| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
das.energi
Advanced Member
Joined: 31 May 2009
Posts: 50
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:35 am Post subject: Cognitive Styles |
 |
|
This topic has probably been done and redone to the point of redundancy but I hope you guys have some patience stored up for me 
Anyways, the point of this topic is that Im wondering what my cognitive style is. I tried to take the test but Firefox crashes every time I try (as does safari and explorer  ). I did my best to figure out my type through comparing styles but there is no comparison test for contributor/facilitator, and those are the two types that have seemed to prevail for me. Does anyone have any suggestions they'd like to throw my way?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
internal dialogue
Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:54 am Post subject: Re: Cognitive Styles |
|
|
| das.energi wrote: | This topic has probably been done and redone to the point of redundancy but I hope you guys have some patience stored up for me
Anyways, the point of this topic is that Im wondering what my cognitive style is. I tried to take the test but Firefox crashes every time I try (as does safari and explorer ). I did my best to figure out my type through comparing styles but there is no comparison test for contributor/facilitator, and those are the two types that have seemed to prevail for me. Does anyone have any suggestions they'd like to throw my way?
|
Prolly a combo of Buddhism, both Zen and Mahayana, with a touch of Nicherism. A Spirit warrior of the highest order, I am thinking. possibly a female Bodhisattva/Buddha. Also, you can try Google Chrome.
http://www.google.com/chrome
_________________
If you can't see my beauty, I must be invisible Wooo! Invisible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internal dialogue
Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
ack! I almost forgot to say that you are both a contributer and a facilitator, and these truths I hold to be self evident!
_________________
If you can't see my beauty, I must be invisible Wooo! Invisible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
das.energi
Advanced Member
Joined: 31 May 2009
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: Re: Cognitive Styles |
|
|
| internal dialogue wrote: |
Prolly a combo of Buddhism, both Zen and Mahayana, with a touch of Nicherism. A Spirit warrior of the highest order, I am thinking. possibly a female Bodhisattva/Buddha. Also, you can try Google Chrome.
http://www.google.com/chrome |
You know, I've always had a large interest in Buddhism and have often been told that my spiritual outlook is similar to that of a Mahayana Buddhist so it's interesting you should mention that. Like I mentioned before though, I dont know where I stand spiritually in the present. I guess that only time will tell
Im not at all familiar with Nicherism though, care to fill me in?
Also, both facilitator and contributor? you think so? I dont know much about these types as I only recently became aware of them, I got the impression that a person was either one type or another. I'll take both though 
Side note: Lovin Google Chrome, it's super sleek! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Annabel_Lee
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Posts: 1051
Location: A kingdom by the sea
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey das, you need to be able you pin your motivations in order to differentiate between the two. They don't have a direct comparison for Facilitators and Contributors because the types themselves are different enough to not be easily confused. And unfortunately, within the model, you've got to pick just one because it promises to present to you exactly the way you think.
It's certainly worth reading both descriptions and trying to identify what hits the way the you reason.
Contributor: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508012713/209.87.142.42/y/p/c18.htm
Facilitator: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508013953/209.87.142.42/y/p/f23.htm
One of the key differences that helped me out while going over the material was considering how the Contributer and Facilitator deal with issues of optimization and principles.
The Facilitator begins with a general understanding of underlying principles (of an issue, an argument, a problem, etc.) [this is the Facilitator operating through the Perceiver circles of reasonableness], and then finetunes them for an optimum fit based on the given issue/scenario/problem. Scan principles first, then optimize to whatever coheres.
In contrast, the Contributor will begin with the premise of optimization, effectiveness and success with regards to a particular point in an issue/argument/scenario. The Contributor visualizes things in motion [reasoning through the Server loop]. He'll decide what works first and then defend it like a fundamental principle. Optimize first, then narrow in to the optimal principle.
Ironically, in arguments, the Contributor will appear to be more principled (because he'll rigorously defend the principle he has already known to be optimal). However, the Facilitator will appear a little more flexible (as his understanding of what is optimal is based on a broader view first).
_________________
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet" -Samuel Beckett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internal dialogue
Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | Hey das, you need to be able you pin your motivations in order to differentiate between the two. They don't have a direct comparison for Facilitators and Contributors because the types themselves are different enough to not be easily confused. And unfortunately, within the model, you've got to pick just one because it promises to present to you exactly the way you think.
It's certainly worth reading both descriptions and trying to identify what hits the way the you reason.
Contributor: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508012713/209.87.142.42/y/p/c18.htm
Facilitator: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508013953/209.87.142.42/y/p/f23.htm
One of the key differences that helped me out while going over the material was considering how the Contributer and Facilitator deal with issues of optimization and principles.
The Facilitator begins with a general understanding of underlying principles (of an issue, an argument, a problem, etc.) [this is the Facilitator operating through the Perceiver circles of reasonableness], and then finetunes them for an optimum fit based on the given issue/scenario/problem. Scan principles first, then optimize to whatever coheres.
In contrast, the Contributor will begin with the premise of optimization, effectiveness and success with regards to a particular point in an issue/argument/scenario. The Contributor visualizes things in motion [reasoning through the Server loop]. He'll decide what works first and then defend it like a fundamental principle. Optimize first, then narrow in to the optimal principle.
Ironically, in arguments, the Contributor will appear to be more principled (because he'll rigorously defend the principle he has already known to be optimal). However, the Facilitator will appear a little more flexible (as his understanding of what is optimal is based on a broader view first). |
I took a quick look at the links, but I don't get into that at all. It's so technical and the problem can be that it can have the effect of creating too strict of paradigms, whereas I am more concerned to be mentally open and free of being too bound by my paradigms.
That said, it still seems to me that your post with it's links was designed BOTH to facilitate (help and make easier) AND to contribute. I really see these words as being mutually complementary.
_________________
If you can't see my beauty, I must be invisible Wooo! Invisible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internal dialogue
Member
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 25
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Cognitive Styles |
|
|
| das.energi wrote: | | internal dialogue wrote: |
Prolly a combo of Buddhism, both Zen and Mahayana, with a touch of Nicherism. A Spirit warrior of the highest order, I am thinking. possibly a female Bodhisattva/Buddha. Also, you can try Google Chrome.
http://www.google.com/chrome |
You know, I've always had a large interest in Buddhism and have often been told that my spiritual outlook is similar to that of a Mahayana Buddhist so it's interesting you should mention that. Like I mentioned before though, I dont know where I stand spiritually in the present. I guess that only time will tell
Im not at all familiar with Nicherism though, care to fill me in?
Also, both facilitator and contributor? you think so? I dont know much about these types as I only recently became aware of them, I got the impression that a person was either one type or another. I'll take both though
Side note: Lovin Google Chrome, it's super sleek! |
Yeah, Chrome is really quick, and if you don't want a homepage, you can have it start up in a blank page. The only thing I don't like too much is the download manager so I usually use Firefox if I want to download.
Hmmm' I tried to google Nicheren but all I found was a link to our conversation here!  Maybe I am spelling it incorrectly? Well anyways, it's pretty popular in Japan, and is mostly based around the scripture called the White Lotus of the true law. Now that I rethink, you are more Mahayana, which is like me too. However, I am also interested by "Pure Land" Buddhism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land It's in tune with Mahayana as far as I know.
_________________
If you can't see my beauty, I must be invisible Wooo! Invisible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| internal dialogue wrote: | | Annabel_Lee wrote: | Hey das, you need to be able you pin your motivations in order to differentiate between the two. They don't have a direct comparison for Facilitators and Contributors because the types themselves are different enough to not be easily confused. And unfortunately, within the model, you've got to pick just one because it promises to present to you exactly the way you think.
It's certainly worth reading both descriptions and trying to identify what hits the way the you reason.
Contributor: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508012713/209.87.142.42/y/p/c18.htm
Facilitator: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508013953/209.87.142.42/y/p/f23.htm
One of the key differences that helped me out while going over the material was considering how the Contributer and Facilitator deal with issues of optimization and principles.
The Facilitator begins with a general understanding of underlying principles (of an issue, an argument, a problem, etc.) [this is the Facilitator operating through the Perceiver circles of reasonableness], and then finetunes them for an optimum fit based on the given issue/scenario/problem. Scan principles first, then optimize to whatever coheres.
In contrast, the Contributor will begin with the premise of optimization, effectiveness and success with regards to a particular point in an issue/argument/scenario. The Contributor visualizes things in motion [reasoning through the Server loop]. He'll decide what works first and then defend it like a fundamental principle. Optimize first, then narrow in to the optimal principle.
Ironically, in arguments, the Contributor will appear to be more principled (because he'll rigorously defend the principle he has already known to be optimal). However, the Facilitator will appear a little more flexible (as his understanding of what is optimal is based on a broader view first). |
I took a quick look at the links, but I don't get into that at all. It's so technical and the problem can be that it can have the effect of creating too strict of paradigms, whereas I am more concerned to be mentally open and free of being too bound by my paradigms.
That said, it still seems to me that your post with it's links was designed BOTH to facilitate (help and make easier) AND to contribute. I really see these words as being mutually complementary. |
The words are titles of traits, not actions one must undertake to be of that type. Those words in colloquial english are often very complimentary and attainable in tandem. However, Cognitve styles defines the words as groupings of traits and theories of mental functioning.
You don't play tennis and hit the ball with a loud noise.
EDIT: Well put, annabelly.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
das.energi
Advanced Member
Joined: 31 May 2009
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | | Hey das, you need to be able you pin your motivations in order to differentiate between the two. They don't have a direct comparison for Facilitators and Contributors because the types themselves are different enough to not be easily confused. And unfortunately, within the model, you've got to pick just one because it promises to present to you exactly the way you think. |
Hahahaha ugh, I would be one to confuse them. Immma champ 
| Quote: |
It's certainly worth reading both descriptions and trying to identify what hits the way the you reason.
Contributor: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508012713/209.87.142.42/y/p/c18.htm
Facilitator: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508013953/209.87.142.42/y/p/f23.htm
One of the key differences that helped me out while going over the material was considering how the Contributer and Facilitator deal with issues of optimization and principles.
The Facilitator begins with a general understanding of underlying principles (of an issue, an argument, a problem, etc.) [this is the Facilitator operating through the Perceiver circles of reasonableness], and then finetunes them for an optimum fit based on the given issue/scenario/problem. Scan principles first, then optimize to whatever coheres.
In contrast, the Contributor will begin with the premise of optimization, effectiveness and success with regards to a particular point in an issue/argument/scenario. The Contributor visualizes things in motion [reasoning through the Server loop]. He'll decide what works first and then defend it like a fundamental principle. Optimize first, then narrow in to the optimal principle.
Ironically, in arguments, the Contributor will appear to be more principled (because he'll rigorously defend the principle he has already known to be optimal). However, the Facilitator will appear a little more flexible (as his understanding of what is optimal is based on a broader view first). |
That was really helpful. Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BorisBadenov
Newbie
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Annabel_Lee wrote: | Hey das, you need to be able you pin your motivations in order to differentiate between the two. They don't have a direct comparison for Facilitators and Contributors because the types themselves are different enough to not be easily confused. And unfortunately, within the model, you've got to pick just one because it promises to present to you exactly the way you think.
It's certainly worth reading both descriptions and trying to identify what hits the way the you reason.
Contributor: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508012713/209.87.142.42/y/p/c18.htm
Facilitator: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508013953/209.87.142.42/y/p/f23.htm
One of the key differences that helped me out while going over the material was considering how the Contributer and Facilitator deal with issues of optimization and principles.
The Facilitator begins with a general understanding of underlying principles (of an issue, an argument, a problem, etc.) [this is the Facilitator operating through the Perceiver circles of reasonableness], and then finetunes them for an optimum fit based on the given issue/scenario/problem. Scan principles first, then optimize to whatever coheres.
In contrast, the Contributor will begin with the premise of optimization, effectiveness and success with regards to a particular point in an issue/argument/scenario. The Contributor visualizes things in motion [reasoning through the Server loop]. He'll decide what works first and then defend it like a fundamental principle. Optimize first, then narrow in to the optimal principle.
Ironically, in arguments, the Contributor will appear to be more principled (because he'll rigorously defend the principle he has already known to be optimal). However, the Facilitator will appear a little more flexible (as his understanding of what is optimal is based on a broader view first). |
Don't you see what is "bad" about this? It's like you either are this or that but you can't be both? It's so segregationalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
das.energi
Advanced Member
Joined: 31 May 2009
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I thought it was bad I wouldn't have interest in it, would I?
Ya know, some people find comfort in order. You will be faced with segregation whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Physically you cannot be in two places at once now can ya? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BorisBadenov
Newbie
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| das.energi wrote: | If I thought it was bad I wouldn't have interest in it, would I?
Ya know, some people find comfort in order. You will be faced with segregation whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Physically you cannot be in two places at once now can ya? |
Point agreed with, but still you can mentally be at both points at once, now can't you? Does the mind have to be bound by physicalities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BorisBadenov wrote: | | Annabel_Lee wrote: | Hey das, you need to be able you pin your motivations in order to differentiate between the two. They don't have a direct comparison for Facilitators and Contributors because the types themselves are different enough to not be easily confused. And unfortunately, within the model, you've got to pick just one because it promises to present to you exactly the way you think.
It's certainly worth reading both descriptions and trying to identify what hits the way the you reason.
Contributor: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508012713/209.87.142.42/y/p/c18.htm
Facilitator: http://web.archive.org/web/20030508013953/209.87.142.42/y/p/f23.htm
One of the key differences that helped me out while going over the material was considering how the Contributer and Facilitator deal with issues of optimization and principles.
The Facilitator begins with a general understanding of underlying principles (of an issue, an argument, a problem, etc.) [this is the Facilitator operating through the Perceiver circles of reasonableness], and then finetunes them for an optimum fit based on the given issue/scenario/problem. Scan principles first, then optimize to whatever coheres.
In contrast, the Contributor will begin with the premise of optimization, effectiveness and success with regards to a particular point in an issue/argument/scenario. The Contributor visualizes things in motion [reasoning through the Server loop]. He'll decide what works first and then defend it like a fundamental principle. Optimize first, then narrow in to the optimal principle.
Ironically, in arguments, the Contributor will appear to be more principled (because he'll rigorously defend the principle he has already known to be optimal). However, the Facilitator will appear a little more flexible (as his understanding of what is optimal is based on a broader view first). |
Don't you see what is "bad" about this? It's like you either are this or that but you can't be both? It's so segregationalist! |
If i was everything then i would be nothing. a human mind knows one thing from another by acknowledging distinctions.
| Quote: | | Some said to me, "I don't believe in putting people into boxes." Well, what if individuals really are different? Then they are already in boxes. Describing those differences is liberating, not restrictive. |
http://web.archive.org/web/20030512101035/209.87.142.42/y/p/begin2.htm
Hahaha. Still on page one.
Forever page one.
I'm going to live my life reliving page one.
| Mayflow wrote: | | Point agreed with, but still you can mentally be at both points at once, now can't you? Does the mind have to be bound by physicalities? |
Your mind can only be useful in one place. making decisions in empty space is useless.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lightsun
Advanced Member
Joined: 20 Apr 2009
Posts: 841
Location: USA, Planet Gaia
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:03 am Post subject: cognitive styles |
|
|
I am apparently a "MERCY" for a cognitive style.
Anymore "MERCIES" out there?
I did not quite match the mercy type.
Anyone see a "MERCY" in me?
Also what are the strengths and weaknesses of a "MERCY"?
_________________
Apollo LightSun Peaceweaver
I want PEACE!
I want to UNDERSTAND the nature
of distortions, distractions, &
illusions that keep us from the
TRUTH!
I WANT TO BE HAPPY!
INFP, cognitive style MERCY!
eneeagram #9!!
Zodiac "cancer" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.Beck
Advanced Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 2964
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
in my experience, mercy and exhorter types are most prone to self esteem issues.
Mercy types have the potential to be diplomatic, sensitive, nuanced communicators and caring people. They can develop excellent leadership abilities. They can be really easy to get along with. A humanitarian gloss covers their world view and that is primed with a tuned-in relationship with their feelings.
_________________
I Need To Prognosticate
5-9 r|C|uaI Scorpio Facilitator
"The sun to which my eyes could not adjust"
http://cognitionexpo.21.forumer.com/index.php |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
test
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
similarminds.com
Log in
Register
