Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 102

Thread: Jung is wrong (with all due respect)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung is wrong (with all due respect)

    There are no such units as

    They only serve to confuse. There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define


    These cause problems in typing.

    Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right. They are independant from S, N, F and T.

    Also there are no such things as p or j, and there is no need for them.

    Because Jung is wrong (with all due respect) so is Model A.

    So INTj is not Introverted Thinking with Intuition, but is Introversion with primary Thinking and secondary Intuition.

    INTp is not Introverted Intuition with Thinking, but is Introversion with primary Intuition and secondary Thinking.

    will be continued...

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That was me above. This site did not log me in properly.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree...if you read earlier Jung on his discovery of the introvert and extravert, it seems he agrees with you, but by the times he writes psychological types, he sees extraversion and introversion as attitudes of functions and not qualities in their own right. From my experience I tend to agree with later Jung.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

    Thinking (for example) is a process.

    Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think it is a clear cut as you describe it Hugo, but I have been thinking along similar minds lately.
    INTJ/ENTP

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee
    I don't think it is a clear cut as you describe it Hugo, but I have been thinking along similar minds lately.
    As I said before

    There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Hugo, I would say that socionics is still very much unfinished business and until the issue of typing is conclusively solved there is not much point propagating this theory to the wider world, since a wrong type is likely to only do you harm - but whether Jung was wrong - or indeed right - is a complicated question and the answers will probably be found in the dull shades of grey rather than a simple either right or wrong. We may not have found the answers yet, but I warmly appreciate your efforts at devising tests for solving the question of typing. I myself seem to be running out of ideas.
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dear Transigent,

    Thank you for your message. I haven't ignored what you have said, but have read every word.

    As you already know, I am I-Tn (what you might call INTj with an intuitive subtype). I analyze concepts but don't accept them without scrutinizing them.

    I state my thoughts/findings, which are usually "out of the box", to have a conversation about them and to advance psychology theory, but only in connection with practical application.

    Theory is useless without practical application.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dear Curious,

    Thanks for your post.

    I brought up the issue of Jung with the aim of making things simpler.

    As I stated:


    There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define


    The fact that I/E is independant from T, F, N, S would, I believe makes things simpler.

    I think with the above in mind, typing, and possibly even subtyping, is made easier. Let me give an example:


    Work out whether you are


    I or E
    S or N
    T or F


    Now lets say that you are INFx. To work out whether you are j or p, ask yourself :


    "What do I find more attractive in my ideal companion, the qualities of S or T?"


    If you choose T then you are INFj. If you choose S then you are INFp.

    and just make things unnecessarily complicated.


    Also, to know what your subtype is ask yourself:


    "What describes me better, the qualities of N or F?"


    If you choose N then your subtype is N. If you choose F, your subtype is F.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If anything you are the logical subtype.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What makes you think that?

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You are overly confident of conclusions you make with Ti not allowing for Ne input. Or that's what it SEEMS like. Maybe I am wrong.

    Not that that is a bad thing I'm just saying.

  14. #14
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But Hugo, in terms of the actuial theory, that would be an over-simplication of the entire issue. For instance, take the INTj. In your theory, they would be introverted with thinking as the primary function; however, you have failed in one instance: in recognizing the relationship between an introverted nature and the nature of an introverts thought's; if their thoughts were to be introverted, or in other words, directed by subjective factors, thinking would be directed in an introverted fashion. Wouldn't this particular fashion of thinking, in and of itself, be introverted thinking?

    Of course, you could simply redefine the term introversion in such a way that would make it compatible with your conjecture, but then your definition would also have to be evaluated.

    Also, this theory is completely incompatible with Model A, although I suppose you could regard it as disposable.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    You are overly confident of conclusions you make with Ti not allowing for Ne input. Or that's what it SEEMS like.
    The ENTp base function description describes me pretty well:


    ENTps have a very well-developed ability to think inventively. Very often they come up with original and radical ideas. They have the ability to foresee the development of many different concepts. Their well developed intuition often helps them to make the right decisions. ENTps are well able to understand the essence of concepts and phenomena. They are interested in and read a lot about everything that is new and unusual.

    Maybe even a little bit more than the INTj base function description.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks Mystic,

    As I said before:

    Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

    Thinking (for example) is a process.

    Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.


    and

    Because Jung is wrong (with all due respect) so is Model A.

    Please also note that:

    There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

  17. #17
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Woah, I can't believe I missed all that.

    So, Hugo, what is introversion and extraversion?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You'll find your answer at socionics.com

  19. #19
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are you trying to make this discussion hard? Can you just give me a direct link; I can't find what you're talking about.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  21. #21
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I suppose, but you have in no way shown that your model is superior to the Socionic one; show me that and I may begin to believe your model is correct.

    The reason I believe the Socionic model to be correct is that I see those particular attitudes as an effect of the nature of the individual's thoughts, with the two natures being interested the objective world, and the other nature being interested in the subjective world.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As I said:

    There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

    The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well.

    I am not presenting a model but am aiming to "purify" theory.

    As I also said:

    Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

    Thinking (for example) is a process.

    Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting. So do you believe the concept of information metabolism is viable?

  24. #24
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics blends many theories together. It is not Jung, although it does elaborate on his system of nomenclature. Information on Socionics is a bit scanty and fragmented, no one here as far as I'm aware has all of the information.

    From what I have read it appears that Augustinavichute's "functional rings" were seen as a legitimate discovery. There is something in this that we do not know right now.

    Socionics.com is a great resource but most certainly is not the final say the descriptions of each function. It is for beginners and gives beginners a general idea of what functions are, that is all.

    What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't have enough expertise in this area to prove anything wrong. You can believe in it or choose not to believe in it, but I really don't think you can prove anything wrong. Your first flaw lies in the fact that you are assuming socionics automatically accepts everything Jung was saying. I don't think that it does, I think that it uses his ideas and modifies and elaborates on them. It also uses informational metabolism and freud's theory of the Id, Ego and Super-Ego. It modifies Freud's theory by adding a Super-Id, which in itself suggests that Jungs concept of typology was not taken as certian, but more of an intuitive guide.

    I'm not saying you aren't making any points, there are all good points you are making, but I don't think you are knowledgible enough to claim you are proving anyone or anything wrong.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I have an offtopic question.

    Say, waddles , are you in dual relationship as you seem to be so relaxed and
    feel so harmonious? I would like to find out the secret of this.

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trey
    Interesting. So do you believe the concept of information metabolism is viable?
    Good question.

    It depends what 'information metabolism' actually means.

    I've never seen a definition for it.

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dear Waddles

    Thanks for your reply.

    As I said before:

    The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well.

    I know full well that socionics is not just based on Jungs work, but without Jungs work there is no Model A.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Simply, information metabolism is the processing of information between a starting and end point. So I guess I asked the wrong question. More succinctly, does information itself carry properties other than those determined by the IESNTF mechanisms in the brain? If not, how does the mind handle conflicts created by information metabolism differences between said mechanisms?
    i have played in every toilet

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm afraid that I do not understand what you are asking. Maybe it would be helpful if you give an example.

    In additon, I haven't seen a clear enough definition of "information metabolism".

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think I can make that definition any clearer. Maybe you are just having difficulty putting it into context with your concept of psychological preference?

    Conversely, I'm not too sure how to supplement that (or any) question with an example, but if there are segments that confuse you, please pick them out.

    Oh, and uh..

    There are no such units as

    They only serve to confuse. There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define
    I hate to backtrack, but would you mind doing us a favor by either substantiating your premises, or at least not arguing them ad ignoratiam?
    i have played in every toilet

  31. #31
    Waddlesworth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I have an offtopic question.

    Quote Originally Posted by kaido21(TheGuestMember)
    Say, waddles , are you in dual relationship as you seem to be so relaxed and
    feel so harmonious? I would like to find out the secret of this.
    Interesting comment. It is funny because sometimes I feel quite confused as to how my posts 'read' to other people.

    I have an older sister, 9 years my senior, which is an ISFp. She taught me alot growing up, but by age 10 or 11 she left home and I had alot of troubles after this. Still, perhaps this has had an impact on my development of a more relaxed temperament. I do have a dual boss and a couple of my best friends are duals. Perhaps this is where you see the harmony. But I still have many problems, especially worrying about the future.


    Hugo:

    I think you are too bold in your conclusions.

    To "prove" something says alot, and I don't think you did this.

  32. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dear Trey

    On the one hand you said that the definition you gave of 'information metabolism' was very basic by using the word "simply", and on the other hand you said that you cannot give a clearer definition.

    I'm not so sure that you know/understand what you're saying/asking.

    No offense.

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Dear Waddles,

    As we are dealing with theory, the matter is one of reasoning.

    I have provided reasons, and have therefore proved my case. In conclusion, I believe that Jung is wrong (with all due respect).

    If you can disprove it by the use of reason, then be my guest.

  34. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That was me above.

  35. #35
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well. "

    Well, then, I suppose it can be said that the purpose of my post was in defense of Jung, whose ideas you still haven't proven inferior to your own.

  36. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On what specific grounds?

    It's no good making such a general remark without substantiating it.

    I've substantiated my conclusion.

  37. #37
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All you've done is posited baseless conjectures; you have yet to prove that it is superior to Jung's theory.

  38. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,763
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What I have said is based on reason.

    Don't forget Mystic, we are talking about a theory.

    If what I say is conjecture then so is what Jung says.

    Besides, you have said nothing to substantiate your claim.

  39. #39
    Creepy-Pete

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    Dear Waddles,

    As we are dealing with theory, the matter is one of reasoning.

    I have provided reasons, and have therefore proved my case. In conclusion, I believe that Jung is wrong (with all due respect).

    If you can disprove it by the use of reason, then be my guest.
    How are old are you Hugo? Only youth or an admission of idiocy will excuse your "reasoned" statements.
    If the former doesn't apply, you're in a hell of a whole as an INTj without strong reasoning powers

  40. #40
    Creepy-

    Default

    I mean "hole".

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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