MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung by Sergei Moshenkov and Miss Wing Tung Tang
Amazon.com: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung (9781452835648): Sergei Moshenkov, Miss Wing Tung Tang M.sc.: Books
MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung by Sergei Moshenkov - has anyone read this book?
MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung by Sergei Moshenkov and Miss Wing Tung Tang
Amazon.com: MBTI and Socionics: Legacy of Dr. Carl Jung (9781452835648): Sergei Moshenkov, Miss Wing Tung Tang M.sc.: Books
"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
-----
Perhaps they went into the MBTI vs socionics conversion issue? Would be hard to make a book about the two systems without explaining the correlation or non-correlation.
(Oh yeah, my crazy consensus dream again...)
"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
-
That is goddamn awesome.
I will order this book in a short time.
ps you can look inside the book at amazon. It seems he sees mbti and socionics as sister sciences or something like that.
Oh teh no! I'm jealous!
I found it *after* having completed my order, so I'll have to wait for next buy round!
Meanwhile, I keep adding one volume or two of the "collected works" in each command, as I'm passionated by many topics covered by Jung and not related to typology (dreams, archetypes etc... ) ...and well, you, know, the collector spirit hehe
"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
-
Bump. Anyone ever grab this? I wish it wasn't so expensive. The free preview was okay. First time I had heard that reddish-brown hair was associated with EJ-type. Pale and dark hair associated with introvertness. Not sure if I agree with that 100%, but interesting nonetheless. I can't find anything out about the author.
Last edited by Saoshyant; 12-15-2010 at 06:42 PM.
Lol how can that be interesting, it'd mean that the vast majority of humans cannot be EJs, since most humans have very dark hair. They can't be IJ either, since most humans aren't "pale".Originally Posted by Saoshyant
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Hah, I wrote that too fast, it's the other way around, meant that red-ish hair people were always of EJ variety and paleness white were always of IJ variety. That wasn't suppose to mean all EJs are reddish hair all IJs are pale dark hair.
That's very interesting to hear about a book which is both MBTI and Socionics, as Jarno said. I will have to read the INTP and INTJ descriptions one of these days, if perhaps he wishes to post samples. Even though my experiences have just been, oh another lame book, I'm still open to read.
Also side thought: maybe you don't see many people with pale skin because they don't go outside?
I would tend to disagree.
Oh okay, that could be logically plausible, although in that case you would find a much higher percentage of J types in countries further north from the equator & near the atlantic ocean (given that red hair and very pale skin are almost absent in eastern asian countries).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I was afraid you might say so.
Here are the author's function descriptions: http://www.personalitynation.com/For...hp/f-142.html?
....somewhat interesting. Relate tofairly well. Could do without
frankly. The functions seem right. I think this might be a good book, though probably oversimplified like every other Socionics book. Never a horrible thing if you can read in between the lines.
I very much like the example given in the. It easily reflects my frustrations when people use
Though I'm guessing the book'll get ripped/ignored, I feel/think much as you do about it.
Right or wrong, at least it's readable.
Barely On-Topic: Is "Socionics Info-Source Preference" type-related?
(i.e. "Simple Quantity/Variety" vs. "Single Quality/Authority")
I haven't bought it yet, already spent money on another order for this month...
Yeah it's surely not very deep, but we can say the same of Filatova's one...
In fact, that's always our main problem: what we got is really meager...but it's all we got.
"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
-
Regarding what is said in the sample of this book about I/E, I find myself agreeing to a great extent. In fact I think almost all the dichotomies from MBTI fit perfectly well in Socionics, except for E/I which has some problems, those of which in Socionics do not dominate with qualities of being social or reserved, as much as like it said, how egotistical someone is, or in better words, how objective or subjective someone's dominant way of thinking is. As far as N/S and T/F go, the ego functions match up exactly with those dichotomies, ie. if you say you're an N but have Se ego for instance, you're mistaken and should go back to learn the basics, or you're a T but have Fi ego etc. Lastly, Judging is the same exact thing as rationality, or another word for it is 'limiting mindset' or 'decisiveness.' All four rational IMs have those qualities, all four irrational IMs have qualities of indecision, expansion, perception, etc.
It can pretty much be said that, if you have your MBTI type known for certain, but don't fit the quadra, then you either have to understand E/I better in terms of having an objective or subjective mindset, or you need to retest and make sure you really have the right preferences, one preference could easily be wrong, that is ie. if you relate strongly to Se, then you're an S not an N. But if you have the dichotomies completely right, it will match with your real type. The dichotomies and functions are directly interconnected, and you can define all the functions using dichotomies, ie. logic is merely decision based on logic (TJ), Ti is decision based on logic that applies to subjective matters (ITJ).
To clear up Ni in a small light, it is not the sense of coming up with the correct way or what is likely to happen, what that describes is rationality, judgment, a limiting mindset. Even in reading Jung, he never had a strict sense of what judging and perceiving really were, his Ni type was based around partly an automatic mode of perception which ignored other perceptions but forced a hazy but objective outcome. Forcing judgment, aka ignoring perception, and not necessarily wanting closure but the dominating ability to achieve closure, is a built-in rational way of operation, it is easy to see that people who are like this would be a J type, esp. an EJ type in coming to objective judgments, and true from my experience. It makes sense when EJ types with creative Ni argue that this strict classification is what Ni is, as in reading that part of Jungian Ni you get a sense of the creative Ni type who is not all that consciously involved in exploring his perceptions. A better word for intuition in Socionics would be possibility perception, and with Ni can be a sense of time and personal memory, predicting various outcomes. I too relate a lot to the Jungian Ni description, though I can't say every bit of it has really proven to be my dominant way of operation, as I've seen it as described take over mostly rational thinkers who, like all rationals, have a built-in desire to know something for certain and have closure, and I characterize it in regard to intuitive types who look to hazy figures in their mind and not to their surrounding senses, though this correlation is not always so.
Elmo is ESE (like NDP leader Jack Layton I reckon).
Elmo and Jack Layton even V.I the same, good observation skills lazybones, how about:
And
Clear cut SLI or even LIE.
I can has cheeseburger?
Yea of course.
There's more where it came from, so kiss the chef.
I get the sense that burger kings is trying to assault our unconscious with sexual imagery.Yea of course.
There's more where it came from, so kiss the chef.
What gives you that idea?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
