Typh0n
clever fool
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2013
- Messages
- 3,497
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion
I wonder if anyone has heard of these.
The four styles are:
Casual-Determinist cognition - SEE, EII, ILE, LSI
Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition - SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE
Holographic-Panaramic cognition - SLE, LII, IEE, ESI
Vortical-Synergetic cognition - LIE, IEI, ESE, SLI
What is your type, and do you identify with your style? I am LIE, so I should identify with Vortical-Synergetic. While the article is kind of wordy and abstract, I find the style fits better than the alternate style, Dialectical-Algorithmic would, if I were ILI (the other type I sometimes consider for myself). I relate to his description of dynamics and positivists, the part about positivists being attracted to their opposites in groups as opposed to negativists who are attracted to similar people. The author says, negativists are polarizing, and positivists remove polarities. I see myself more as positivist, the description of dynamic totally fits me too but I was pretty sure about that to begin with. So positive plus dynamic is Vortical cognition...
This part of the article struck me as especially important (under conclusion):
Thoughts?
I wonder if anyone has heard of these.
The four styles are:
Casual-Determinist cognition - SEE, EII, ILE, LSI
Dialectical-Algorithmic cognition - SEI, EIE, ILI, LSE
Holographic-Panaramic cognition - SLE, LII, IEE, ESI
Vortical-Synergetic cognition - LIE, IEI, ESE, SLI
What is your type, and do you identify with your style? I am LIE, so I should identify with Vortical-Synergetic. While the article is kind of wordy and abstract, I find the style fits better than the alternate style, Dialectical-Algorithmic would, if I were ILI (the other type I sometimes consider for myself). I relate to his description of dynamics and positivists, the part about positivists being attracted to their opposites in groups as opposed to negativists who are attracted to similar people. The author says, negativists are polarizing, and positivists remove polarities. I see myself more as positivist, the description of dynamic totally fits me too but I was pretty sure about that to begin with. So positive plus dynamic is Vortical cognition...
This part of the article struck me as especially important (under conclusion):
Your thoughts will only firmly and without distortion penetrate public consciousness if your quartet learns your POV. They indeed think in the same form as you, but refract it through different kinds of activity. Only after passing through all the regular stages—from inception to development, debugging, and implementation—can an idea be fully ushered into reality. No need to confine to quadra limits. Real propagation occurs through the Supervision ring. Quadra is important, but only a way-station along this path.
Thoughts?