouth, every emotional signal I send, every action I take, and the final outcome, what comes out of me and goes into the world, is dependent on how the scales are balancing inside me.&quot; - EIE</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I have a horrible talent for entertaining and enhancing oppositions in my mind. If two things don't go together, I put them together in my perceptions. And I get paralyzed or something. I'm basically nuts. It's that I really see how a thing and its opposite fit together, locked up. And that can bring me a huge amount of pleasure, to see that. The downside seems to be that I can't ... um, function. These are gestalts. And so a good friend will come in with a nice hammer and start breaking it into pieces.&quot; - EIE</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;The best I can represent it as would be something like a scale that has weight being constantly poured onto it, and the ENFJ's role is to dictate where the weight falls in order to maintain proper balance. I think it makes a lot of sense for Aristocratic EJs: rational aristocracy is all about maintaining a social structure, so its fitting that the Ejs have a style of thinking that supports their role, one focused on &quot;keeping things together.&quot; The mental assumption of Ej temperament is that everything is in motion, and that it should be organized, and that energy needs to be exerted in order to maintain organization; the Democrat Ejs (ENTjs) being the transition point to aristocratic quadras, take a more generative role with Vortex thinking, finding the right opportunity to promote cathectic action; once the shift is made into an extant collective, the Aristocratic Ejs (ENFjs) take on the role of holding everything together once the opportunity to organize has been capitalized upon.&quot; - EIE</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I wanted to set up a situation where there are hundreds of sentences all of which are plausibly true to someone, but then in effect pose the question &quot;what do you do, how, for example, would you govern given all these conflicting opinions?&quot; - LSE, aristocratic EJ</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I feel like a triple-agent or a fence-sitter. ... I don't think I switch sides so much as I'm thoroughly a part of both sides. In the final battle, my friend and I will just be hitting ourselves.&quot; - LSE</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;All that we identify with in reality was all brought about by the psychic current of introversion. Extraversion is like a contra-density, a force of expansion and inflation that prevents the complete nullification of all ideas and concepts, and the collapse of all psychic energy in the universe into recursive introversion. It is the mirror image of introversion in every respect, and has to be in order to function as a perfect eternal balance giving rise to infinite truths in infinite forms.&quot; - ILI</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;It's challenging being a wife and a mother. It's a paradox - a paradox are when two opposites are true, and I've learned that my life is full of mini-paradoxes, of much paradox. So being a wife and a mother is probably one of the most extraordinary experiences and the most fulfilling experiences in my life. But at the same time, it has been very difficult to balance, being able to do the things that I want to do and have the freedoms that I want to have, and also being responsible for your brothers and your father. I’m constantly everyday trying to figure out that balance. Figuring out how to help you fulfill your dreams, at the same time assisting Daddy and his dreams, assisting your brothers and their dreams and then trying to figure out what my dreams are. So every day when I wake up in the morning and I go into meditation and I ask for guidance. I get focused.&quot; - ILI</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;It's challenging being a wife and a mother. It's a paradox - a paradox are when two opposites are true, and I've learned that my life is full of mini-paradoxes, of much paradox. So being a wife and a mother is probably one of the most extraordinary experiences and the most fulfilling experiences in my life. But at the same time, it has been very difficult to balance, being able to do the things that I want to do and have the freedoms that I want to have, and also being responsible for your brothers and your father. I’m constantly everyday trying to figure out that balance. Figuring out how to help you fulfill your dreams, at the same time assisting Daddy and his dreams, assisting your brothers and their dreams and then trying to figure out what my dreams are. So every day when I wake up in the morning and I go into meditation and I ask for guidance. I get focused.&quot; - ILI</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I tend to view myself in terms of certain attributes. Like for example, I'm intelligent, foolish, amiable, distant, novelty-loving, rut-oriented, independent, afraid of losing people, savor the moment, and am pretty indolent. I have my moments, both ways. Sometimes at the same time!&quot; - SEI (notice the juxtaposition of the opposites)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I suppose what I meant by grouping all these people in one thread is that I think although they're not the same type. Juxtaposing clearly different individuals side by side helps me to see the psychology of them. That's probably super obvious to everyone but me, but for some reason last night this was like a lame epiphany since usually when I think of someone's type I think of them alone, like an island, or something.&quot; - SEI</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"><a href="http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html" target="_blank">Tao Te Ching</a> by Lao-tzu exemplifies D-A thinking style. Notice the juxtaposition of the opposites and numerous negativist, dynamic constructions. The verses have a distinct back-and-forth rocking style.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">&quot;I'm not raging against socionics, do not see a point in that in the first place. To me, it is the same, people who are against and people who are for, same boat, different opinion but still same boat. If it wasn't some other scenario, those people wouldn't be even here and just said &quot;meh&quot;, and left. So they're a part of the whole to me, a cog, thinking they're going to tinker with it and it is going to sink. Well, true believers just tighten the screws seeing that and balance is achieved. So you all can rage all you want, for and against, for you all are wearing shackles that you put on yourself willingly and enjoy it. For example: Subject A: Socionics is bullshit, Subject B: Socionics is real: A+B = Socionics. Classic push and pull. - LSE</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deleted Member 44, post: 34626, member: 44"] [USER=1]@KJ[/USER] [HEADING=1][B]Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition[/B][/HEADING] [B]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 [I]EIE[/I], [I]ILI[/I], [I]LSE[/I], [I]SEI[/I]. 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. [HEADING=2]Intellectual Sphere[/HEADING] 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. Its advantages are obvious: it is the most [I]subtle and flexible[/I] style. It can easily switch to an opposite direction, and possesses [I]predictive ability[/I], 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. According to Aristotle, Dialecticals prognostic thinking explains reality on the basis of [I]purposive[/I] causes. For example, the cause of a sculpture is an idea of it in the head of the sculptor. The main role is played by a program, the intention of the creator. Thus, it can be considered teleological, and hence the most 'religious' in its essential thinking. Many scholars of this type sooner or later come to faith (not necessarily a church confessional). [HEADING=2]Social Sphere[/HEADING] Historically, the first representative of a Dialectical worldview would be Heraclitus. Epitomizing the Dynamic dichotomy, 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. 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. Two of its representatives—[I]EIE[/I] and [I]ILI[/I]—are usually recognized in society as the most intellectual types. They form the backbone of intellectual elites, expert clubs, esoteric groups, etc. They are the best computer programmers, knowing better than other types how to work with moving structures—algorithms. Algorithmic diagrams consist of blocks and arrows showing the order of transitions, branches, and loop cycles. 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. 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, plunging them into danger of total detachment from reality, and leading to mental disorders, especially in cases of hereditary predisposition. [B][HEADING=2]Psychological Sphere[/HEADING] The psyche of Dialectical types is most prone to transformations. From a psychological point of view, an unstable oscillating psyche is fertile ground for suggestibility. 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. 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 [I]EIE[/I] Sociotype has a very suitable psyche for suggestive influence. It is characterized by so-called moments of imprint vulnerability. 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. Exploiting this paradoxical nature of Dialectical types, shock therapy is capable of completely reprogramming their conception of reality, including core value judgments. A certain, although rare sign of Dialectical cognition—accidents that lead to states similar to a deep trance or coma, 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. [HEADING=2]Scientific Sphere[/HEADING] 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. 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. Contemporary British mathematician Roger Penrose has suggested that the human brain uses quantum gravity as a means for intuitive insight. 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. 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. [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][B]Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition (DA)[/B][/HEADING] EIE, ILI, SEI, LSE [LIST] [*]"But I do think in complications and contingencies, and balance a lot of conflicting possibilities in my mind all at once." - EIE [*]"... my thinking style mostly consists of balancing opposites, finding middle grounds and relative truths based on the relative strength of opposing internal dispositions; when I'm under stress it kind of feels like I'm walking a tight rope, trying to balance what's going on in my head. To me it feels like a constant balancing act of my own internal tendencies for the things that I consider good and evil, the things I consciously do to improve myself and the world and my ability to promote my own vision of how I think things should be vs. the evils I am compelled to do either by my own impulses that I struggle to control or by circumstance. Everything I do is weighed on these scales, every word that comes out of my mouth, every emotional signal I send, every action I take, and the final outcome, what comes out of me and goes into the world, is dependent on how the scales are balancing inside me." - EIE [*]"I have a horrible talent for entertaining and enhancing oppositions in my mind. If two things don't go together, I put them together in my perceptions. And I get paralyzed or something. I'm basically nuts. It's that I really see how a thing and its opposite fit together, locked up. And that can bring me a huge amount of pleasure, to see that. The downside seems to be that I can't ... um, function. These are gestalts. And so a good friend will come in with a nice hammer and start breaking it into pieces." - EIE [*]"The best I can represent it as would be something like a scale that has weight being constantly poured onto it, and the ENFJ's role is to dictate where the weight falls in order to maintain proper balance. I think it makes a lot of sense for Aristocratic EJs: rational aristocracy is all about maintaining a social structure, so its fitting that the Ejs have a style of thinking that supports their role, one focused on "keeping things together." The mental assumption of Ej temperament is that everything is in motion, and that it should be organized, and that energy needs to be exerted in order to maintain organization; the Democrat Ejs (ENTjs) being the transition point to aristocratic quadras, take a more generative role with Vortex thinking, finding the right opportunity to promote cathectic action; once the shift is made into an extant collective, the Aristocratic Ejs (ENFjs) take on the role of holding everything together once the opportunity to organize has been capitalized upon." - EIE [*]"I wanted to set up a situation where there are hundreds of sentences all of which are plausibly true to someone, but then in effect pose the question "what do you do, how, for example, would you govern given all these conflicting opinions?" - LSE, aristocratic EJ [*]"I feel like a triple-agent or a fence-sitter. ... I don't think I switch sides so much as I'm thoroughly a part of both sides. In the final battle, my friend and I will just be hitting ourselves." - LSE [*]"All that we identify with in reality was all brought about by the psychic current of introversion. Extraversion is like a contra-density, a force of expansion and inflation that prevents the complete nullification of all ideas and concepts, and the collapse of all psychic energy in the universe into recursive introversion. It is the mirror image of introversion in every respect, and has to be in order to function as a perfect eternal balance giving rise to infinite truths in infinite forms." - ILI [*]"It's challenging being a wife and a mother. It's a paradox - a paradox are when two opposites are true, and I've learned that my life is full of mini-paradoxes, of much paradox. So being a wife and a mother is probably one of the most extraordinary experiences and the most fulfilling experiences in my life. But at the same time, it has been very difficult to balance, being able to do the things that I want to do and have the freedoms that I want to have, and also being responsible for your brothers and your father. I’m constantly everyday trying to figure out that balance. Figuring out how to help you fulfill your dreams, at the same time assisting Daddy and his dreams, assisting your brothers and their dreams and then trying to figure out what my dreams are. So every day when I wake up in the morning and I go into meditation and I ask for guidance. I get focused." - ILI [/LIST] [LIST] [*]"It's challenging being a wife and a mother. It's a paradox - a paradox are when two opposites are true, and I've learned that my life is full of mini-paradoxes, of much paradox. So being a wife and a mother is probably one of the most extraordinary experiences and the most fulfilling experiences in my life. But at the same time, it has been very difficult to balance, being able to do the things that I want to do and have the freedoms that I want to have, and also being responsible for your brothers and your father. I’m constantly everyday trying to figure out that balance. Figuring out how to help you fulfill your dreams, at the same time assisting Daddy and his dreams, assisting your brothers and their dreams and then trying to figure out what my dreams are. So every day when I wake up in the morning and I go into meditation and I ask for guidance. I get focused." - ILI [*]"I tend to view myself in terms of certain attributes. Like for example, I'm intelligent, foolish, amiable, distant, novelty-loving, rut-oriented, independent, afraid of losing people, savor the moment, and am pretty indolent. I have my moments, both ways. Sometimes at the same time!" - SEI (notice the juxtaposition of the opposites) [*]"I suppose what I meant by grouping all these people in one thread is that I think although they're not the same type. Juxtaposing clearly different individuals side by side helps me to see the psychology of them. That's probably super obvious to everyone but me, but for some reason last night this was like a lame epiphany since usually when I think of someone's type I think of them alone, like an island, or something." - SEI [*]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." [*][URL='http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html']Tao Te Ching[/URL] by Lao-tzu exemplifies D-A thinking style. Notice the juxtaposition of the opposites and numerous negativist, dynamic constructions. The verses have a distinct back-and-forth rocking style. [*]"I'm not raging against socionics, do not see a point in that in the first place. To me, it is the same, people who are against and people who are for, same boat, different opinion but still same boat. If it wasn't some other scenario, those people wouldn't be even here and just said "meh", and left. So they're a part of the whole to me, a cog, thinking they're going to tinker with it and it is going to sink. Well, true believers just tighten the screws seeing that and balance is achieved. So you all can rage all you want, for and against, for you all are wearing shackles that you put on yourself willingly and enjoy it. For example: Subject A: Socionics is bullshit, Subject B: Socionics is real: A+B = Socionics. Classic push and pull. - LSE [/LIST][/B][/B][/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification