Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: SRSI's view on Socionics and MBTI (in Russian)

  1. #1
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default SRSI's view on Socionics and MBTI (in Russian)


    http:// socionics.ru /component/content/article/52-socionicskat/699-mbtisocionics2

  2. #2
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,105
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    The link should be: http://socionics.ru/component/content/article/52-socionicskat/699-mbtisocionics2

    The original URL had a couple of extra spaces.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  3. #3

  4. #4
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is pretty much consensus, anybody who tries to merge the two is an idiot to be frank.

  5. #5
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It depends on what we mean by MBTI. The type indicator or the functions? The descriptions of the functions or the order of the functions?

  6. #6
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    It depends on what we mean by MBTI. The type indicator or the functions? The descriptions of the functions or the order of the functions?
    The only thing that is not completely flawed are the descriptions of the functions.

  7. #7
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    The only thing that is not completely flawed are the descriptions of the functions.
    SRSI:

    "Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years. That is Jung’s colossal practice and the great work by Aushra Augustinavichuite, by her students and stalwarts. We come across the first semantic tables in Medvedev’s, Vaisband’s (Onufrienko’s) works. Such research are going on till present time, articles on this theme are published from time to time. Big work on a vocabulary compiling is done by V.D. Ermak in Kiev. Many other socionics suggest their own semantic tables."

  8. #8
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yep. Still, the definitions differ a bit on some of them. Se and Si are mixed up (or rather, MBTI Se is -Se/+Si exclusively), Ti and Te are also mixed up (MBTI Ti is -Te/+Ti and also -Ti and Te is only +Te). Among others.

  9. #9
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    Yep. Still, the definitions differ a bit on some of them. Se and Si are mixed up (or rather, MBTI Se is -Se/+Si exclusively), Ti and Te are also mixed up (MBTI Ti is -Te/+Ti and also -Ti and Te is only +Te). Among others.
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions. It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed. And secondly, there are only descriptions of the Jungian functions. We cannot compare definitions with descriptions.

  10. #10
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions. It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed. And secondly, there are only descriptions of the Jungian functions. We cannot compare definitions with descriptions.
    So you think jungian functions are more accurate than socionics IM's'? I don't understand the last part.

  11. #11
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    Yep. Still, the definitions differ a bit on some of them. Se and Si are mixed up (or rather, MBTI Se is -Se/+Si exclusively), Ti and Te are also mixed up (MBTI Ti is -Te/+Ti and also -Ti and Te is only +Te). Among others.
    You remember this article by Roan LaPlante/Aestrivex? It is pretty apparent that whatever Jung, MBTI, nor socionics talks about are abstractions that have little to do with each other, beyond rudimentary similarities. Now, in fact, socionics and MBTI are rudimentary closer to each other that whatever Jung's esoteric writings have to say.

    https://www.techhouse.org/socionics/essay_jcf.html

  12. #12
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions.
    How do you know this? Where is your evidence for making such an assession? If you've just pulled this conjecture out of your arse then you are going to find yourself in a pickle with everyone seeing you as an idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed. And secondly, there are only descriptions of the Jungian functions.
    By mentioning flawed it is assumed that you have a reference for everyone else to question and test your logic upon. What is the evidence you are using to judge aspects as more or less flawed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    We cannot compare definitions with descriptions.
    This makes no sense. Unless it's translation issue where you've misunderstood the minute difference between definition and description, in which case rephrase your explanation.

  13. #13
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,876
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Socionists have tried to adjust information aspects to Jungian functions. It is not the other way around, so the aspects are more or less flawed.
    No they haven't. This is just stupid. Augusta originally based her concept of the IM aspects/elements/whatever on the Jungian functions and only changed them because they didn't match up with reality. Any attempt to "reconcile" the two would just be a step backwards.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  14. #14
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mclane View Post
    So you think jungian functions are more accurate than socionics IM's'? I don't understand the last part.

    Yes, Jung's/Berens' descriptions of the functions are more accurate/correct (but less precise) than SSS and mainstream Socionics' definitions of information aspects. Jung observed people's behavior and described eight (2x4) distinctly different cognitive processes. Aushra then tried to combine Jung's theory with information metabolism, so she introduced information aspects. These had to correspond with Jung's functions. However, Te/P (for example) is problematic in both SSS and mainstream Socionics theory.


    It's a comparison of apples and oranges.
    Last edited by Petter; 11-17-2016 at 07:58 AM.

  15. #15
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    No they haven't. This is just stupid. Augusta originally based her concept of the IM aspects/elements/whatever on the Jungian functions and only changed them because they didn't match up with reality. Any attempt to "reconcile" the two would just be a step backwards.
    SRSI:

    "Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years. That is Jung’s colossal practice and the great work by Aushra Augustinavichuite, by her students and stalwarts. We come across the first semantic tables in Medvedev’s, Vaisband’s (Onufrienko’s) works. Such research are going on till present time, articles on this theme are published from time to time. Big work on a vocabulary compiling is done by V.D. Ermak in Kiev. Many other socionics suggest their own semantic tables."

    No, they had to change them. It is much harder to define aspects (i.e. information) than to describe functions (i.e cognitive processes). Both SSS definitions and external statics of objects etc. are good attempts, but they are far from perfect.

  16. #16
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    You remember this article by Roan LaPlante/Aestrivex? It is pretty apparent that whatever Jung, MBTI, nor socionics talks about are abstractions that have little to do with each other, beyond rudimentary similarities. Now, in fact, socionics and MBTI are rudimentary closer to each other that whatever Jung's esoteric writings have to say.

    https://www.techhouse.org/socionics/essay_jcf.html
    First of all, Roan is not a socionist. He's a self-proclaimed expert. He compares descriptions of information aspects with Jungian functions, but he draws the wrong conclusions.

    For example; "Externalized sense of value. Belief of values and worth is dependent on the external surroundings. When our surrounding tells us that it is important to be respectful of friends and family, that is what we utilize as Fe value. When we accept values of the church, it becomes our Fe value. It tells us to adopt social roles based on our external surroundings."

    What are those beliefs/evaluations based on? Emotions! So Socionics Fe and Jungian Fe refer to same thing.

    Most importantly, though, do the descriptions correspond with definitions of information aspects?

  17. #17
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Definitions:

    Te (external dynamics of objects)
    Ti (external statics of fields)

    Fe (internal dynamics of objects)
    Fi (internal statics of fields)

    Ne (internal statics of objects)
    Ni (internal dynamics of fields)

    Se (external statics of objects)
    Si (external dynamics of fields)


    Static - "Snapshots"
    Dynamic - Objects and fields in motion
    Extroverted (object, body) - Things as independent of other things
    Introverted (field) - Relationships between things
    External - Explicit, directly sensible content of reality
    Internal - Implicit, indirectly perceivable content of reality
    Irrational - Raw, unfiltered information
    Rational - Interpreted information

    If a description of aspects contradicts these definitions then it is useless! (SSS uses other definitions)
    Last edited by Petter; 11-17-2016 at 10:21 AM.

  18. #18
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    What are those beliefs/evaluations based on? Emotions! So Socionics Fe and Jungian Fe refer to same thing.

    Actually no, beliefs do not have to be derived from emotions contrary to popular misunderstanding, (Jung's) "feelings" are detached from emotions or sentiment being instead, a rational impartial perspective of the world.

    Emotions are a separate irrational and personal aspect of decision-making that are "involved" and influenced by sentiment. A couple of socionists and MBTI chose to interpret impersonal and personal decision making as the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" but Jung doesn't talk about that at all rather vehemently arguing the contrary.

    Socionics is a derivative system with its own perspectives influenced with observations that align with reality as opposed to Jung's esoteric system. The logic of socionics follows it's own axiom so if you are ever to merge the two with MBTI then whatever you are calling socionics isn't socionics. In before real vs fake Socionics/socionists, that's another can of worms people in the east have failed to fix the past 30 years due to a flawed premise - the failure to employ scientific methods.

    I spoke to this ESFJ girl a couple of years ago about the idea which seemed stupid to me, but it turns out she was a thinker yet her thinking naturally can be explained by the overlap negating the emotional interpretation of the world.
    http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-arti...-function.html
    Last edited by Soupman; 11-17-2016 at 11:40 PM.

  19. #19
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    Actually no, beliefs do not have to be derived from emotions contrary to popular misunderstanding, (Jung's) "feelings" are detached from emotions or sentiment being instead, a rational impartial perspective of the world.
    No, there are emotions, social cognition and cognition. Jungian Fe and Fi (as well as Aushra's Fe and Fi) are about social cognition. Social cognition: "Judging a person's beliefs vs. attributes about an object". And social cognition is a part of the limbic system.

    http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n05/mente/struct_i.htm

    Wikipedia (machine translation):

    "The front of Cingulate gyrus is central to the affective response of physical pain and is involved in the discovery and interpretation of social pain such as threats, rejection, exclusion, loss and negative evaluation of others. The front of Cingulate gyrus is particularly active when the individual is thinking negative thoughts about themselves."

    We must also distinguish between SSS theory and mainstream Socionics. SSS E (Fe) seems to be about emotions.

    A couple of socionists and MBTI chose to interpret impersonal and personal decision making as the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" but
    ...and that is an accurate assessment.

    Jung doesn't talk about that at all rather vehemently arguing the contrary.

    I spoke to this ESFJ girl a couple of years ago about the idea which seemed stupid to me, but it turns out she was a thinker yet her thinking naturally can be explained by the overlap negating the emotional interpretation of the world.

    http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-arti...-function.html
    “What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on. Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect, which is, as the words convey, an involuntary manifestation. Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterize an emotion. Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)”

    Yes! But this does not contradict my previous comment. Feeling (or Ethics of emotions) is a judgement that is based on emotions, i.e. it considers emotional responses in people.

    Socionics is a derivative system with its own perspectives influenced with observations that align with reality as opposed to Jung's esoteric system. The logic of socionics follows it's own axiom so if you are ever to merge the two with MBTI then whatever you are calling socionics isn't socionics. In before real vs fake Socionics/socionists, that's another can of worms people in the east have failed to fix the past 30 years due to a flawed premise - the failure to employ scientific methods.
    First of all, Jung's/MBTI's observations align most accurately with reality. And it is not that complicated. If you want to combine a personality theory/theory of the psyche (Jung) with information metabolism, then you must define eight different kinds of information (aspects). Otherwise you cannot analyze language, exchange of information and social interaction.

    Socionics distinguishes between functions and aspects (and sometimes IM elements). 'Aspect' is included in MBTT/Jungian 'function'. Btw, SSS uses 'aspect' but calls it 'information element'.

    The big difference between Socionics and MBTT is that aspects are defined in Socionics but functions (including aspects) are only approximately described in MBTT.

  20. #20
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post

    “What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on. Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect, which is, as the words convey, an involuntary manifestation. Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterize an emotion. Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)”

    Yes! But this does not contradict my previous comment. Feeling (or Ethics of emotions) is a judgement that is based on emotions, i.e. it considers emotional responses in people.
    You need to reanalyse the quote, it clearly doesn't insinuate that it is a judgement based on emotions when several lines in the quote contradict your statement: eg
    "Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect" & "Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterise an emotion".
    Finally, the last statement contradicts your statement clearly talking about how it is: "Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)"

    That is in contradiction of your vested interest in the desire to see the Jungian-inspired typology converge, it's blinding you with regards to being absolutely honest about the facts: the numerous subtle but significant contradictions affecting how the theories can be understood. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy by connecting dots where none exist, also with several alternatives to rationalise the unhelpful esoteric writing.

  21. #21
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    You need to reanalyse the quote, it clearly doesn't insinuate that it is a judgement based on emotions when several lines in the quote contradict your statement: eg
    "Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect" & "Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterise an emotion".
    Finally, the last statement contradicts your statement clearly talking about how it is: "Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)"
    There is a difference between emotion and social cognition. Jung's description of Feeling corresponds to social cognition. Jung: "What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on."

    That judgement of value is based on emotions. Why do we think some people are good and others are bad? Because we react emotionally to good behavior vs. bad behavior, and then we contemplate our reactions (i.e. Feeling, morality).

    That is in contradiction of your vested interest in the desire to see the Jungian-inspired typology converge, it's blinding you with regards to being absolutely honest about the facts: the numerous subtle but significant contradictions affecting how the theories can be understood. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy by connecting dots where none exist, also with several alternatives to rationalise the unhelpful esoteric writing.
    Jungian typology is already an intrinsic part of Socionics. SRSI: "Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years."

  22. #22
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    There is a difference between emotion and social cognition. Jung's description of Feeling corresponds to social cognition. Jung: "What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on."

    That judgement of value is based on emotions. Why do we think some people are good and others are bad? Because we react emotionally to good behavior vs. bad behavior, and then we contemplate our reactions (i.e. Feeling, morality).



    Jungian typology is already an intrinsic part of Socionics. SRSI: "Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years."
    You are mistaking values as being feelings about something rather that is not what the rational perspective of values entails. From the rational front values are believes reasoned and justified, for example when they are instilled into society. "Feelings" are irrational and comical justification that have nothing to do with what is justified to be entailed onto society.

    You are making an unsubstantiated claim on the supposed ubiquitous similarity of Jungian derived conceptions when actual analysis of the details rationally exposes important deviations that affect the derivative theories themselves. It's not scientific to be sloppy in analysis.

  23. #23
    mclane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    464
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Yes, Jung's/Berens' descriptions of the functions are more accurate/correct (but less precise) than SSS and mainstream Socionics' definitions of information aspects. Jung observed people's behavior and described eight (2x4) distinctly different cognitive processes. Aushra then tried to combine Jung's theory with information metabolism, so she introduced information aspects. These had to correspond with Jung's functions. However, Te/P (for example) is problematic in both SSS and mainstream Socionics theory.


    It's a comparison of apples and oranges.
    One thing I've noticed is that people in MBTI based forums seem to be apt at typing by identifying the functions people are using. Many times I have not found a satisfactory answer here when searching for a particular person's type, so I've looked in an MBTI based forum, and the answers there are many times correct (even when translating said type into socionics terms). Even when it is not correct, it has clued me in as to what the person's type could be. The definitions in MBTI are simpler and more effective. Here what we have is the likes of "Internal dynamics of objects". Seriously, whatever does that mean? So this is a potential area of improvement for Socionics.

  24. #24
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    349
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    You are mistaking values as being feelings about something rather that is not what the rational perspective of values entails. From the rational front values are believes reasoned and justified, for example when they are instilled into society. "Feelings" are irrational and comical justification that have nothing to do with what is justified to be entailed onto society.
    I apologize for a delayed reply. No, I am saying that a judgement of value is based on emotions.

    Jung: "Like thinking, it is a rational function."

    You: "From the rational front values are believes reasoned and justified"

    "Jung described the psychological functions of thinking and feeling as rational because they are decisively influenced by reflection."

    "The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history."

    "Most objective values – and reason itself – are firmly established complexes of ideas handed down through the ages. Countless generations have laboured at their organization with the same necessity with which the living organism reacts to the average, constantly recurring environmental conditions, confronting them with corresponding functional complexes, as the eye, for instance, perfectly corresponds to the nature of light. … Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and govern the average, “correct,” adapted attitude. Everything is “rational” that accords with these laws, everything that contravenes them is “irrational”. [“Definitions,” ibid., par. 785f.]"

    Yes! I agree with all of these comments. The laws corresponds to the "correct, adapted attitude". But what is the adapted attitude based on in the first place? It is based on preservation of energy/efficiency (Thinking) and emotions (Feeling).

    You are making an unsubstantiated claim on the supposed ubiquitous similarity of Jungian derived conceptions when actual analysis of the details rationally exposes important deviations that affect the derivative theories themselves. It's not scientific to be sloppy in analysis.
    Okay, what are those deviations according to you?

  25. #25
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    Okay, what are those deviations according to you?
    Excellent question and this took me over 4 years of relentless prodding on the matter, a simple fact I didn't want to accept but was forced to do so was that everyone comes out with a personal interpretation of Jung's ideas and there is no impartial metric of evaluation to segregate various interpretations, beyond what a person feels is correct. The similar semantics only obfuscate the deviations, ask the people for absolute clarity and everyone reveals how they actually understand the ideas thus precisely their actual personal deviation.

    *Myers & Briggs focus on simplifying everything to being about feelings - outer feelings, the society what is right and wrong as society dictates & inner feelings - the personal morality affecting how a person sees things & their inner feelings.

    *Socionics focuses on emotions & relations: as emotions - feelings expressions, outer subjective experience displayed & relations - encompasses things that are fully thought out and analysed about society - morality, various forms of relations as they are thought about and analysed.


    This stuff above is something you've correctly labelled as "descriptions", they amount to being substantiated rationalisations of whatever Jung meant in his esoteric writings. Everyone keeps trying to guess and people just end up choosing whatever they feel. There is no information to judge and discriminate between how people feel in the absence of robust evidence. All complex interpretations of these Jungian ideas all serve to hide people's subjective feelings about what they think is correct; furthermore, people only further confuse themselves with complexity trying to do mental-gymnastics that they overlook the collective confusion not in just themselves but everyone as they argue on what they want Jung to mean. The simplistic interpretation, which is correct & accurate, is that people arbitrarily drew borders around "descriptions" of what supposedly Jung meant is the only rational interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petter View Post
    energy/efficiency (Thinking)
    Energy and efficiency have nothing to do with Logic in socionics or Jung's esoteric theory, but rather this is part of the temperament theory which is actually substantiated. Extroverts (linear/abruptly applying solutions & flexible/weighing-all-options alike) don't think in terms of efficiency use of energy and task/problems acquisition, rather expending high energy on problems available; contrary Introverts are energy and efficiency conscious regarding how they apply themselves to tasks and problems at hand.

    People with emotions predominantly think, it is just that their expressive nature has a strong rational (as reasoned and societally beneficial behaviour) aura that affects and dictates the social environment, ending up colouring most of what is thought to be their personality on observation - particularly the derivative of the personality abstraction.

  26. #26
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,876
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    Excellent question and this took me over 4 years of relentless prodding on the matter, a simple fact I didn't want to accept but was forced to do so was that everyone comes out with a personal interpretation of Jung's ideas and there is no impartial metric of evaluation to segregate various interpretations, beyond what a person feels is correct. The similar semantics only obfuscate the deviations, ask the people for absolute clarity and everyone reveals how they actually understand the ideas thus precisely their actual personal deviation.

    This stuff above is something you've correctly labelled as "descriptions", they amount to being substantiated rationalisations of whatever Jung meant in his esoteric writings. Everyone keeps trying to guess and people just end up choosing whatever they feel. There is no information to judge and discriminate between how people feel in the absence of robust evidence. All complex interpretations of these Jungian ideas all serve to hide people's subjective feelings about what they think is correct; furthermore, people only further confuse themselves with complexity trying to do mental-gymnastics that they overlook the collective confusion not in just themselves but everyone as they argue on what they want Jung to mean. The simplistic interpretation, which is correct & accurate, is that people arbitrarily drew borders around "descriptions" of what supposedly Jung meant is the only rational interpretation.
    I'm having trouble parsing this last sentence, but as I understand what you're saying it's not true. Augusta was not merely trying to guess at "what Jung meant" based on her feelings, she arrived at socionics through observation of real people. Socionics is not just a philosophical system, it has empirical content. Jung was the starting point but needed to be modified to agree with reality. She writes herself:

    "Therefore, I feel it my duty to warn that we have not thought up anything ourselves, but have just extended and elaborated on the provisions of C.G. Jung, though in the process some of them have changed beyond recognition. This happened as a result of studying the specific ways of thinking of individual people."

    "There isn't a drop here of 'pure theory' that doesn't come out of our observations."

    I can't speak for others but this has also generally been my approach and it seems to be the approach of many people who have investigated the theory thoroughly.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  27. #27
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    I'm having trouble parsing this last sentence, but as I understand what you're saying it's not true. Augusta was not merely trying to guess at "what Jung meant" based on her feelings, she arrived at socionics through observation of real people. Socionics is not just a philosophical system, it has empirical content. Jung was the starting point but needed to be modified to agree with reality. She writes herself:

    "Therefore, I feel it my duty to warn that we have not thought up anything ourselves, but have just extended and elaborated on the provisions of C.G. Jung, though in the process some of them have changed beyond recognition. This happened as a result of studying the specific ways of thinking of individual people."

    "There isn't a drop here of 'pure theory' that doesn't come out of our observations."

    I can't speak for others but this has also generally been my approach and it seems to be the approach of many people who have investigated the theory thoroughly.
    This is exactly why our final conversation tanked when you came to the conclusion that I couldn't understand "simple ideas".

    I don't blame you but then this is part of the complex esoteric foundation Carl Jung failed to convey as it operates on a complex abstraction of the nature of the reality of "information-styles". If you were one of the few people that have attempted to understand this perspective of reality then, you'd get a gist of the communication issues you and I possess from the incompatibility of our "reality-abstraction-styles" on information. People with shared "information-abstraction-styles" find it easier to exchange and analyse information given that they exchange this data in a manner they are naturally accustomed to.

    Aušra Augustinavičiūtė rightfully notes that she gave up given her own failure to understand such an esoteric perspective. I don't deny her expansive research going beyond Jung, but she restricted her queries to a layer of reality on her cognitive limits. It's so simplistic that its one of the reasons why the theory is a joke when critically analysing its foundation from a scientific perspective... but I don't expect this to make sense to you given the barrier in the conceptual idea itself.

    BTW I also looked at your posts from several years ago & I noticed that you have a problem understanding subjectivity and objectivity from the esoteric Jungian perspective:

    When both you and her (as well as socionists leaning in that perspective/worldview) talk about empiricism you are talking about the Jungian esoteric "objectivity". And this has both it has upside and downsides as a style of abstracting information. And there, others are wired differently as Jungian "subjectivists" and we see several structural issues in your ideas and don't appreciate your "empirical" perspective everything sounds wrong and it's frustrating (if approaching the issue from a lazy perspective that there is something wrong with a person if I don't like or get frustrated by their conceptions on reality). We have a mutual but incompatible relationship with "empiricism" and "structural-analysis" on our conceptions regarding reality.

  28. #28
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    This is exactly why our final conversation tanked when you came to the conclusion that I couldn't understand "simple ideas".

    I don't blame you but then this is part of the complex esoteric foundation Carl Jung failed to convey as it operates on a complex abstraction of the nature of the reality of "information-styles". If you were one of the few people that have attempted to understand this perspective of reality then, you'd get a gist of the communication issues you and I possess from the incompatibility of our "reality-abstraction-styles" on information. People with shared "information-abstraction-styles" find it easier to exchange and analyse information given that they exchange this data in a manner they are naturally accustomed to.

    Aušra Augustinavičiūtė rightfully notes that she gave up given her own failure to understand such an esoteric perspective. I don't deny her expansive research going beyond Jung, but she restricted her queries to a layer of reality on her cognitive limits. It's so simplistic that its one of the reasons why the theory is a joke when critically analysing its foundation from a scientific perspective... but I don't expect this to make sense to you given the barrier in the conceptual idea itself.
    Just maybe you think to highly of your own intellect. to express something complex with simple words yet capture the essence of the subject is something of an art. There should not really be any "subjectivity", now what that really means, in typology. But you can stay trying to determine type from the perspective of subjective, objects and systems if you so like.

  29. #29
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Just maybe you think to highly of your own intellect. to express something complex with simple words yet capture the essence of the subject is something of an art. There should not really be any "subjectivity", now what that really means, in typology. But you can stay trying to determine type from the perspective of subjective, objects and systems if you so like.
    In theory, that is desirable I agree that it is something to aspire to always. However, in practice, that isn't always feasible with regards the importance of absolute precision in conveying extremely counter-intuitive and complex aspects of reality.

    The biggest risk is the distortion that comes from "simple words", in fact, it is a big problem which is why we are forced to create & utilise new vocabulary to minimise its effect. The only reason for advanced vocabulary is not to be pretentious but rather to minimise communication interferences from the miscommunication of ideas.

    And finally regarding this:
    "Just maybe you think too highly of your own intellect"
    This idea makes no sense to me, with regards to intellect the proof is "in-the-pudding", or the thought-product as opposed to the agent. I don't see why personality attributes inherent to a person matter with regards to analysing the strength of their intellect. Whether the person has intellectual pride or not is irrelevant is critiquing the product of their thought.

  30. #30
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    In theory, that is desirable I agree that it is something to aspire to always. However, in practice, that isn't always feasible with regards the importance of absolute precision in conveying extremely counter-intuitive and complex aspects of reality.

    The biggest risk is the distortion that comes from "simple words", in fact, it is a big problem which is why we are forced to create & utilise new vocabulary to minimise its effect. The only reason for advanced vocabulary is not to be pretentious but rather to minimise communication interferences from the miscommunication of ideas.

    And finally regarding this:
    "Just maybe you think too highly of your own intellect"
    This idea makes no sense to me, with regards to intellect the proof is "in-the-pudding", or the thought-product as opposed to the agent. I don't see why personality attributes inherent to a person matter with regards to analysing the strength of their intellect. Whether the person has intellectual pride or not is irrelevant is critiquing the product of their thought.
    The intellect thing was in respond to how you responded to the post previously. A bit dicky. Anyhow ya if something can be described more precise with more words that is to best, if something can be explained simply that is the master description. Anyhow I think Jung did great work but it have evolved and been redone in ways that cover it better. Model A is way better frame to make theoretical conclusions than something about subjective objects, which, does not exist.

  31. #31
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,876
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aušra Augustinavičiūtė rightfully notes that she gave up given her own failure to understand such an esoteric perspective.
    She said nothing of the sort. Perhaps she did fail to understand what Jung intended but this is not how she viewed it. Jung was merely a stepping stone for her.

    It should also be noted that Augusta was no stranger to the esoteric sciences (nor am I, for that matter). By all accounts she delved into them deeply in her later years. But everything has its place in the search for knowledge.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  32. #32
    a two horned unicorn renegade Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Playing with your head
    TIM
    Ne-ILE-C 7 LEFV
    Posts
    3,905
    Mentioned
    173 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Umm.. didn't know that Jung once had weight of 1921 kg.
    Sol mb F type due to his inability to think alternatives.


  33. #33
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    The intellect thing was in respond to how you responded to the post previously. A bit dicky. Anyhow ya if something can be described more precise with more words that is to best, if something can be explained simply that is the master description. Anyhow I think Jung did great work but it have evolved and been redone in ways that cover it better. Model A is way better frame to make theoretical conclusions than something about subjective objects, which, does not exist.
    If you read the whole response you'd figure out there is information missing based on the PM communication we heard which didn't necessarily end well. Regardless this was just a blunt message about the failure of communication between me and him.

    Dude did you miss the earlier arguments/post? That perspective is not universal and critical thinking also exposes why - everyone gets inspired differently by "Jung" and the esoteric ideas behind "thinking" "feeling" "intuition", & "sensation" allude everyone. And there isn't a universal metric to discern the most appropriate interpretation of the ideas. With the exception of the esoteric idea of "information-abstraction-styles" very few seem to grasp.

  34. #34
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    If you read the whole response you'd figure out there is information missing based on the PM communication we heard which didn't necessarily end well. Regardless this was just a blunt message about the failure of communication between me and him.

    Dude did you miss the earlier arguments/post? That perspective is not universal and critical thinking also exposes why - everyone gets inspired differently by "Jung" and the esoteric ideas behind "thinking" "feeling" "intuition", & "sensation" allude everyone. And there isn't a universal metric to discern the most appropriate interpretation of the ideas. With the exception of the esoteric idea of "information-abstraction-styles" very few seem to grasp.
    ya I read it. Actually when you was saying "esoteric ideas" I thought you meant the fact that Jung entire base is from the perspective of the perceiver. For example Si is defined as how the perceiver of Si view an object. Basically everything Jung states is the perspective of the perceiver. The subjective part is how the person have storied their memory and apply it to this object.

    But ya, you were a dick.

  35. #35
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    She said nothing of the sort. Perhaps she did fail to understand what Jung intended but this is not how she viewed it. Jung was merely a stepping stone for her.

    It should also be noted that Augusta was no stranger to the esoteric sciences (nor am I, for that matter). By all accounts she delved into them deeply in her later years. But everything has its place in the search for knowledge.
    In other words, she failed thus created her own derivative interpretation which resulted in ideas heavily deviated from whatever Jung meant, which is a bone of contention given numerous interpretations.

    Esoteric sciences =/= esoteric ideas are not the same. You can't seem to abstract that specific perspective which results in you lacking insight in that difficult but actually empirical side to reality.

  36. #36
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    483
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    ya I read it. Actually when you was saying "esoteric ideas" I thought you meant the fact that Jung entire base is from the perspective of the perceiver. For example Si is defined as how the perceiver of Si view an object. Basically everything Jung states is the perspective of the perceiver. The subjective part is how the person have storied their memory and apply it to this object.

    But ya, you were a dick.
    You didn't read the intro of my post which clearly quotes why our PM conversation ended terribly, as for your moral perspective as to whether I'm being a dick or not, is none of my concern. It doesn't compute, I have no malicious intention surrounding that, that's not how I think.

    Now from a 3rd level thinking perspective, the issue at hand here is questioning what/how (perhaps why) Jung thought about what he conceptualise - that issue is important because it helps deal with the chaos of deviating interpretations about his ideas. If we simply focus on our individual interpretations of his ideas, we will merely waste time trying to force each other to see what we desire to see when there is no empirical system to falsify the numerous diverging interpretations various people seem to conceptualise.

  37. #37
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,295
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupman View Post
    You didn't read the intro of my post which clearly quotes why our PM conversation ended terribly, as for your moral perspective as to whether I'm being a dick or not, is none of my concern. It doesn't compute, I have no malicious intention surrounding that, that's not how I think.

    Now from a 3rd level thinking perspective, the issue at hand here is questioning what/how (perhaps why) Jung thought about what he conceptualise - that issue is important because it helps deal with the chaos of deviating interpretations about his ideas. If we simply focus on our individual interpretations of his ideas, we will merely waste time trying to force each other to see what we desire to see when there is no empirical system to falsify the numerous diverging interpretations various people seem to conceptualise.
    I did read the thread and the point aint in the content but the presentation.

    Yes! To understand Jung we need to look at Jung first and not only the ideas, where did they come from? From what perspective was they created? I do this in the scenario of him being IEI. Why is it important? If in this case he is Ni, which in the subjective whatever thingy he perceive the world of a machine of laws that play out and we get the reality as today. When he approach this he do it from trying to understand what the person he is (he was a terapeut of sort) terapeut to perceive the world, in order for him to understand the person. To take only visuals he was trying to understand what the person he was dealing with saw in this world, where the focus was.

  38. #38
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,876
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Soupman the fact remains that Jung was attempting, with his personality types, to describe real people, and socionics does a far better job of that because Augusta and her colleagues refined it with their own observations.

    What you say is ironic, considering how you yourself have spectacularly failed to understand Augusta's ideas.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

Posting Permissions

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