Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The Esssence and Origin of Socionics

  1. #1
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default The Essence and Origin of Socionics

    So, I've speculated before about the origins of Socionics. This might be based on something I have heard in the distant past about Socionics, but at least based on my own memory, it seems like I came up with it from my own musing. It could also be something others have thought before themselves. But regardless of the source, I'd like to talk about this topic.

    So here we go. The basis of Socionics is the answer to two questions:

    1) How do we acquire resources? (NeSi & NiSe)
    2) How do we deal with other people? (FiTe & FeTi)

    The NiSe method of gathering resources is focused on acquisition through some method other than cultivation. Finding and appropriating resources (like food, for instance) is something that is done in a hunter/gatherer style. They take what already exists in the sensory department and use it. Ni in its original context most likely existed as a means of predicting which necessary resources would be available in the future for acquisition, and where those might be found. Because of the often cyclical aspect of nature and the seasons and how resources replenish themselves over time, Ni itself bears an awareness of cyclicality. Hunter/gatherer tribes often would keep moving and returning to the same spots throughout the year, going to each as it came to fruition at the proper time.

    The NeSi method of resource gathering is focused more on cultivation. The original form of this function can most likely be seen in the tendency toward agrarianism. Subtle attention is required to cultivate resources, and the ability to protect cultivated land and crops and other resources from harm by external forces (such as deer, other groups of raiding/roving humans) is necessary. It is also necessary to be aware of which quality crops would be best to cultivate in the future, and to save those for future use to increase future bounties and crop fertility. While Si is more focused on the day-to-day defense of land and preservation of physical resources, the attendant purpose of Ne was to speculate about what potential plots of land or regions might bear the best opportunity for future cultivation. Some land, while extraordinarily fertile, is also extremely fragile. So finding land that is both fertile and durable is important to the success of agriculture.


    The judging functions deal more with dealing with other people.

    The FeTi dyad is associated with higher population density. That means more people and less space. When in this scenario, division of labor is more specialized, and individuals take up work that benefits not only themselves, but also the social community in which they live, because, due to the specialization of labor, no one person has all the skills necessary for survival, or even close. This specialization of labor naturally entails a social responsibility that requires a function like Fe to bind the units of society together. In the presence of a highly dense population, people whose character is too different from the norm are anathema, because there must be at least some modicum of similarity and homogeneity to support the coming together of so many people into a functioning unity. The functional skills necessary here are the ones that allow one to have passing acquaintances and to be genial to many people. Dealing with constantly shifting social scenarios with many new people is associated with this dyad.

    The FiTe dyad is associated with lower population density. That means fewer people in more space. When in this scenario, division of labor is rather unspecialized. People in this scenario learn a wide variety of skills necessary for survival, because there are not enough people to allow for extreme specialization. Deep differences can be allowed, because the people in these societies have a wider skillset that permits autonomous function, as well as enough space to permit people to live apart in case of disagreement of character. The skills used for dealing with these people often have an emphasis on more long-term interaction, because there are fewer people and fewer opportunities to meet different people.

    There are likely a great number of consequences, implications, and other conclusions that can be derived from these ideas. I welcome anyone who would like to use these ideas as a starting point for further development to do so.

    Another implication of this mode of thought is that the idea commonly thought of as "quadra progression" or a "law of quadra progression" becomes pointless. Quadra progression is not defined by a definite progression from one quadra into another, necessarily. Instead, society takes shape on the basis of whatever method for acquiring resources and dealing with people works best for a given situation. So, there is not any necessary order for what quadra must come after another. What quadra comes next in the progression is simply defined by what methods work best for the people in a society for their survival. The knowledge gained from any prior progression is most likely subsumed into the next cycle, and evolution continues in the style of an upward helix assuming a lack of a catastrophe that is too severe for humans to cope with. When looking at the idea of quadra progression, I think it's necessary to see it as something that is similar to "boxes within boxes" for lack of a better term. It's possible that a society has longer-term progressions, and, within those, short-term progressions that define decades and shorter periods of time. The longer-term progressions define eras, ages, periods, and so on. So this is a holographic or compositional way of thinking of quadra progression.

    This view of Socionics is evolutionary, naturalistic, and based on thinking about socionics as a means of survival. I think it's the best explanation I've come up with for how Socionics and typology came to be. If you think about it, all societies can really fit neatly into one of the four categories I've mentioned, and that is perhaps the source of the functions, quadras, types, etc.


    This has been a really disorganized and kinda crazy post, but I have been looking to get these ideas out for some time, and I'm not good at organization like that, so I thought I'd just spew it out for you guys to see and read and think about.


    Edit for addition of new thought:

    When we think about why we have what functions we do, and why there aren't others, and perhaps cannot be others, it's because the methods we have of acquiring resources or dealing with others are limited to a small number of possibilities. We can either get our resources or make them. We can either deal with a lot of people or a few people. There aren't really any other options.
    Last edited by Aramas; 10-12-2017 at 03:25 AM.
    IEE
    sp/sx
    (Ne subtype?)

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,010
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    > 1) How do we acquire resources? (NeSi & NiSe)
    > 2) How do we deal with other people? (FiTe & FeTi)

    The basis of Socionics is Jung's typology.
    It's how we think, perceive the world and themselves, what kind of information dominates in our consciousness.

    Irrational functions - perceive the world. Rational - how to deal with it, what is it for us.

    It's impossible to say that only irrational functions relate to resources as feelings of others support us and logical information of others helps us in the achieving of our aims.
    It's impossible to say that rational functions is only how to deal with other people, as we also deal directly with other objects and information.

    Your conception has flaws from the beginning.
    There is no need to develop new conceptions in Socionics, the current task is to develop practical usage of the existing ones.

    For example, my hypothesis about types compensation is not mine - it's initial Jungians ideas, which thought types as kinds of psyche's distortion. What I did - just offered how to use this better. I've joined this with Socionics' duality, a knowledge about what is love (much gotten from there) and some knowledge about technics of unconscious indoctrination. Also then I've joined this with a political knowledge to say about possible social consequences of all this. I made nothing new, just joined the existing so all this could be systemicly understood and become practically realized.

    To create new useful conceptions you need much higher level of undestanding than novices have. It's above even my level of types understanding, while I watch types and IR for many years.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  3. #3
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,576
    Mentioned
    81 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Aramas Interesting theory Aramas. It is interesting to see how functions and personality types developed for humans based on societal needs. However, I am sure there is a link of functions and personality types for animals as well, but perhaps more simplified and primitive.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-4w5-9w1

  4. #4
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,381
    Mentioned
    125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    So, I've speculated before about the origins of Socionics. This might be based on something I have heard in the distant past about Socionics, but at least based on my own memory, it seems like I came up with it from my own musing. It could also be something others have thought before themselves. But regardless of the source, I'd like to talk about this topic.

    So here we go. The basis of Socionics is the answer to two questions:

    1) How do we acquire resources? (NeSi & NiSe)
    2) How do we deal with other people? (FiTe & FeTi)

    The NiSe method of gathering resources is focused on acquisition through some method other than cultivation. Finding and appropriating resources (like food, for instance) is something that is done in a hunter/gatherer style. They take what already exists in the sensory department and use it. Ni in its original context most likely existed as a means of predicting which necessary resources would be available in the future for acquisition, and where those might be found. Because of the often cyclical aspect of nature and the seasons and how resources replenish themselves over time, Ni itself bears an awareness of cyclicality. Hunter/gatherer tribes often would keep moving and returning to the same spots throughout the year, going to each as it came to fruition at the proper time.

    The NeSi method of resource gathering is focused more on cultivation. The original form of this function can most likely be seen in the tendency toward agrarianism. Subtle attention is required to cultivate resources, and the ability to protect cultivated land and crops and other resources from harm by external forces (such as deer, other groups of raiding/roving humans) is necessary. It is also necessary to be aware of which quality crops would be best to cultivate in the future, and to save those for future use to increase future bounties and crop fertility. While Si is more focused on the day-to-day defense of land and preservation of physical resources, the attendant purpose of Ne was to speculate about what potential plots of land or regions might bear the best opportunity for future cultivation. Some land, while extraordinarily fertile, is also extremely fragile. So finding land that is both fertile and durable is important to the success of agriculture.


    The judging functions deal more with dealing with other people.

    The FeTi dyad is associated with higher population density. That means more people and less space. When in this scenario, division of labor is more specialized, and individuals take up work that benefits not only themselves, but also the social community in which they live, because, due to the specialization of labor, no one person has all the skills necessary for survival, or even close. This specialization of labor naturally entails a social responsibility that requires a function like Fe to bind the units of society together. In the presence of a highly dense population, people whose character is too different from the norm are anathema, because there must be at least some modicum of similarity and homogeneity to support the coming together of so many people into a functioning unity. The functional skills necessary here are the ones that allow one to have passing acquaintances and to be genial to many people. Dealing with constantly shifting social scenarios with many new people is associated with this dyad.

    The FiTe dyad is associated with lower population density. That means fewer people in more space. When in this scenario, division of labor is rather unspecialized. People in this scenario learn a wide variety of skills necessary for survival, because there are not enough people to allow for extreme specialization. Deep differences can be allowed, because the people in these societies have a wider skillset that permits autonomous function, as well as enough space to permit people to live apart in case of disagreement of character. The skills used for dealing with these people often have an emphasis on more long-term interaction, because there are fewer people and fewer opportunities to meet different people.

    There are likely a great number of consequences, implications, and other conclusions that can be derived from these ideas. I welcome anyone who would like to use these ideas as a starting point for further development to do so.

    Another implication of this mode of thought is that the idea commonly thought of as "quadra progression" or a "law of quadra progression" becomes pointless. Quadra progression is not defined by a definite progression from one quadra into another, necessarily. Instead, society takes shape on the basis of whatever method for acquiring resources and dealing with people works best for a given situation. So, there is not any necessary order for what quadra must come after another. What quadra comes next in the progression is simply defined by what methods work best for the people in a society for their survival. The knowledge gained from any prior progression is most likely subsumed into the next cycle, and evolution continues in the style of an upward helix assuming a lack of a catastrophe that is too severe for humans to cope with. When looking at the idea of quadra progression, I think it's necessary to see it as something that is similar to "boxes within boxes" for lack of a better term. It's possible that a society has longer-term progressions, and, within those, short-term progressions that define decades and shorter periods of time. The longer-term progressions define eras, ages, periods, and so on. So this is a holographic or compositional way of thinking of quadra progression.

    This view of Socionics is evolutionary, naturalistic, and based on thinking about socionics as a means of survival. I think it's the best explanation I've come up with for how Socionics and typology came to be. If you think about it, all societies can really fit neatly into one of the four categories I've mentioned, and that is perhaps the source of the functions, quadras, types, etc.


    This has been a really disorganized and kinda crazy post, but I have been looking to get these ideas out for some time, and I'm not good at organization like that, so I thought I'd just spew it out for you guys to see and read and think about.


    Edit for addition of new thought:

    When we think about why we have what functions we do, and why there aren't others, and perhaps cannot be others, it's because the methods we have of acquiring resources or dealing with others are limited to a small number of possibilities. We can either get our resources or make them. We can either deal with a lot of people or a few people. There aren't really any other options.
    Nice post!

    Nomadic vs sedentary lifestyles do roughly seem to correspond to Se vs. Si, although this is really more about stability vs instability. Nomadic cultures tend to involve more conflict. But I think the connection to intuition is less clear in practice: Ne can definitely be the cause of nomadic roaming behavior. Ni is more closely related to nomadism in that you have to think more about how to protect yourself from danger, the elements, opposing factions, etc.

    "While Si is more focused on the day-to-day defense of land and preservation of physical resources, the attendant purpose of Ne was to speculate about what potential plots of land or regions might bear the best opportunity for future cultivation."

    Yes, I agree. More generally Si/Ne views situations as being malleable, thus evaluating their potential, and Se/Ni views actions as being malleable, thus evaluating their consequences.

    The logic/ethics part is interesting and seems true, I will think it over some more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    There is no need to develop new conceptions in Socionics, the current task is to develop practical usage of the existing ones.

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

    هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

  5. #5
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    The basis of Socionics is Jung's typology.
    It's how we think, perceive the world and themselves, what kind of information dominates in our consciousness.
    And how did Jung discover typology? Or did he make all the psychological types and wave a magical wand so that everyone on the planet, past, present, and future, would have psychological types? Is Jung's typology simply a model for human behavior? Does it reflect a map that helps us understand the territory of the human mind? Or is typology some innate human characteristic that Jung simply found through observation and his own research? The purpose of my post was to speculate on the origins of psychological types, assuming that psychological type is something more than a model or map of human behavior and thought. I understand completely, and have since I discovered Socionics, that Socionics grew out of Jung's typology. I am not ignorant of that fact, nor have I ever been. So when I say I am trying to learn about the essence or origin of Socionics, I am saying that I am trying to discover how psychological types and the things we talk about in Socionics actually came to exist in humans, assuming that Socionics and psychological types are something more than simply a model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Irrational functions - perceive the world. Rational - how to deal with it, what is it for us.

    It's impossible to say that only irrational functions relate to resources as feelings of others support us and logical information of others helps us in the achieving of our aims.
    It's impossible to say that rational functions is only how to deal with other people, as we also deal directly with other objects and information.
    I am not saying that irrational functions only relate to resources. Nor am I saying that rational functions only relate to how to deal with other people. You've misunderstood my post. I am trying to hypothesize about what original conditions might have existed that gave rise to the existence of psychological functions and types in human beings. I speculate that the functions originally came into existence and became part of human nature because they solved problems essential to human survival, like how the division of labor is executed, or what kinds of social rules are necessary in certain kinds of situations depending on population density. Since the functions came into existence, I conclude that they must have evolved from their original states to include more abstract information and ideas than they were originally used for. As humanity develops, so psychological functions find new domains that they can understand. But the point of the post was to look into the distant past and try to see what domains the functions originally governed before humans came to live in modern environments with all the hosts of abstractions that modern living brings. All of this assumes, of course, that Socionics and psychological types are something more than a subjective model for human behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Your conception has flaws from the beginning.
    There is no need to develop new conceptions in Socionics, the current task is to develop practical usage of the existing ones.
    I feel like going back too the beginnings and origins of Socionics and psychological types themselves might help us understand Socionics better if we follow all the possible implications and consequences that come from the two questions I asked. I find it hard to believe that you would think that there is nothing new that needs to be discovered in Socionics. Are there really no more questions to ask? I feel like none of us really knows all that much about it. From my perspective, we've only scratched the surface of what it is or what it could be. There's a lot more to do and to figure out. But first, we have to start by being willing to ask questions and explore what might be true about Socionics. We also have to question assumptions and what prior authors have written about typology and Socionics to test the truth of what they have said. This is how we make progress.
    IEE
    sp/sx
    (Ne subtype?)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,010
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    And how did Jung discover typology?
    I recommend to read his "Psychological Types". There is some about.

    > Is Jung's typology simply a model for human behavior?

    of human consciousness, made for psychiatry tasks

    > The purpose of my post was to speculate on the origins of psychological types, assuming that psychological type is something more than a model or map of human behavior and thought.

    It's the way to heal psyche of modern humans. it was done for this initially

    > I am trying to discover how psychological types and the things we talk about in Socionics actually came to exist in humans

    It's the question of paleoanthropology, but not psychology.

    > I am trying to hypothesize about what original conditions might have existed that gave rise to the existence of psychological functions and types in human beings.

    What I may say, that types were in same time when people began to talk, maybe befor too. As when children begin to talk, you may notice their types. There were no glory times without IR issues, polr, etc. of homo sapiens.
    Jung thought that archaistic people (including today "savages") had lesser expressed types and lesser differentiated functions. But types is not from peoples society (it may only sharp them), they are like left and right handed people or Galen tempers. Also seems trance technics may reduce types, at least on the time of trance states.
    I think you'd better try to discuss with dudes of Jungian Institutes (seek their forums), than with amateurs even without specialized psychology degree. Also rise such question on paleoanthropology forums. But here you have noone to even understand what do you want and why you need it.

    > I speculate that the functions originally came into existence and became part of human nature because they solved problems essential to human survival

    This question relates to themes like what is human mind, what is the difference with other primacies and animals, why and when all this appeared. It's not the level of peoples here. And I suspect not your educational level too. You need to research not Socionics, but anthropology stuff about psychology of ancient people. And then maybe you'll find some links with Jung's types.

    > I find it hard to believe that you would think that there is nothing new that needs to be discovered in Socionics.

    Socionics has all to do what I said - to remove Jung's types from our heads and allow to be complete as persons, not like today half-smart / half-retarted ones with IR limits. As side-effect of the technic offered by me this will change humans minds and society to humanistic way, meanwhile technological/humanitarian progress will compesate the higher need of resources to care better about peoples needs. It may be humanitarian revolution. And today task is: 1) to allow duality be proved, 2) to make and to show such "new" people. Any other things will distract the attention to redundant, doubtful and at best useful for far far times.

    > Are there really no more questions to ask?

    There are non-types factors for psyche compatibility. It's important for what I said above, but it's not Socionics itself. For example, Enneagram may to be not a total bs, - still needs to be checked.

    I have nothing to add here. Nuff said.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  7. #7
    Nothing in the cage of my ribcage
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think you'd find better answers in brain sciences etc... (and even then, answers are still inconclusive).

    Much of Jung/Socionics is highly speculative hypothesizing and theorizing with very little if any backing of any concrete data and evidence (then they decide "for once and for all" that "that is because you are a Sensor, and that's why you think so!". It becomes a kind of reductionism where every thoughts become "You think so because of Ti" without actually explaining much of anything. Such is the problem with "psychoanalysis"). Jung was doing what all the other "psychoanalysts" at the time were doing, that is, to come up with random motives and explanations for people's behaviors and insight into their inner thoughts and feelings, without actually coming up with any proof or evidence that whatever that they were saying were actually correct. Basically, what they were doing were "mind-reading", or perhaps more correctly, "planting their own thoughts and feelings" into their patients and anyone who cared to listen. "Psychoanalysis" can be very convincing because it seems plausible, and it's based on intuitively common-sense sounding truisms or whatever, but things based on intuitively plausible things are not necessarily true. For example, Aristotle had intuitively decided that "Heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects", because that seemed intuitively plausible, and it was convincing enough that people believed it to be true for centuries. It only took a simple test by Galileo to test it out and come up with actual evidence that that was not actually the case.

    Maybe some of these things are right and not everything is wrong, but well, if it is true, "I'd like to see some evidence".

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,010
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Jung was doing what all the other "psychoanalysts" at the time were doing, that is, to come up with random motives and explanations for people's behaviors and insight into their inner thoughts and feelings, without actually coming up with any proof or evidence that whatever that they were saying were actually correct.
    They based and checked own opinions on personal experience. It's not too "scientific", but it's not baseless. You and anyone do and think a lot just based on same without doubts.
    You don't like Ne region as seems it's not valued at you. The funny is you on this forum for 8 years, while the speculative situation in the typology is same. Probably you are trying to make relations with thinking of bad IR there, what have risen your negativism to the typology as a protection.

    A little new about objectivity. Check results of how Aramas did my IR test. I suspect possible Ne type helped him.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  9. #9
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    TIM
    EII
    Posts
    1,657
    Mentioned
    176 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes! I've said the same in the past, "no one can explain this to me therefore it is incomprehensible therefore it is invalid therefore anyone who works at it is bad" seems to sum singu up, from my point of view

    it is in essence offloading Ti Ne to the social environment, in the same way ILE subconsciously blames others for not "taking care" of him physically, this is the conceptual equivalent of that

  10. #10
    thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,381
    Mentioned
    125 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think you'd find better answers in brain sciences etc... (and even then, answers are still inconclusive).

    Much of Jung/Socionics is highly speculative hypothesizing and theorizing with very little if any backing of any concrete data and evidence (then they decide "for once and for all" that "that is because you are a Sensor, and that's why you think so!". It becomes a kind of reductionism where every thoughts become "You think so because of Ti" without actually explaining much of anything. Such is the problem with "psychoanalysis"). Jung was doing what all the other "psychoanalysts" at the time were doing, that is, to come up with random motives and explanations for people's behaviors and insight into their inner thoughts and feelings, without actually coming up with any proof or evidence that whatever that they were saying were actually correct.
    You may dispute their interpretations, but both Jung and Augusta based their conclusions on a very long history of empirically analyzing individual patients. Their explanations were not "random".

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

    هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ وَالظَّاهِرُ وَالْبَاطِنُ ۖ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,010
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    both Jung and Augusta based their conclusions on a very long history of empirically analyzing individual patients
    not so long. especially Augustinavichiute
    that they did something practically useful is a miracle. Jung could not even to think that types can be used in duality to heal psyche and to make good pairs. more to say the common Jungian conception was that duality is mostly bad and prevents personal growth and abbility to be healthy. they can be partly right if to don't use the idea of deep love in pairs, - that overcomes such issues through introjection of the dual
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  12. #12
    Nothing in the cage of my ribcage
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    You may dispute their interpretations, but both Jung and Augusta based their conclusions on a very long history of empirically analyzing individual patients. Their explanations were not "random".
    That's nice and all, but they didn't actually turn their observations into some kind of quantifiable data. For example in modern psychology, you are required to put the results of your experiments into statistics, because that's how you can eliminate as much biases and errors as possible (and we know this because statistics are "mathematically proven" to eliminate human errors and biases). I don't think mere observations are good enough, because they are prone to error if they "just stay inside of our own heads".

    What Jung and Augusta were doing were essentially "psychoanalysis". It's about coming up with explanations for people's motives and behaviors, even though it can't exactly be proven. The problem with "psychoanalysis" is that you can literally come up with ANY explanations for people's motives, all because "it can not be proven". We can almost never prove what people are "really" thinking, because we have no direct access to people's thoughts and brains. So you can essentially come up with any kind of explanations, like "The reason why you behave that way is because of your relation with your mother" "The reason why you're so pessimistic is because of your death-instinct, it's the libido-theory" "The reason why you think so is because of your Hidden Agenda"... well sure, they could be right and plausible but they also can't be proven.

    So anyway, this is nothing new... the "hard" scientists have been criticizing and making fun of psychologists for this very reason since the days of Freud and Jung. And you know, I used to side with the "psychologists", saying that "Well, objectivity isn't everything...! Subjectivity must also be considered...", but now I see the point of the scientists. Sure our subjectivity should be considered, but so should objectivity. We can't just make things up and claim that we are right without any proof and evidence, especially since we are so prone to our own human errors and biases.

    So I think the reason why people tend to believe in these "typologies" is mainly due to ignorance of the history and fields of psychology. They don't know that we've already gone through this phase and that they have mainly fallen out of favor for more objectivity. And that's probably why actual psychologists and scientists don't tend to take these "typologies" seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    not so long. especially Augustinavichiute
    that they did something practically useful is a miracle. Jung could not even to think that types can be used in duality to heal psyche and to make good pairs. more to say the common Jungian conception was that duality is mostly bad and prevents personal growth and abbility to be healthy. they can be partly right if to don't use the idea of deep love in pairs, - that overcomes such issues through introjection of the dual
    It seems like what Jung was warning against were one-sided development. He didn't exactly say that there were these exact "types", it's just that too much one-sided development in certain "functions" was detrimental to your growth and it's what makes you more "neurotic". So too much Te turns into someone who only sticks to facts but are otherwise boring, too much Fe turns you into someone who only follows social norms and apparently unthinking, too much Ni turns you into an eccentric crank, and so on... He claimed that we had "strong, conscious, and in-control functions", and "weak, unconscious, primitive and immature functions" (which are probably proven wrong by brain science, but ok). And he also claimed that the use of each functions suppressed all the other functions, and not just their opposing functions. So using T suppressed all F, S and N.

Posting Permissions

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