Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Jung and Augusta

  1. #1
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung and Augusta

    Let's get this straight:

    Augusta attempted to model essentially the same general behaviors and traits that Jung did, and the relationship between the two is undeniable.

    However, Jung did not use strict parameters for defining the functions, and, as such, some of the specifics of his functional attributions may be skewed or not entirely accurate from a Socionics perspective. Jung observed the co-incidence and correlation of certain behavioral tendencies that seemed to coincide with an underlying process. Augusta's contribution to the theory is, by using Kepinsky's theory of Information Metabolism, the advancement of our understanding of the nature of the processing underlying the tendencies in trait exhibition that Jung initially observed.

    Does this make it exceptionally fucking clear, and can we all agree on this? If not, let's hear it.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is my belief that, while the particulars of Jung's functional descriptions are often overly specific and somewhat superficial, tending to cast a "stereotype" on each function, one can glimpse the general nature of the thought processes involved when reading his descriptions, if one does not become mired in the specifics.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  3. #3
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tick tock.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  4. #4
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys should look into the work of Carl Rogers for a while I reckon
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  5. #5
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is good shit.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khola View Post
    You guys should look into the work of Buck Rogers for a while I reckon

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Augusta copied Jung's work, including his idiot mistakes, and added the intertype relations to it. The intertype relations are the only thing she should be credited with.

    Augusta did not invent the misconceived object/field dichotomy. It was a reformulation on her part of Jung's objective/subjective dichotomy (which is itself defective).

  8. #8
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,107
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    sigh. This is a thorny question, 'cause like I said in another topic, it brings in sort of meta-socionics questions about what exactly socionics is. But basically, the way I see it is, Jung established the basic dichotomies themselves. I believe Jung talks about people's "attitude towards the object", i.e., orientations towards reality. So I don't think it's a great leap forward on Augusta's part to go from orientations towards reality to information metabolism, because really, what is a particular IM but an orientation towards reality, a way of looking at the world? IMs aren't about what sort of information you're dealing with (although there are certain types of information that exemplify a particular function's approach, i.e., Ti = formal logic, Ne = possibilities, etc.), they're about how you deal with the information you have. So in that sense, "information metabolism" is in Jung, it's just called "attitude towards the object" instead.

    I see Augusta's contribution as being, primarily, model A (and Aspectonics, which was Augusta and somebody else, right?). Model A is a big step forward, because it takes Jung's basic ideas and provides a model for how they play themselves out in human behavior and consciousness, and leads to the intertype relations. That's a huge step forward, and that's how, in my view, socionics differs from Jung.

    But the actual IMs themselves? Jung is as much of an authority on those as Augusta. Here's how I see it. Either a) the eight IMs are Jung's invention, and so everything we read or write about those eight IMs are essentially literary criticism on Jung, or b) the eight IMs in some fashion exist in reality independent of us, in which case Jung and Augusta when it comes to IMs/functions/whatever are simply both describing a phenomenon, like two people describing the same pear, and given that I'm pretty sure Jung was smarter than Augusta and certainly smarter than the majority of people who "practice socionics" today, my first instinct will be to assume Jung is right, unless it's proven that Jung contradicts a more evident principle.

    Note that the idea that IM stuff is criticism of Jung doesn't mean that you absolutely can't disagree with Jung. You could, for instance, say that Jung made a logical fallacy in how he applied one of his basic ideas or something like that. But you can only disagree so far--you can argue about what it means to say that the introvert "withdraws libido from the object," but not that introverts have in some way shape or form an attitude that is away from the object, while extroverts have in some way shape or form an attitude that is towards the object.

    So, summary, I would probably say that Jung and Augusta are at least equal in "authority" in the area of describing the IMs. Luckily, both of them were vague enough that said authority is essentially nullified. If you say something that directly contradicts either one, there's a pretty high chance that you're wrong, but luckily most things can be shown to have support in Augusta and/or Jung by manipulating language. Yay!

    Also, I like the idea of Ni as associated with the internal images much more than the idea of Ni as associated with time. The former is much more vivid. Both are presumably true.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  9. #9
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Well. It's a little more complicated than what you're laying out here. Maybe I'll post about it later idk. Too much effort. Nvm I'll just re-paste something I wrote the other day:

    Jung's approach to the functions/IEs gives us a phenomenological definition—i.e., we're given a portrait of what each IE process is essentially like from the experiential POV of those possessing it as a base function. Aushra's approach OTOH tries to give us more of an operational definition, attempting to illustrate more of the concrete manifestations of how IE processes generally appear when viewed externally.

    I tend to like Jung's IE descriptions, because he explicitly acknowledges the fact that his perceptions of each IE will be necessarily biased by his own IEs (and actually warns us for this very reason, against taking a strongly operational approach in attempting to determine types). And I think he does succeed as best he can in partially overcoming these inherent limitations, in managing to accurately tell us something about what IEs are actually like from the user's perspective. Whereas I don't think Aushra ever acknowledges the problem of inherent IE bias… and so the result is that her IE descriptions exemplify this issue. Invariably, her descriptions tell us more about what each IE is like according to an ENTp perspective and less about what they are actually like apart from that.
    Afaik, Augusta does acknowledge her bias. But that's irrelevant because all she's providing is an operational definition that can be checked by others, so it's less of an issue than Jung's bias.

    Jung's definitions are probably important to study and make sense of in terms of socionics.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  10. #10
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Jung's approach to the functions/IEs gives us a phenomenological definition—i.e., we're given a portrait of what each IE process is essentially like from the experiential POV of those possessing it as a base function. Aushra's approach OTOH tries to give us more of an operational definition, attempting to illustrate more of the concrete manifestations of how IE processes generally appear when viewed externally.
    Mmmm, I don't think Augusta's are so much how they are viewed externally, as how they are dissected in terms of how the brain actually processes them; not from a direct-experiential standpoint, like Jung, but a more detached sense of how the brain actually processes and sorts thing.

    I tend to like Jung's IE descriptions, because he explicitly acknowledges the fact that his perceptions of each IE will be necessarily biased by his own IEs (and actually warns us for this very reason, against taking a strongly operational approach in attempting to determine types). And I think he does succeed as best he can in partially overcoming these inherent limitations, in managing to accurately tell us something about what IEs are actually like from the user's perspective. Whereas I don't think Aushra ever acknowledges the problem of inherent IE bias… and so the result is that her IE descriptions exemplify this issue. Invariably, her descriptions tell us more about what each IE is like according to an ENTp perspective and less about what they are actually like apart from that.
    I suppose, but I don't think Jung is any less "biased," so to speak. Personally I find his descriptions easy to read, but I think Augusta's, especially with the aid of IM theory, are much closer to developing a teachable understanding of the actual underlying processes; using the subjective approach will invariably leave anyone attempting to develop a consensual understanding of these things mired in confusion and impressionistic disagreement, whereas Augusta's approach at least gives some space for discussion, dissection, and clear categorization; while this attempt to make things more concrete is abused by some people, like niffweed and expat, in an attempt to make the theory as simple as possible, it is at least a step in the direction of making Jung's theory practicable.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  11. #11
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Huh? She says nothing about how the brain actually processes things. Don't be retarded.
    I mean that the IM elements are an attempt to describe how the brain sorts information. I'm not saying it's perfect; I'm saying its a good attempt, and it seems to work.

    No, he's definitely less biased.
    Care to back that up at all?

    No they're not.
    Actually they are. You can't teach dumb people to read between the lines with Jung; anyone can learn IM theory if they take the time.


    The problem with Aushra is that her approach is subjective too, and she apparently doesn't know it and treats it as objective.
    It's closer to at least being comprehensible and transmittable in a logical sense, as opposed to Jung's raw impressionism.


    Except her IM descriptions are effectively worthless, except as a study of IMs via ENTp perception.
    No, you are just too mired in your own interpretation and methods to see their worth. I use her IE definitions, and the improved understanding of the functions they've given me, to type people all the time.

    Take it from someone who has gone shore to shore on this one: IM theory is definitely useful.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

Posting Permissions

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