• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Holographic Thinking

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
---
Location
Florida
I'm curious what INTPs think about this.

To make a very long story short, in Socionics there is something called cognitive or thinking styles that were developed on basis of rings of supervision (supervision is a type of intertype relationship that exists between certain types locked into a ring). This is the full article that describes 4 thinking styles, each assigned to four types.

Socionics TiNe type is called LII the analyst or INTj under that typology. This type is prescribed the Holographic-Panoramic thinking style and falls under dichotomies of Static, Result, Negativist.

Those of you who know you are LIIs or that you are very likely LIIs (which I think most INTPs would be) how well can you relate to this description? can you describe your thinking style in your own words?


...

Holographical-Panoramic Cognition

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, Holographers attain reliable precision of thought. 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.

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.

In this way, by mentally superimposing multiple projections of the same object, Holographists reach a holistic view. 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. 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.

Holographic cognition has a characteristic penetrating, skeletal-revealing, 'x-ray' nature. It unhesitatingly cuts away details and nuances, giving a coarsely generalized representation of the subject. 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.

SLE/ESTp 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. LII/INTj grasps the problem from opposite sides, mentally rotating the situation in three dimensions around its semantic axes. ESI/ISFj 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/ENFp detects the possible hidden motivations of a person, as if building their psychological 'hologram'.

The main advantages of Holographic cognition are as follows. First, it is multi-perspective. 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'. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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

Contemporary 'green' ideology is an epitomization of this cognitive form. 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, 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. In comparing the conditionability of an LSI/ISTj psyche to its Involutionary Mirror SLE/ESTp, observation shows that the degree of psychological resistance is much higher in the latter. 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.

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.

With reframing it is possible to see the familiar with fresh eyes. 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.

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.

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.

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.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
---
Location
California, USA
Why not post the other for comparison?
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
---
Location
California, USA
He did, just click the link. ;)

-Duxwing

viche wants members to review the posted material on this board which is only Holographic/LII/TiNe. Considering MBTI INTP TiNe may fall into either Socionics LII or ILI*, both should have been posted here for comparison.


But yeah, some of the more curious readers will likely follow the link.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 5:25 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
viche wants members to review the posted material on this board which is only Holographic/LII/TiNe. Considering INTP TiNe may fall into either Socionics LII or LII, both should have been posted here for comparison.

Ok, so do you want soup or soup with that? :D I agree, though, he could have done better.

But yeah, some of the more curious readers will likely follow the link.

I followed the link.

-Duxwing
 

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
---
Location
Florida
Why not post the other for comparison?
The whole article covering all 4 thinking styles is quite long, so I posted only the most relevant part of it and gave a link to the rest (because when people see huge WOTs being posted it dissuades them from reading any further).

Translating types by functions INTJs should have Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition, INFJs should have Vortical-Synergetic Cognition and INFPs should have Causal-Determinist Cognition which are described in other sections of that article.

I'm more interested in knowing if any INTPs relate to the above description? It's kind of difficult for me to understand so I was hoping someone could describe it in their own words.
 

Duxwing

I've Overcome Existential Despair
Local time
Today 5:25 AM
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
3,783
---
The whole article covering all 4 thinking styles is quite long, so I posted only the most relevant part of it and gave a link to the rest (because when people see huge WOTs being posted it dissuades them from reading any further).

Translating types by functions INTJs should have Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition, INFJs should have Vortical-Synergetic Cognition and INFPs should have Causal-Determinist Cognition which are described in other sections of that article.

I'm more interested in knowing if any INTPs relate to the above description? It's kind of difficult for me to understand so I was hoping someone could describe it in their own words.

The idea of an INTP's Holographic Thinking is that subject in question, be it a person, place, thing, event, action, or idea, is analyzed not from one but from many perspectives in order to create a holistic view. INTP's can shift things around in their heads quite easily (being Ti-doms, logical operations are slick and smooth) and therefore needn't use INTJ's axes or ESTP's front-back-side approach. Instead, INTP's model things in their heads and then examine them in different ways.

-Duxwing
 

joal0503

Psychedelic INTP
Local time
Today 10:25 AM
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
700
---

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
---
Location
Florida
The idea of an INTP's Holographic Thinking is that subject in question, be it a person, place, thing, event, action, or idea, is analyzed not from one but from many perspectives in order to create a holistic view. INTP's can shift things around in their heads quite easily (being Ti-doms, logical operations are slick and smooth) and therefore needn't use INTJ's axes or ESTP's front-back-side approach. Instead, INTP's model things in their heads and then examine them in different ways.

-Duxwing
Isn't that something attributed to Ni usually?
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Today 4:25 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
---
Location
Oklahoma
I don't give much credence to GobblyGook, that is models of thought that are not based upon the structure of the human brain.

One seems to describe Gestalt, a little studied/understood aspect of human cognition.

Piaget pointed out long ago that rotation of POV involved a critical mental state necessary for cognitive development.

For that matter, it seems as though some of Berne's concepts are being referenced, without crediting Transactional Analysis (?)

I wonder about these cultish schools of thought, such as socionomics, that invent jargon to describe well known phenomena instead of just using the terms originally coined?

This idea of esoteric enlightenment is just so passe, IMO

Besides, socionomics is just an idea that Issac Asimov based His Foundation series upon, is it not?

Or does the cult leader himself claim that as his own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Prechter
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
---
Location
California, USA
^ Socionics not Socionomics.
I'm more interested in knowing if any INTPs relate to the above description? It's kind of difficult for me to understand so I was hoping someone could describe it in their own words.

Even though there are certain sections of the article(and even other Socionics works) that seem surprisingly accurate, I have to agree with Da Blob, it's just gobbledygook at this point. Too much abstract perspective-shifting and speculation, not enough substantiation.

Though as for holographic thinking, I considered that it being holographic means it has a penetrative 3D vision/cognition, perceiving through layers of objects/situations and from different positions. I also considered similarity to a Rubik's cube.
 

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
---
Location
Florida
The idea of an INTP's Holographic Thinking is that subject in question, be it a person, place, thing, event, action, or idea, is analyzed not from one but from many perspectives in order to create a holistic view. INTP's can shift things around in their heads quite easily (being Ti-doms, logical operations are slick and smooth) and therefore needn't use INTJ's axes or ESTP's front-back-side approach. Instead, INTP's model things in their heads and then examine them in different ways.
What did you mean by "front-back-side" approach for ESTPs? According to that article they should have same thinking style as INTPs. So how does it differ?

To my knowledge, Ni picks one perspective and sticks to it.
ESTPs have Ni, so how can they have same thinking style as INTP and also only stick to one approach? I'm so confused now :(
 

Black Rose

An unbreakable bond
Local time
Today 3:25 AM
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,431
---
Location
with mama
What did you mean by "front-back-side" approach for ESTPs? According to that article they should have same thinking style as INTPs. So how does it differ?


ESTPs have Ni, so how can they have same thinking style as INTP and also only stick to one approach? I'm so confused now :(


Sociotypes possessing this form are SLE, LII, IEE, ESI (ESTp, INTj, ENFp, ISFj, respectively)

ESTp =/= ESTP
ESTp = ESTJ
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
---
Location
California, USA
ESTp =/= ESTP
ESTp = ESTJ
The letter types 'should' be the same between systems, for all being Jung inspired.
XXXX = XXXx

There is a systemic discrepancy though because MBTI considers perceiving/judging to be a separate dichotomy rather than something inherently determined by the functions. So to acknowledge the discrepancy, the lowercase is used.

To avoid confusion altogether, it's preferable to not equate them at all and just use Socionics' three letter code.


There is more information on the issue if you are interested:
Introduction into Socionics (draft): Part 3

Comparative Experiments and Their Results,
or Measuring the Difference between the Socionic and Keirsey Types
 

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
---
Location
Florida
The letter types 'should' be the same between systems, for all being Jung inspired.
XXXX = XXXx
The letters should not be same because Socionics uses rational-irrational dichotomy to assign j/p letters while MBTI uses judger-perceiver. Since they are applying different dichotomies for assignment of one of the letters of 4-letter codes, this already means that you cannot translate types directly.

There is a systemic discrepancy though because MBTI considers perceiving/judging to be a separate dichotomy rather than something inherently determined by the functions. So to acknowledge the discrepancy, the lowercase is used.
MBTI's judging-perceiving dichotomy is structurally the same thing as Socionics static-dynamic dichotomy. But it has nothing to do with Socionics rational-irrational hence all the hurdles people experience when translating their types.

To avoid confusion altogether, it's preferable to not equate them at all and just use Socionics' three letter code.
This is the best approach - do deermine your socionics type separately and not try to glue it into your MBTI type.
 

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
---
Location
Florida
bumping this thread for more feedback from INTPs - does this excerpt correlate to the way that you think?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 11:25 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
why do only 4 of the 8 thinking styles exist?

i think my best fit is: synthetic, negative, involutionary. but that's not allowed accordig to socionics dude due to some "reinin mathematics" which seems really arbitrary.

anyone care to explain?
 

Vion

Banned
Local time
Today 5:25 AM
Joined
Sep 24, 2012
Messages
94
---
Location
maryland
The post is too colorful and open ended, obviously a catch all trap that ends in a cliff hanger. One wonders whom would be the audience. The metaphors are a bit broken and misplaced as if stifled by legal restraint, certainly not extensible. The consistent blurting out of HOLOGRAM might be comically amusing to some, but I don't enjoy their company.

You might be onto something here, but hard to tell from such secondary sources.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
---
Location
California, USA
The post is too colorful and open ended, obviously a catch all trap that ends in a cliff hanger. One wonders whom would be the audience. The metaphors are a bit broken and misplaced as if stifled by legal restraint, certainly not extensible. The consistent blurting out of HOLOGRAM might be comically amusing to some, but I don't enjoy their company.

You might be onto something here, but hard to tell from such secondary sources.
The article was originally drafted in Russian and translated+modified by two unaffiliated forum members, I don't remember if they used Google translate.

why do only 4 of the 8 thinking styles exist?

i think my best fit is: synthetic, negative, involutionary. but that's not allowed accordig to socionics dude due to some "reinin mathematics" which seems really arbitrary.

anyone care to explain?

Why do you think that's your best fit?
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 11:25 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
i just went through the factors one by one as i am naive to these derivative dichotomies. i'm unsure about synthetic/analytic.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Today 12:25 AM
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,135
---
I remember reading this, but they are pretty abstract. Not sure I believe they are all that useful, but I prefer finding the conceptual structure to ideas like this, so I can feel like I've taken something from it.

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.

That said, this gave me the impression that a holographic thinker induces a structure to reality. I would argue this means a high degree of awareness of different axiomatic principles, because without a foundation for truth, there can be no basis for determining causation or for structuring an understanding of anything. And then by knowing the role different axioms can have in understanding something, a holographic thinker can hone in on the most accurate causes. I think the Eleventh Doctor of Doctor Who represents a holographic thinker, to give the best example I am aware of. Perhaps Avon from Blake's 7 as well.





But similarly as a comparison to the other styles of thought, I think causal-determinist thinking involves an adherence to axiomatic principles, instead of an awareness of the many different kinds like the holographic one. This makes people believe their line of reasoning is precise when it may be flawed. I think Ayn Rand fits this style of thinking pretty well. I'd also say the Daleks from Doctor Who represent this style of thinking.

Then you have vortical-synergetic, which is compared to Darwinism, whereby opportunity arises for people to take advantage of and thrive on. I think this thinking is more along the lines of thinking in terms of opportunities and doing what is concluded as best. Margaery Tyrell from Game of Thrones comes to mind. And perhaps Han Solo.

The one I like the most though is Dialectical-Algorithmic, probably because it's how I tend toward thinking. It's generally described as a focus on reconciling opposites and seeing what's left after doing so; it seems to be centered on looking through the surface of polarities, of the details of a thing, and finding a bigger picture. I think the example they used was Aristotle's idea of teleological purposes, whereby a seed's purpose is to grow into a tree, as one example. So one would look past how the seed is characterized and see it's inherent nature to become a tree. This gives the ability to forecast how something will be oriented towards becoming. I think Yoda is a good example of this kind of thinking. L from Death Note might be as well.



Of course, you probably don't strongly identify with one style of thinking, since we are unique individuals; so I identify with holographic and dialectical and I'm not sure it's helpful to try and pick one.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 11:25 AM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
---
you explained this better than the original article. less of the fluff vion pointed out.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,828
---
Location
California, USA
I find the component dichotomy descriptions more lucid than the overall thinking style descriptions. Synthetic vs Analytic is just Dynamic vs Static which you already know as JePi vs JiPe.

You read this part already?

Static–Dynamic Dichotomy

In general terms, this dichotomy refers to orientation towards either space (Static) or time (Dynamic). The categories of space and time are vital a priori concepts studied in detail by Immanuel Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason", contrasting them as extent and duration.
Statics depend more on space, Dynamics more on time. Filling space with objects characterizes Static behavior, whereas Dynamics saturate time with events. Statics cannot stand empty space—they immediately fill it with available items on hand. Dynamics cannot stand empty time—boredom, stagnation, prolonged states of the same condition. In a certain sense, Statics can be called people of place, Dynamics people of time.

Now consider this dichotomy on the individual levels of communication.

Intellectual Level

Statics tend towards fragmentary-analytic thinking; Dynamics tend towards associative-synthetic thinking.

Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. 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.

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. 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, 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. 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. 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). Thus, the discrete/continuous pairing has more to do with the Static–Dynamic dichotomy, than with otherwise customary Rationality/Irrationality. But then, what exactly is the latter? Irrationality indicates situationality (predominance of context over aim), while Rationality indicates regularity (predominance of aim over context).

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. Rapid transitions from a previous state into a new process of change itself—this is their customary life. Statics better sustain and continue what has already begun—that which is already in motion. They must be preliminarily excited.

However, in the Dynamic is a process of continuous readjustment of focus and 'drift' of purposes. Because of this, the priorities of Dynamics are volatile and poor in hierarchical coordination. 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. The strength of Dynamics is not in retaining goals, but in achieving them; they are better tacticians than strategists.

The objectives of Statics are more stable and reliable. They know what they want and are able to maintain long-term focus upon it. They arrange priorities in their life and work, with well-differentiated primary and secondary objectives that are rarely reversed. Statics are more successful strategists than tacticians; they know what to do much better than how to do it.

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.

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 and Dynamics as unbalanced.

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). The Dynamic wants total freedom but is more dependent on ambient environmental conditions and needs a solid foundation.

Statics possess a relatively autonomous psycho-emotional state; their mood is difficult to spoil, and equally difficult to raise. 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. Sometimes fusion of sensation is developed to such an extent that internal images appear indistinguishable from reality. For Statics, given the discreteness of their mental apparatus, regular synesthesia is usually a rare exception or the result of special training.

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. For Statics this tendency is uncharacteristic. Only with difficulty do they proceed with changes to their home environment to which they have become accustomed. They will do so only when it's easier to yield to circumstantial pressures, than to resist.

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.

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.
 

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today 2:25 AM
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
---
Location
Florida
That said, this gave me the impression that a holographic thinker induces a structure to reality. I would argue this means a high degree of awareness of different axiomatic principles, because without a foundation for truth, there can be no basis for determining causation or for structuring an understanding of anything. And then by knowing the role different axioms can have in understanding something, a holographic thinker can hone in on the most accurate causes. I think the Eleventh Doctor of Doctor Who represents a holographic thinker, to give the best example I am aware of. Perhaps Avon from Blake's 7 as well.

But similarly as a comparison to the other styles of thought, I think causal-determinist thinking involves an adherence to axiomatic principles, instead of an awareness of the many different kinds like the holographic one. This makes people believe their line of reasoning is precise when it may be flawed. I think Ayn Rand fits this style of thinking pretty well. I'd also say the Daleks from Doctor Who represent this style of thinking.

Then you have vortical-synergetic, which is compared to Darwinism, whereby opportunity arises for people to take advantage of and thrive on. I think this thinking is more along the lines of thinking in terms of opportunities and doing what is concluded as best. Margaery Tyrell from Game of Thrones comes to mind. And perhaps Han Solo.

The one I like the most though is Dialectical-Algorithmic, probably because it's how I tend toward thinking. It's generally described as a focus on reconciling opposites and seeing what's left after doing so; it seems to be centered on looking through the surface of polarities, of the details of a thing, and finding a bigger picture. I think the example they used was Aristotle's idea of teleological purposes, whereby a seed's purpose is to grow into a tree, as one example. So one would look past how the seed is characterized and see it's inherent nature to become a tree. This gives the ability to forecast how something will be oriented towards becoming. I think Yoda is a good example of this kind of thinking. L from Death Note might be as well.



Of course, you probably don't strongly identify with one style of thinking, since we are unique individuals; so I identify with holographic and dialectical and I'm not sure it's helpful to try and pick one.
Excellent recourse, wouldn't have it said it better myself.
 
Top Bottom