Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Socionics: Primary Sources?

  1. #1
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics: Primary Sources?

    One of the biggest problems I'm encountering with Socionics, is that most of the information I'm finding is second or third-hand information, sometimes itself translated.

    Something that helped me a lot in MBTI was going back to Jung and Myers-Briggs original work, and trying to understand the system from that point, rather than reading the confused extrapolations of later authors.

    The thing is, it doesn't seem that Aushra Augusta left us with any primary sources, or at least none that have been translated.

    So, my question is... who is considered an authority on Socionics? Who is closest to the source in terms of their interpretation? I mean, is it a book, a website... what?

  2. #2
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    There aren't any. Socionics is bunk. You're better off falling back to the Jungian sources.
    I'm already acquainted with Jung's work on typology... I read that thoroughly while I was still using MBTI, and I mostly did my typing based on his psychological functions rather than the four dichotomies anyway.

    It sounds like you're telling me that I have nothing new to learn, then.

  3. #3
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree that Model A is stupid - most people here use Model A, though I'm aware Ashton doesn't. I agree that the type descriptions and IE descriptions are often bad, but I don't know about useless. I'd go to http://socionics.us/index.shtml before anywhere else, personally. He's still a second or third-hand source though.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  4. #4
    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

    Rick is a a secondary source; he's read all of Aushra's original works, and plenty besides, if I remember correctly.
    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...

  5. #5
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, what I meant was that some information he presents is from his reading of Aushra's work, which would be second-hand information, and some is from reading other material from people who also read Aushra's work, which in those cases would be third-hand information.
    It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
    -Mark Twain


    You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

  6. #6
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mirrorsoul View Post
    One of the biggest problems I'm encountering with Socionics, is that most of the information I'm finding is second or third-hand information, sometimes itself translated.

    Something that helped me a lot in MBTI was going back to Jung and Myers-Briggs original work, and trying to understand the system from that point, rather than reading the confused extrapolations of later authors.

    The thing is, it doesn't seem that Aushra Augusta left us with any primary sources, or at least none that have been translated.

    So, my question is... who is considered an authority on Socionics? Who is closest to the source in terms of their interpretation? I mean, is it a book, a website... what?
    I'm sorry if I'm sounding very direct today.

    Read this first:

    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

  7. #7
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    The quadras and the intertype relations are legit. Outside of that, there's little else worth learning. Model A is stupid, the IE descriptions are lame as hell, and the type profiles are often even worse.

    Basically if you just take Jung and graft intertypes onto that, and forget all the other nonsense, you'll be good to go.
    Well, the quadras aren't really a new concept for me.

    I used to go on a lot in MBTI about a theory I made up, about how a person had to either prefer Si/Ne OR Ni/Se, and that the psyche was structured such that one pair would be favored while the other was disfavored. Same with Ti/Fe and Fi/Te. If you put all that together, it basically gives you the Socionic quadras.

    I had a different basis for my theory than model A would imply (I claimed that both disfavored pairs were "more unconscious"), but I still came to the same conclusion.

    I'm not really in a position to test out intertype relations, because I'm not certain of my own type, or the accuracy of most other people's types. But if I get a good sample of people whose types I know for certain... I'll look at it.

  8. #8
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    I disagree that Model A is stupid - most people here use Model A, though I'm aware Ashton doesn't. I agree that the type descriptions and IE descriptions are often bad, but I don't know about useless. I'd go to http://socionics.us/index.shtml before anywhere else, personally. He's still a second or third-hand source though.
    So, he's the authority on Model A and the Socionic information elements?

    Well, I guess that's as close as I'll get without knowing Russian...

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    I'm sorry if I'm sounding very direct today.

    Read this first:

    http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm
    I already read that back when I was studying MBTI. I suppose it won't hurt to read it again, though.

  9. #9
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's the source i use most when typing people in Socionics.

  10. #10
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,630
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    The quadras and the intertype relations are legit. Outside of that, there's little else worth learning. Model A is stupid,
    You can't fully understand intertype relations without using Model A and information elements.

    socionics.us is good but incomplete. Rick's blog socionist.blogspot.com is also good.

  11. #11
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,693
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You can't fully understand intertype relations without using Model A and information elements.

    socionics.us is good but incomplete. Rick's blog socionist.blogspot.com is also good.
    but incomplete.

    Some types weren't described, specifically ILI.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  12. #12
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    The quadras and the intertype relations are legit.
    Eh, the static logic of the IMs regarding relations without explanations is legit. The idea that ALL relations of a particular static logic, say supervision, follow the same description or explanation is not. I hope you don't actually think so.

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,337
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aushra's work on Socionics is mostly an interpretation on Jung's, one more systematic. I agree about going back to the roots of Jung to understand types with the least amount of variance. I think they both make a good case for there being intertype relationships, and the Jung descriptions fit me and others better than any Socionics descriptions do, they're broader conceptually.

  14. #14
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,630
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold View Post
    but incomplete.
    True.

  15. #15
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You can't fully understand intertype relations without using Model A and information elements.
    agreed. it's not even just about understanding, it's Model A that is the foundation of and explanation of why the intertype relations exist at all in the first place. the intertype relations are derived from functional differences and information compatibilities (or lack thereof) between the types. it's impossible to try and use the intertype relations without using Model A.

  16. #16
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,939
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mirrorsoul View Post
    So, my question is... who is considered an authority on Socionics?
    nobody

    Quote Originally Posted by mirrorsoul View Post
    Who is closest to the source in terms of their interpretation?
    no one

    Quote Originally Posted by mirrorsoul View Post
    I mean, is it a book, a website... what?
    you're looking at it

  17. #17
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, this is kind of depressing... I don't know if I can use Socionics. Maybe I should just go back to MBTI. I'm the sort of person who needs a lot of clear, trustworthy information in order to understand something...

    Socionics looked promising, but I'm not willing to trust the miniscule amount of data on it that's available. With no understanding of how the theory was developed, or where it came from... I just can't trust it, or even understand it. I mean, we have some vague idea of Reinin dichotomies, but I can't read any of his work explaining what he means by them, or how he came up with them. I know that Aushra came up with model A, but once again... no explanation of how or why, or what it's supposed to mean. All I've got is this vague, collective understanding promoted by a few users of the theory, who all disagree with each other.

    I'm just not clever enough to reconstruct the missing pieces in my own mind, and trust that I've gotten everything I need. Especially since the few Socionic descriptions of functions I've seen seem to differ from the MBTI and Jungian versions.

  18. #18
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Develop your own guidelines and improve them as you go along. It's a process.
    Last edited by Beautiful sky; 03-20-2011 at 03:05 PM.

  19. #19
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Develop you own guidelines and improve them as you go along. It's a process.
    Well, that might have worked for me if I hadn't studied MBTI first... but now, I'm not going to be able to wipe the slate clean or do anything besides mentally convert MBTI types into Socionic types. As long as I have little or no new information to modify my understanding, I will be influenced by all the information in my head on MBTI

    Thanks, everyone... but I think I'm going to give this up. Socionics is just too process-oriented for me. After several weeks of research, I've come back to my original conclusion... Socionics is unusable in its current condition, and it would be irrational to try and use it, relying so heavily on one's own assumptions and filling in the blanks with unreliable data.

    I'm really just not built that way... I'm not the sort of person who just develops their own guidelines from nothing or improves them as they go along, and I'm not the sort of person who can be certain of their own interpretation in the face of criticism.

    I would be changing my interpretation of Socionics every time someone corrected me otherwise, and if there are two camps people who disagree... I won't know what to believe. That's what I do in the absence of clear guidelines... I just try to mimic everyone else. For what is supposed to be an intellectual pursuit, that sounds more than a little unsatisfactory.

    No thanks.

  20. #20
    Korpsy Knievel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4,234
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ Smartest post of the year.

  21. #21
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mirrorsoul View Post
    Well, that might have worked for me if I hadn't studied MBTI first... but now, I'm not going to be able to wipe the slate clean or do anything besides mentally convert MBTI types into Socionic types. As long as I have little or no new information to modify my understanding, I will be influenced by all the information in my head on MBTI

    Thanks, everyone... but I think I'm going to give this up. Socionics is just too process-oriented for me. After several weeks of research, I've come back to my original conclusion... Socionics is unusable in its current condition, and it would be irrational to try and use it, relying so heavily on one's own assumptions and filling in the blanks with unreliable data.

    I'm really just not built that way... I'm not the sort of person who just develops their own guidelines from nothing or improves them as they go along, and I'm not the sort of person who can be certain of their own interpretation in the face of criticism.

    I would be changing my interpretation of Socionics every time someone corrected me otherwise, and if there are two camps people who disagree... I won't know what to believe. That's what I do in the absence of clear guidelines... I just try to mimic everyone else. For what is supposed to be an intellectual pursuit, that sounds more than a little unsatisfactory.

    No thanks.
    Secure process type; I guess SEI is after all a really great type for you
    Last edited by Beautiful sky; 03-21-2011 at 03:56 AM.

  22. #22
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,939
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k0rpsey View Post
    ^ Smartest post of the year.
    a-fucking-men

  23. #23
    High Priestess glam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,388
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    mirrorsoul, you would need to read Aushra Augusta. since she came up with socionics, she would have to be the primary source that you're looking for. you can read her works to understand her views, where she got her ideas, and how socionics came to be. here are some that may help you:


    Augusta has written other articles besides the ones i listed above. scroll to the bottom half of this page for the links (these are not translated): http://www.socioniko.net/ru/authors/augusta.html

    you also commented on Reinin: Reinin also lays out exactly how he derived his dichotomies, and what each of them mean and how they manifest, in his book Socionics: Typology. Small Groups. you can download his book translated into English here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=32812

    i wouldn't give up on socionics after only a few weeks of studying it. in my opinion, to really grasp socionics and to learn how to successfully apply it takes some time. try not to get discouraged by people arguing over semantics and definitions. i think once you grasp it, you will find that socionics is simpler than it's often made out to be.

  24. #24
    Reflection mirrorsoul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With my parents. :(
    Posts
    269
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by glamourama View Post
    mirrorsoul, you would need to read Aushra Augusta. since she came up with socionics, she would have to be the primary source that you're looking for. you can read her works to understand her views, where she got her ideas, and how socionics came to be. here are some that may help you:


    Augusta has written other articles besides the ones i listed above. scroll to the bottom half of this page for the links (these are not translated): http://www.socioniko.net/ru/authors/augusta.html

    you also commented on Reinin: Reinin also lays out exactly how he derived his dichotomies, and what each of them mean and how they manifest, in his book Socionics: Typology. Small Groups. you can download his book translated into English here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=32812

    i wouldn't give up on socionics after only a few weeks of studying it. in my opinion, to really grasp socionics and to learn how to successfully apply it takes some time. try not to get discouraged by people arguing over semantics and definitions. i think once you grasp it, you will find that socionics is simpler than it's often made out to be.
    Thank you, thank you!

    This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. I was getting the impression that Augusta hadn't written anything down, and thus we had no first-hand information.

    *goes to read sources*

Posting Permissions

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