Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Augusta and other sources

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Augusta and other sources

    I've noticed that a number of posts, especially by Tcaud, have mentioned using Augusta's writings as a primary source.

    Personally, I applaud anyone seeking to do original work in a field who goes to the original sources, the classics of the field, to see how the basic ideas originated. This is similar, also, to how people have brought up Jung as a source.

    But there's also a problem, because a lot of developments and improvements have taken place in Socionics since Augusta's original writings...and even those writings reflect a growth in understanding over time.

    Some people have turned to Gulenko to be aware of more recent developments. But Gulenko doesn't represent the consensus views of Socionists either, and is rather a somewhat controversial figure, apparently.

    So the only practical way to have a clear sense of mainstream Socionics (that is, Russian Socionics) is to trust as an authority someone who has first-hand experience and expertise on what the mainstream theory is. And around here that person would be Rick.

    But that naturally poses a problem for people who would want to get it all from written primary sources rather than relying on individual experts, no matter how good those experts may be.

    If Augusta's writings reflect merely an early state of Socionics, and Gulenko's reflect a maverick point of view, and Jung's a typology from which Socionics was derived but with some differing definitions and emphases, then what should people be reading (other than Rick's site, of course )? It seems it's really a dilemma, especially for those who like to get their information from reading. I know Filatova wrote a book on Socionics; I'm sure there are others....but who knows what's good or not, and what the mistakes are.

    Anyhow, I'm just bringing this up as a cautionary note against the view that Augusta is everything.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like this post.

    I think the only way to go about this is to try to understand - really understand - what all those people are talking about, and not take the easy - extremely easy - paths like, "I know Jung, and socionics functions come from Jung, so all I have to do is understand Jung's functions" or "Gulenko wrote this, and he's a respected socionist, so what he said is classical socionics, I don't have to read what others wrote" etc.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post

    Well how many are there? Boukalov? Meged? Dmitri but he doesn't seem to be in it anymore. Gulenko actually has a lot of other people around him apparently (these are Rick's observations, not mine), and is only out of the mainstream in as much as Boukalov, who is the leader of the government institute socionics that was established in the 80s, opposes him. (but then, Boukalov wasn't even liked by Augusta, which shows right there how how deep the problem lies.)

    Consensus, you say? What is this "consensus" people keep talking about? Granted, consensus exists in theory, but at the very moment a consensus leader attempts to win compromise from persons who do not know how to compromise, and moreover cannot be taught to because they cannot comprehend it (the "might makes right" people), his effort is all but dead, and certainly not worthy of further attention until he determines to return to the "mainstream".

    Jonathan, do not be decieved: there hasn't been consensus in socionics since Augusta died (no, since Boukalov entered the scene), nor will there be for a long time. Everyone's got a bone to pick with everybody over there, just as much as over here.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the only way to go about this is to try to understand - really understand - what all those people are talking about, and not take the easy - extremely easy - paths like, "I know Jung, and socionics functions come from Jung, so all I have to do is understand Jung's functions" or "Gulenko wrote this, and he's a respected socionist, so what he said is classical socionics, I don't have to read what others wrote" etc.
    Yes, but you should be making these cases to the serious enthusiasts, the someday-socionics-in-the-west researchers, rather than person X who idly stops by and asks "what's my type" and "I like your opinion" and "I like this one too, huh I don't know what to choose." In the end, the passersby will be picking and choosing from what we make together.

    And on the note of making cases, here's a rundown of people I -know- to understand socionics here.

    -Yourself
    -Me
    -labcoat
    -jrnx
    -Rick (duh)
    -Gilly
    -Baby
    -Jonathan
    -Smilingeyes
    -BionicGoat
    -thehotelambush
    -Snegledmaca
    -hitta (yes I know this sounds questionable, but he understands the basics even if he is interpreting them wrongly in places.)
    -Joy (same problem as hitta)
    -Logos (apparently problematic interpretations... or we aren't communicating or something.)
    -Discojoe
    -crazedrat

    People who do not
    -UDP (no offense, but it's plainly obvious.)
    -Diana
    -Slacker Mom
    -force my hand
    -imfd95
    -Wittmont
    -Cone (probably...)
    - (everyone else here, I suspect)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •