Jung Typology vs Socionics and origins of type theories

[Angel von Himmel]

Jung typology is based on Plato's theory of forms and the Hindu belief of Samskara.

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/platform.htm
http://www.commsp.ee.ic.ac.uk/~panch...0Samskaras.pdf

The only signifigant diffrence between Jung typology and Socionics is that it implements Model-A, which is based on the 4 imperfect types [tynocratic, oligarchic, democratic, tyrranic] of the psyche in Plato's republic. Without Model-A, socionics would just be another Jung swing off like Kershey and MBTI, and the relationships would for the most part mean jack.

http://www.d.umn.edu/~aroos/republicweb.htm

Shitty stereotypical dictonomies which "do not correspond directly to Jung typology" yet seem to have influenced MBTI and Kershey theory to a rediculous degree courtesy of Hans Eysenck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsytraits.html

[FDG]

Shitty stereotypical dictonomies which "do not correspond directly to Jung typology" yet seem to have influenced MBTI and Kershey theory to a rediculous degree courtesy of Hans Eysenck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsytraits.html

Yet Eysenck's is the theory that makes the most sense.

[Angel von Himmel]

Shitty stereotypical dictonomies which "do not correspond directly to Jung typology" yet seem to have influenced MBTI and Kershey theory to a rediculous degree courtesy of Hans Eysenck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsytraits.html

Yet Eysenck's is the theory that makes the most sense.

To someone who likes to dwelve deeply into metaphysics or non-dualism it should all make more sense, but to someone who does not appreciate metaphysics or non-dualism it would drive him or her nuts. So, whether he makes more sense than Jung or not is a matter of opinion, they are apples and oranges and should not be confused with one another.

[Jonathan]

Well, the question is, what definition of extraversion vs. introversion is appropriate in Socionics? To say simply that Socionics is closer to Jung's definitions doesn't really help. For example, here's what Jung wrote about extraversion vs. intraversion in Psychological Types (1921):

The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.

The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.

As you can see, he makes reference to shyness and sociability in elaborating on his definition. So we can't blame Eysenck for introducing that idea!

Most Socionics sites seem to talk about extraversion as taking initiative, and introversion as conserving effort, etc. But that seems to be a lot further from Jung's definition than Eysenck is. And it leads to questions like "what about introverts who take initiative" and "how can there be all these famous people who were introverts if they didn't take initiative?"

So, if someone can tell me a real coherent, reliable Socionics definition of introversion and extraversion, I'd appreciate it.

[FDG]

Shitty stereotypical dictonomies which "do not correspond directly to Jung typology" yet seem to have influenced MBTI and Kershey theory to a rediculous degree courtesy of Hans Eysenck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsytraits.html

Yet Eysenck's is the theory that makes the most sense.

To someone who likes to dwelve deeply into metaphysics or non-dualism it should all make more sense, but to someone who does not appreciate metaphysics or non-dualism it would drive him or her nuts. So, whether he makes more sense than Jung or not is a matter of opinion, they are apples and oranges and should not be confused with one another.

Uh? Eysenck metaphysical? What?

Don't you see that it's just a list of charateristics for E and I, with some plausible explanations. Can't see any metaphysics BS.

[FDG]

Most Socionics sites seem to talk about extraversion as taking initiative, and introversion as conserving effort, etc. But that seems to be a lot further from Jung's definition than Eysenck is. And it leads to questions like "what about introverts who take initiative" and "how can there be all these famous people who were introverts if they didn't take initiative?"

Gaah! Just look:

1) Which is, over a certain period of time, the most common reaction to a situation of the person?
2) In order to be able to clearly recognize the dichtomy, you need to look at ALL the charateristics, not ONLY one and say "What if person X introverted has this (a) extraverted charaterstic?". Because if you do that, you won't go anywhere and you'll just waste your time with useless speculation.

[Angel von Himmel]

Shitty stereotypical dictonomies which "do not correspond directly to Jung typology" yet seem to have influenced MBTI and Kershey theory to a rediculous degree courtesy of Hans Eysenck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsytraits.html

Yet Eysenck's is the theory that makes the most sense.

To someone who likes to dwelve deeply into metaphysics or non-dualism it should all make more sense, but to someone who does not appreciate metaphysics or non-dualism it would drive him or her nuts. So, whether he makes more sense than Jung or not is a matter of opinion, they are apples and oranges and should not be confused with one another.

Uh? Eysenck metaphysical? What?

Don't you see that it's just a list of charateristics for E and I, with some plausible explanations. Can't see any metaphysics BS.

Well, according to this page Jung is a Psychonaut, which is someone who has a tendency towards the metaphysical and usualy takes old world religions on as a model for whatever theory. In Jungs case, samskara, archetypes, and Platonion theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonaut


An interesting thing I found, apparently on this page for the accomplishments of social theories I found that the only thing EYNSECKS is credited with showing that blacks are less intelligent than whites, a claim I think should be highly disputed.

http://changingminds.org/explanation.../theorists.htm

[FDG]

Shitty stereotypical dictonomies which "do not correspond directly to Jung typology" yet seem to have influenced MBTI and Kershey theory to a rediculous degree courtesy of Hans Eysenck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsytraits.html

Yet Eysenck's is the theory that makes the most sense.

To someone who likes to dwelve deeply into metaphysics or non-dualism it should all make more sense, but to someone who does not appreciate metaphysics or non-dualism it would drive him or her nuts. So, whether he makes more sense than Jung or not is a matter of opinion, they are apples and oranges and should not be confused with one another.

Uh? Eysenck metaphysical? What?

Don't you see that it's just a list of charateristics for E and I, with some plausible explanations. Can't see any metaphysics BS.

Well, according to this page Jung is a Psychonaut, which is someone who has a tendency towards the metaphysical and usualy takes old world religions on as a model for whatever theory. In Jungs case, samskara, archetypes, and Platonion theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonaut


An interesting thing I found, apparently on this page for the accomplishments of social theories I found that the only thing EYNSECKS is credited with showing that blacks are less intelligent than whites, a claim I think should be highly disputed.

http://changingminds.org/explanation.../theorists.htm

So you mean that JUNG is metaphysical, which I agree. It looked like you meant that Eynseck was meta.

BTW, I don't mind what is he credited for or not. His theory of E vs I is the only one that gives some tangible reasons for E vs I, and therefore, IMHO the one I keep taking into consideration for typing.

[Rick]

So, if someone can tell me a real coherent, reliable Socionics definition of introversion and extraversion, I'd appreciate it.

As time goes by I am seeing fewer and fewer objective differences between the two. I can't even say right now what the differences are -- just some subtle perceptual difference that's hard to put your finger on.

[Mariano Rajoy]

So, if someone can tell me a real coherent, reliable Socionics definition of introversion and extraversion, I'd appreciate it.

i have posted on this before, http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?p=8...ghlight=#82444 , and i will try to be more explicit.

with each function, the person implicitly adopts a relation to the "object". most of the time, we are unaware of this implicit relation. (see the linked post about "self")

with introversion, the function is held to be in the self.

with extroversion, the function is held to be outside the self.

so, Ti implicitly sees the system within the self, while Te implicitly sees the system existing independently of the self.

the question of introversion and fame is not so much at odds when the concept of "self" is brought in.

[Rick]

Very nice. I'd like to see that developed some more, but in a way I can still understand .

[Mariano Rajoy]

i will pay $10,000,000,000,000 to the person who can translate this page into english for me: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...s%2fvyraz.html i have been trying to understand it, but it is killing me. or perhaps someone could give a little synopsis?

what is analitizma? bah!

[Eidos]

I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts.

Spoken like a true ENTj.

[Rick]

How about $10,000,000,000,050? Can I have a cashier's check in advance?

"Analytism" has to do with creating logical or idea systems on the basis of universal concepts that are poles to each other, for instance, "earth, fire, water, air." He is saying that socionics is built upon a set of opposing, all-encompassing universals -- the eight information elements and their corresponding functions.

(Gulenko likes to talk about socionics as a perfect logical system)

This article, which later went into one of his books, basically breaks the 8 socionic functions down using three dichotomies (2 x 2 x 2 = 8. Oh, the elegance of it!) and looks at the common traits of the functions in each of these groupings. Then, he juxtaposes the introverted and extraverted varieties of each function, first through the dichotomy of static/dynamic, then active/passive. This results in four groups of 2 functions apiece, which he then describes.

The worth of this part of the paper, in my view, is that he relates the functions to certain psycho-physical states, which I don't think had been elaborated well before this.

Now, after all this categorizing, he describes how each function is expressed intellectually, socially (as a societal role), psychologically (in communication), and physically.

Next he talks about how certain states "compensate" each other, which -- he believes -- explains, why people often go from one extreme to another. Finally, he gives recommendations for developing the states associated with each function.

[Angel von Himmel]

Shitty stereotypical dictonomies which "do not correspond directly to Jung typology" yet seem to have influenced MBTI and Kershey theory to a rediculous degree courtesy of Hans Eysenck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
http://www.usd.edu/~ssanto/extravert.html
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsytraits.html

Yet Eysenck's is the theory that makes the most sense.

To someone who likes to dwelve deeply into metaphysics or non-dualism it should all make more sense, but to someone who does not appreciate metaphysics or non-dualism it would drive him or her nuts. So, whether he makes more sense than Jung or not is a matter of opinion, they are apples and oranges and should not be confused with one another.

Uh? Eysenck metaphysical? What?

Don't you see that it's just a list of charateristics for E and I, with some plausible explanations. Can't see any metaphysics BS.

Well, according to this page Jung is a Psychonaut, which is someone who has a tendency towards the metaphysical and usualy takes old world religions on as a model for whatever theory. In Jungs case, samskara, archetypes, and Platonion theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonaut


An interesting thing I found, apparently on this page for the accomplishments of social theories I found that the only thing EYNSECKS is credited with showing that blacks are less intelligent than whites, a claim I think should be highly disputed.

http://changingminds.org/explanation.../theorists.htm

So you mean that JUNG is metaphysical, which I agree. It looked like you meant that Eynseck was meta.

BTW, I don't mind what is he credited for or not. His theory of E vs I is the only one that gives some tangible reasons for E vs I, and therefore, IMHO the one I keep taking into consideration for typing.

Yeah, Jung is more metaphysical ... Eynsecks is something else, I am thinking maybe epistmological or atleast more epistmological than Jung. I could be wrong, though.

[tcaudilllg]

So, if someone can tell me a real coherent, reliable Socionics definition of introversion and extraversion, I'd appreciate it.

As time goes by I am seeing fewer and fewer objective differences between the two. I can't even say right now what the differences are -- just some subtle perceptual difference that's hard to put your finger on.

I agree: it's a subjective perception that simply *is*.

I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts.

Spoken like a true ENTj.

Or an INTJ.

[Rocky]

I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts.

Spoken like a true ENTj.

Or an INTJ.

Doubt it.

[MysticSonic]

I'm an INTj without many deeply held beliefs to contradict, so I think it wouldn't be -too- hard for me to pursue truth in matters which would contradict the one or two that I possess.