congratulations Bertrand for making this thread into a self-praising commentary to your superior typing skills and intentions. you're really the best most honest, accurate self typed person of the forum now.
congratulations Bertrand for making this thread into a self-praising commentary to your superior typing skills and intentions. you're really the best most honest, accurate self typed person of the forum now.
apparently people have read more definitions of the elements than the ones given by sociotype.com. Compare Jung and Augusta and basic socionic's theory, there's no mention to "relationships". All the definitions of the functions must be understood and interpreted, as often the socionics information about the elemets is twisted.
Even when the definition of Fi by Jung goes more about feeling , I see it expressed in relational games in here ( hipersensitivity in relation subject>object). Not pretty positive btw. I wonder what Sol thinks about this description of Fi woman.
It gives a woman of this type a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious. This power is derived from the deeply felt, unconscious images ; consciousness, how- ever, readily refers it to the ego, whereupon the influence becomes debased into personal tyranny. But, wherever the unconscious subject is identified with the ego, the mysterious power of the intensive feeling is also transformed into banal and arrogant ambition, vanity, and petty tyranny. This produces a type of woman most regrettably distinguished by her unscrupulous ambition and mischievous cruelty. But this change in the picture leads also to neurosis.
So long as the ego feels itself housed, as it were, beneath the heights of the unconscious subject, and feeling reveals something higher and mightier than the ego, the type is normal. The unconscious thinking is certainly archaic, yet its reductions may prove extremely helpful in compensating the occasional inclinations to exalt the ego into the subject. But, whenever this does take place by dint of complete suppression of the unconscious reductive thinking-products, the unconscious thinking goes over into opposition and becomes projected into objects, Where upon the now egocentric subject comes to feel the power and importance of the depreciated object. Consciousness begins to feel ' what others think '. Naturally, others are thinking all sorts of baseness, scheming evil, and contriving all sorts of plots, secret intrigues, etc. To prevent this, the subject must also begin to carry out preventive intrigues, to suspect and sound others, to make subtle combinations. Assailed by rumours,he must make convulsive efforts to convert, if possible, a threatened inferiority into a superiority. Innumerable secret rivalries develop, and in these embittered struggles not only will no base or evil means be disdained, but even virtues will be misused and tampered with in order to play the trump card. Such a development must lead to exhaustion. The form of neurosis is neurasthenic rather than hysterical ; in the case of women we often find severe collateral physical states, as for instance anaemia and its sequelae.
p.493 The introverted Feeling Type, Psychological Types by Jung.
Jung: "There are certain women who distrust me and are impervious to my charismatic personality. My efforts to get them to feed my ego feel futile, which depresses me. No matter how hard I try, they will not let me sleep with them. This I will call the Fi type."
I was reading Duality by Augusta, and there's an emphasis on "relationships" in what she says about Fi, mainly because like all introtims, Fi deals with the relationships between things, but the characteristic quality of Fi is that this relationship has the quality of "feeling", and Fi are subordinated to this "relationship" more than the people themselves. If a relationship doesn't go as wished, it's people that have to change, according to Fi feeling; while extrotims would change the relationship itself.
Fe in Augusta is just emotions, expression. But this is not any rational impulse. A Fe, like a Te, understands and organizes the environment, made of objects and people, and because of their F quality I picture this organization on the level of "interpersonal organization", bonds, ranks, expression of those sentiments that stay hidden in a Fi.
It's similar to what Ti and Te do, one operates with objective truths that are under everyone's eyes, the other operates with personal concepts and applies them to the world around him
Fe and Fi alike, involved in their emotions, operate externally and internally, and it's just logical to me to think that being that the case, it's Fe to create bonds, while Fi establishes their relevance and try to stick to them.
The concept of extroversion and introversion applied to functions should reveal to us where the energy is directed, it's hard to imagine a Fi so centered "outside".
can you explain this, I don't really understand where that's coming fromOriginally Posted by Nebula
to me it sounds like he's saying when Fi loses its sincerity and becomes manipulative it hamstrings itself via unconscious paranoia (by assuming others are like they are), the petty intrigues that follow serve to force reality back on the person if for no other reason than all of this becomes too exhausting to sustain
http://nosubject.com/Desire
https://violenceandreligion.com/mimetic-theory/
the first link mentions hysteria. hysteria is Fe as per jung. neurasthenia is Fi.
Lacan and the little a objects <3
Jung wrote nearly patholigical descriptions about all introverted types/elements except Ni. Coincidence?
Then its funny ppl using Jung texts as angular stone for socionics, because he didn't developed types as we know them now and his work seems hardly objective (but he developed the bases, so its true he deserves some credit). Anyway, its hilarious when his descriptions match episodes from reality.
I mean Nebula in another thread almost copied Jung verbatim in characterizing Ni types as "lost in fruitless fantasies" so Jung wasn't too easy on them, and people try to have it both ways with Jung, attributing him all sorts of bias, and then aping him when it suits them. I get the distinct impression that Jung was even handed simply because everyone can agree he wasnt, but they all take issue with slightly different things. Pleasing everyone is impossible anyway, especially when trying to write about the negative side of any type, the fact he managed to offend everyone is to his credit. otherwise you end up with useless type descriptions which are like 16 different versions of "you're a badass", which, while true, has no therapeutic value from the point of view of treating actual problems resulting from one-sidedness. to put it another way, people just don't like going into the negative in certain areas (incompetence in the negative) and since Jung covers them all, you get these selective reactions by people characterizing Jung as having the problem, when its an expression of their own inability to digest the negative in that area, therefore they see it as an insult. people lose sight of the big picture that this goes to show how right Jung was about peoples relative weaknesses precisely because of how they can accuse him of bias in the first place. its first of all a reflection of their own weak points, that their sensitivity to, causes them to believe Jung was unfairly targetting some over others. the fact that one person thinks A is where the bias is and another person thinks B is apparently lost on them. trying to generate consensus about how "well he was unfair to everyone but X" is just a slightly more sophisticated way to highlight perceived bias but amounts to the same thing. it says "well he's not attacking x, but he's definitely favoring y" its like, no. you just don't perceive the attack because it may not be a sensitive area of yours. Ni types when relegated to being useless fantasizers just drives home to them how people "don't get it" which is particularly painful. to say there's no offense there, so they should feel favored and thus concede Jung's bias is just the most pernicious form of laying them low in keeping with the painful reality of their perception being continually misunderstood and invalidated. its actually this indirect nature of things that characterizes Ni itself and a good example of how it gets run over, with the rejoinder being something like "well if they weren't so useless they wouldn't get run over"
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-11-2018 at 01:37 PM.
That's the "problem" of socionics actually. It's based on the different interpretations of Jung. Take 5 different authors and you'll see 5 different portraits of the same thing, and all of their relevance seems to come from how much they stick or not to the original Jung.
Augusta did a good work trying to add a scheme to Jung's speculations, but even her work is not detailed, specific, it doesn't explain how the types operate but focus on how they appear, so that you don't have an understanding of the functions but just a table of shallow associations.
Then there's Gulenko... eheh
I'm just joking around
now I really don't understand!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote