Emotion ---> Cogitation

The most sophisticated systems of analysis are those that are not hard-edged, but are biological or "soft" in their application, fluid to such a degree that the postulates and underlying assumptions of said algorithms change instantly in response to that data which is input. Associated with the human phenomena of perception and intuition, this would give rise (presumably) in a sophisticated person to the idea that their fundamental operating procedures would change quickly and smoothly in response to external stimuli, even that which is unfamiliar or unexpected. A shorthand way of depicting this is to say that you would change based on what you were observing, or rather that what you were observing would change you. This comes tantalizingly close to some of the conclusions drawn of late by quantum physics, in particular the idea that by observing some solid-state phenomenon, the observation itself has the property of altering the outcome or the very reality of that which is being observed. To return again to the idea of human intuition (something so subtle yet widely disseminated throughout the whole of the human species as to be poorly understood), this rapid restructuring of one's self-concept or modes of behavior would happen so smoothly and completely that for all intents and purposes it could border on precognition. Nevertheless it must be said that this is probably a characteristic of the fluid or "water" type of personality, often described as one of the four cardinal personality categories. There is another mode of behavior which is to assert oneself as basically inalterable, to such a degree that the external reality is obliged to reshape itself in order to mold around this incontrovertible expression of will. This is another neat duality (to go on the almost infinite pile thereof)-- whether to change, or allow oneself to be change. The aforementioned intuitive capacities could be reasonably expected, if we can apply this kind of second-order thought-- to provide us information on when to resort to either of these two modes of behavior. To put it another way, we can intuitively know when it is time to be intuitive, and when it is not. This type of abstract thinking would seem to preclude those who are not in touch with their own inner landscapes, as this paradoxical and occasionally contradictory thinking and byzantine operating instructions can easily give rise to brooding, labyrinthine analysis and re-analysis, trapping the intellectual aspirant in unproductive loops of thinking.

(There may be some physiological benefit to these thought-loops. In much the same way that a treadmill may be used to burn off calories and nervous energy, the glucose-consuming hamster-wheel of the mind may be used to reduce the cogitator to such a degree of exhaustion that acceptance and enlightenment are more easily reached).

The primarily intellectual or "air" person, I suppose, would develop their schema and hermeneutic pathways to such an elegant, complex degree that all unknown information would find itself quickly and neatly sorted into its appropriate box. The obvious drawback to such a method is that it finds itself quite useful when dealing with logical phenomena, but flounders when confronted with a non-sequitur or paradox. In such cases the cogitator must rely on auxiliary modes of self-guidance, and if such modes have not been adequately developed during the upbringing or formative years then the data will be rudely shoved into known equations whether or not it fits, leading to shrill or hostile or unreasonable behavior.