.
socionics and jung
.
Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 01:37 AM.
They're different, but they have some overlap. I like Jung personally, though his descriptions tend to be more formal than I'd like. What he describes in his book about types are more abstractions than what an actual person would be like (they are shown merely from the perspective of the dominant function).
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
Er... basically, if Jung hadn't come up with his personality typology, there'd be no socionics. Jung's functions are largely the basis of socionics, like it or not people.
socio: INFp - IEI
ennea: 4w5 sp/sx
**********
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
there's no point in a dichotomy. First of all, as already mentioned, there would be no concept of functions without Jung. But more so, it's irrelevant to use one or the others' definition, because functions only have one true essence, regardless of how many people like to skew them.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Jung attested to the existence of phenomena he called "functions". Socionics sought to model human relational patterns by presuming them to be contingent on the dynamics between those phenomena. This is where Model A comes from.
Leading socionists (Bukalov, Gulenko, Filitova, etc.) continue to look to Jung for inspiration when better trying to understand human relational phenomena. I should add, too, that the concept of duality was first pioneered by Jung.
Basically, from what I understand of it all, Jung was the first person to publish any literature on the concept of psychological types, where he simply defined the 8 functions and had each type based around those 8 functions. Various people have done various things with this as a starting point (MBTI being a famous example) and, from what I understand, Augusta whateverhernameis was basically influenced by Jung and a few other sources which I'm not really aware of when formulating Socionics. So from what I understand, Socionics isn't derived from or inspired by Jung as such, but it was influenced by it. Bear in mind though I haven't studied this subject extensively, so I've just picked this up from reading bits and pieces over time on this forum and possibly a few other places. I'm sure some other members will have a more comprehensive understanding of it all. Heh, interesting...I could simply delete this all with a simple click of a mouse button and nobody would ever know I had typed this. But I won't. Not this time.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
yea, I think this is very important to note.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Refer to what strrrng said: the functions are phenomena. Whether or not anyone knows about them, they are still there. Aushra's definitions were more accurate than Jung's because she had the benefit of Kepinsky's IM theory. Jung didn't; the IM theory was created after Jung created his typology. (and besides, Jung was more interested in how the functions worked, not their orientations). Jung saw himself as laying the groundwork for people like Augusta, who came later.
Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 01:38 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)
Just because she used them to expand on and create a theory doesn't mean she "revised" them. Like I said, there is only one accurate definition for the functions at their essence, and it doesn't matter who it comes from.
Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 01:38 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)
4w3-5w6-8w7
An analogy:
Freud is to Jung as Jung is to socionics & MBTI
socio: INFp - IEI
ennea: 4w5 sp/sx
**********
Jung defined the functions as "preferred selves" (my term, not his); Augusta called them "information metabolizers" that process aspects of information shared between people. Augusta considered IM aspects as having an a priori existence apart from human observation, something she borrowed from Ayn Rand's objectivism. (Rick's words) To Augusta, IM elements are everywhere: in the stars, in the ocean waves... they are the attributes of the objects and fields we observe. (and those we not yet have)
I think a lot of people have trouble with Augusta's theory for just this reason. If you don't buy into the objectivism part, then you're really not understanding what it was Augusta talked about. There is more to socionics, also, but it the philosophy which is the "meat" of the theory.
When people speak of Jung when referring to socionics, they are looking for information which they suspect Augusta may have felt was implied by basing her theory on Jung. This is an Alpha theory, after all.
Awwww, BL doesn't think people care about what he says!
I don't know how you can come up with a conclusion like that.
No it isn't. strrrng is suggesting that there is only one set of functions (and probably that socionics has it more right than Myers-Briggs or Keirsey). You're saying that you thought Jung's functions weren't the same as Augusta's. And you're right. But strrng is wrong in that he thinks there are "correct" ways of interpreting the functions. In actuality, they are two different systems. In fact, Jung didn't even have a fucking system.
Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 01:39 AM. Reason: removing my quotes ;)
because functions exist as themselves, despite peoples' bullshit interpretations of them. I'm not saying there is only one accurate way to articulate what a function is; I'm saying that a function is what it is at its essence, regardless.
And so what if Jung didn't have a system? That's probably a good thing. He established the ground work so that systems could be built.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Right, okay, but within a system the functions exist, not without. There are many systems. Hence, there are many interpretations of socionics.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying death, disease, hunger, etc. do not exist unless people have systems for them. Absurd.
Not at all. Many typologies were created before Jung's Psychological Types (1921), for example the six types of Eduard Spranger (1914) Economic, Esthetic, Political, Religious, Social, and Theoretic, the four types of Erich Adickes (1907) Innovative, Traditional, Doctrinaire, and Skeptical, the two temperaments of William James (1907) Rationalists and Empiricists, and the two types of Wilhelm Ostwald (1910) Classicists and Romanticists. Hundreds of years before that we have Galen's four temperaments Choleric, Melancholic, Phlegmatic, and Sanguine. And six hundred years before Galen we have Plato's four main characters dianoethic, iconic, noetic, and pistic.
What is very important to keep in mind here is that all of these different typologies are describing the same reality, and that of course includes Jung, Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. They are all talking about the same basic differences between persons in slightly different ways, but they agree on what we can observe. The types always come first. Functions are not primary -- types are.
So of course strrrng and tcaudilllg are right, and Ezra is completely wrong. He hasn't understood what a typology is.
umm no...did jung have a "system"? no. but he had the most accurate understanding of the functions.
4w3-5w6-8w7
functions exist independent of interpretations.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Fine.
Then study MBTI instead. It's more faithful to Jung's original understanding than socionics.
lol, way to miss the point.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Functions -- if they exist at all -- exist independent of interpretations. Functions are hypothetical, but types are not hypothetical. In contrast to functions, types are clearly observable entities.
Good point.
Which is?
The evidence is in the pudding, man. All who deny the existence of socionics deny the existence of their own thoughts. (though they may not realize it).
That said, your young age precludes you from using -Te with -Ti effectively. There is a mountain of evidence in support of socionics, yet you are blind to it for now....
...Or, you can take my word for it, which I suggest you do. After all, the real issue with typology at this point is not how it works, but what can be done with it.
the functions at their essence.
4w3-5w6-8w7
+1 (as usual it seems)
No, no, no.
Both can be satisfied. The phemenology of the functions in the brain could be created by the work of any massively parallel information system, therefore the functions themselves have a transcendent existence.
But in any case, we can identify them as neuron processing algorithms... eventually. First we need to know what about the neurons themselves leads to the specialization.
It's a conscious decision -- a change in attitude -- that cannot even be physically made until a certain age it reached. On the one hand, you need the experience required to justify the decision; on the other, you need the physiological basis to make it with confidence.
For me, it was a decision that I needed as many facts about other people's vantagepoints as possible before I could claim a right to judge them morally. This entailed setting functions of similar sign but opposite attitude alongside one another in the same function -- however, it also triggered a displacement fight between my background IM functions both internally and externally. (externally because I began thinking in terms of aspects themselves that sought to displace other aspects) It's also called "growing up" into a mature adult. (which does not just "happen" at 18)
Amongst other things, transcendence implies subjective moralism; subjective historical interpretation; subjective idealism; subjective logic; ...pretty much everything opinionated about the personality you can imagine.
For me it kicked in a few months before my 23rd birthday. The subjectivism is actually a trade-off, because in exchange you also get concrete objectivism as regards your base function. This is very useful because it can accept possibilities implied by one's own personal experiences and observations... one's life becomes one's laboratory. Prior to this, INTj personal experiences are only used to dismiss other's ideas as irrelevant, and are so consumed in that "duty" that concrete creativity is impossible. You seem to be experiencing now Cartesian doubt. With +Ni as a crutch, you could guide +Ne toward the creation of empirically validated logic which is consistent with factual observation. There will be criticism of your methods, however; but you can use the subjective moralism to blunt that.
People think being a scientist is just working in a lab all day, theorizing and testing, etc.. This is hardly the case: becoming a leading scientist means having to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and competition of any sort becomes a nasty business....
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 05-17-2008 at 09:52 PM.
His Ni was relativistic in that it entertained belief. Phaedrus' term for subjective renditions of information is belief, but I think they are more concrete than something as esoteric -- and general -- as belief is. Religious beliefs have nothing to do with the 1st trancendent function at least -- they do apparently with the 2nd, which he has himself recently undergone. The 2nd trancendent function is an exchange between the 3rd and 5th functions, because as Jung says the soul of a thinker is feeling, the soul of a feeler thinking. The point of the 2nd transcendent function is to master duality and integrate it, learning to harness it even across different subjective beliefs. It's a great deal more complex than the 1st transcendent function and I know little about it. It'd be worth quizzing Phaedrus over it.
Phaedrus wants to harness his peace with others' points of view in search of absolute truth. He wants the entire world to join him in his quest for empirical purity. The problem is, these still disparate beliefs are facing different challenges, so cooperation is not always possible. Jung called this the "syzygy" stage, and its defining challenge is the mobilization of society in defense against a common enemy. That enemy is +Fi for INTp... how fitting. I do wonder though, what form Phaedrus would argue +Fi takes that so threatens -Fi equity.
That's pretty much how I see it.
Augusta's interpretations of the functions are the ones that make sense within the context of model A. That is to say, any interpretation of, say,that only describes why it's SLE's and SEE's base function but not why it should be the dual-seeking function of IEIs and ILIs (and PoLR of EIIs and LIIs etc) is already lacking; and I think that's precisely the case if you try to use Jung's Extraverted Sensing.
That is indeed, as you say, a different matter from whether or not Jung's Extraverted Sensing description is "correct" in another context.
Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 01:45 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I see you've made up your minds. Your grasp of persistent phenomena is indeed quite poor.That's pretty much how I see it.
Augusta's interpretations of the functions are the ones that make sense within the context of model A. That is to say, any interpretation of, say,
That is indeed, as you say, a different matter from whether or not Jung's Extraverted Sensing description is "correct" in another context.
That's fine. imfd95, expat, glamorama... I'm done with talking to you. No use in it anyway because you're far too dense to explain anything to.
If only you understood that the mere fact that either of those theories pointed to phenomena that you have indeed observed in your own experience, and offered explainations thereto which offered at least some sensibility, suggests that either spoke of something true, and correctly apprehended its traits despite limited understanding of them, we and those who agree with me would not have to embark, now, on a completely seperate path. But you cannot see that which we see... or you will not see it.... It makes no difference. We've decided and it will be by your overture that our relations are re-established... if ever they are at all.
*shrugs* what you just wrote sounds just bizarre to me, but ok -- another addition to my ignore list.
The usual idiotic denial-of-reality-and-keeping-my-eyes-wide-shut behaviour of a very narrow-minded extraverted thinker.
Don't be ridiculous, Phaedrus. When I put people on ignore, it's because I have decided that they are contemptible human beings; your presence, as people, has a sort of stench that I can do without. Quite a few people here say things I disagree with, and they are not on ignore, because I respect them as human beings.
I don't respect you as a human being, so I keep you on ignore (even as, on occasion, curiosity makes me peek at what you write), and tcaudilllg's idiotic post has made him qualify as well. He was the one who said the thing about "severing relations" and "stopping communication"; I suggest you apply your crap to him.
What on earth are you talking about?
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
actually, it's the crux of the argument.
Last edited by glam; 02-12-2011 at 01:45 AM. Reason: removing my quote ;)
4w3-5w6-8w7
This thread is like a telenovela. And I'm glued to the screen.
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
I get exactly what you are saying.
4w3-5w6-8w7
It's the same tomfoolery that leads people to doubt the theory of relativity even today. The belief that humans cannot fathom the "true nature" of the universe, and that therefore no "human" can claim to truly understand it even in part... is an exercise in futility. It is a leap of total faith with no demonstrable basis in reality. One does not need to be an extremist to endorse such... incomplete awareness, but one does need to subscribe to the ideas of one.
Or perhaps not. History is the judge of such matters, and if indeed you understood in the slightest bit the human side of history, you would know there to be more to those systematic extensions than meets the eye.
On that note, your -Fe is showing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote