Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Jungian definitions

  1. #1
    Creepy-z987654321

    Default Jungian definitions

    ...

  2. #2
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't like that last cirkel.

    As I recall from reading his book, he talks about only 1 auxilary function.

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had never heard of Singer Loomis typology. Interesting stuff!

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Come to think of it, my book (psychological types 1947 edition) doesn't have diagrams at all.

  5. #5
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    Get a copy of "The Portable Jung" edited by Joseph Campbell, which contains "A General Description of the Types" as well as several other essays.

    I am not surprised to see that kind of diagram considering Jung's fascination with the mandala, the circled square representing the totality of the consciousness, a microcosmic mirror of the universe. Add also his presentation of extroversion/introversion, feeling/thinking, sensing/intuiting, etc. as dichotomies, and it is easy for me to see how this kind of geometric arrangement would be implied in or inferred from his essays. It is this kind of forced symmetry that I find partly responsible for the shortcomings of socionics and other Jungian typologies.

    See: Occam's Donkey - thinking critically: Mind myth 2: Left brain right brain

  6. #6
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ananke View Post
    However, Model A is extremely forced and probably a reason reality doesn't fit Socionics.
    What part of your reality in particular? Intertype relations? Or people behaving in ways their type would make you think are unexpected?
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  7. #7
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ha! Sorry but the "it's useless" delusional phase was about one year ago for me, but now I'm done with that!

    I do agree some types seem to get this all instinctively pretty well while others need to put words on all these concepts in able to fully grasp them (or don't grasp them at all or very superficially)

    The more people I test the more I discover how many don't even practice introspection on their own and don't want to know what's in their mind and worse in their shadow... The good side is that most are more than happy to learn these notions.

    Typology is beautiful and as William Morris once said: "Nothing useless can be truly beautiful."

    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  8. #8
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hehe! No it was more a hope message addressed at future readers, for you it seems clear hope is long gone...

    And I do stick in my shadow what I see fit! Don't complain there is no motivation on this forum anymore if you tell all people having a good will like me to do a half-turn and go back home...
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  9. #9
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ananke View Post
    Socionics is mostly useless and not even close to explaining anything you don't know instinctively.
    I admire your instinct.

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dislike how Jung says that "thinking must always completely exclude feeling". My experience has been more along the lines of Ti working very narrowly together with Fe and Fi with Te, etc.

    It's always the unvalued functions and function axes that are most alien and most counterintuitive to the person, ime. The weak valued ones are poorly attended, but not excluded from one's mindset.

  11. #11
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    In many ways Socionics is incredibly regressive and a significant step backwards from better foundations that were laid down by Jung, et. al.
    Really? I cannot see it like that.

    Where's Jung's relationship model?
    Is going from 8 types to 16 regressive?
    Where are Jung's subtypes?

  12. #12
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Some of it's implied if you read the descriptions.

    NO IT'S NOT. AND CERTAINLY HE HASN'T GOT THE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS LIKE AUGUSTA HAS DISCOVERED.

    It's mentioned in Psychological Types that given any primary function, there will be a secondary function of opposing orientation (introverted/extroverted) and attitude (rational/irrational). Implying more diversity beyond the 8 function portraits depicted.

    AGREED OR FAIR ENOUGH...

    Jung consistently alludes that function development is variable depending on life experiences, etc. That would essentially give you 'subtypes'.

    YEAH BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT JUNG MEANT IT TO BE, NOR DID HE KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT SUBTYPES OR TRIED TO CATAGORIZE THEM. YOU ARE TRYING TO FOLD HIS DEVELOPMENT THEORY INTO A SUBTYPE THEORY, THAT'S NOT REALLY FAIR.
    .

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    907
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Just because Socionics piled on more abstract theoretical shit, doesn't make it better by default. If anything Aushra/etc. over-simplified much of the original work into something facile and unrealistic.



    Some of it's implied if you read the descriptions.



    It's mentioned in Psychological Types that given any primary function, there will be a secondary function of opposing orientation (introverted/extroverted) and attitude (rational/irrational)—implying greater diversity beyond the 8 function portraits depicted.

    The function configuration rules that give us the 16 types we use now were established by Jung—read the very last section here titled '11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions'.



    Jung consistently alludes that function development is variable depending on life experiences, etc. That would essentially give you 'subtypes'.
    Agree completely with your last post, Ashton. Jung said that you could keep dividing people into more defined types, but he personally found it uninteresting to do so.

    Where socionics, imo, adds to Jungian theory is in intertype relations. IR, however, are based on real life observations rather than theory. Augusta's model tries to explain the IR but, imo, she crams/bends the functions (or subtly misunderstands them) to make them fit her theory - thereby making her model as a whole practically useless or downright misleading.

    It is much more interesting to go back to Jung and try to build from there adding what parts of socionics that work into a functioning concept.
    INFp

    If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)



  14. #14
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    Sup w/ the caps lock and awkward quoting?
    yeah, I was in a hurry sorry.


    He does mention a few things about type interactions and their effects if you read, so obviously he wasn't oblivious that there was something going on in this regard. No, there isn't a full matrix of intertype relations like what Socionics posits… but what of it? I never said Socionics was entirely useless, only that it's flawed and over-simplified in the way it represent types themselves, especially in Model A.
    ok. I also read somewhere he observed duality, but didn't go into further investigation.
    But from my standards this would mean Jung's theory lacks some important pieces.

    Aside from this failure, intertype relations manage to be redeeming as somewhat useful in predicting how certain type interactions under certain conditions will likely play out. Though this needs to be taken with a caveat, that understanding of intertypes remains fairly rudimentary and far from perfect. More observational work needs to be conducted to flesh these out further and take into account the many factors beyond type that influence human interpersonal relations.
    yeah, but still I find it pretty incredible how different the relationships work out and that something like that can be predicted.

    It's plenty fair. Simply splicing a phenomena up by fiat into more categories doesn't necessarily make a theory any more substantive.

    Not sure why you're bringing up subtypes exactly. Technically I could pull the fundie "that's not classical socionics" card on you.
    Yes but then I would pull the card: you never mentioned that we were talking about "classical" socionics. :-)

  15. #15
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I too fail to see how it's a regression.

    You might call it a failed attempt, as I'm sure many people (including me) got the strong intuition that this theory is onto something real but didn't "succeed" completely (even if it's already way more adequate than MBTI for instance)

    What I don't know is if socionics just need refining or if we'll need a new unifying theory at some point (a fork?)

    What I do know is that our resources are already very limited, online communities are very small compared to other "hobbies" and the more fork there are, the less grouped we are.

    So while I agree socionics is not the sociological saint graal, I'm not ready to ditch it until there's something better to replace it. I'm nonetheless open to help find this utopian ideal theory of everything.
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

Posting Permissions

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