Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Augusta's Commentary on Jung's typology

  1. #1
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,874
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post Augusta's Commentary on Jung's typology

    Translation:

    https://translate.google.com/transla...t.html&prev=_t

    Original link:

    http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-comment.html

    This article deserves to be better known. Augusta comments directly on the similarities and differences between socionics and Jung's typology. The similarities she identifies are more on the side of overall structure, e.g. that you can't be "completely introverted" all the time, certain functions may predominate but their opposites are never wholly absent.

    And she identifies some differences between the two: "Jung's erroneous hypotheses". One is that he didn't distinguish between (the attitude of) the leading function and the type itself. This is a big conceptual leap that Augusta made with socionics.

    Another is the semantics: "The author of the typology was mistaken when he tried to establish what exactly constitutes the specific content of "mental functions", which we called the IM elements."

    This is just one sentence in the article, but it conceals a very vast difference in semantics. Probably the differences are so great that Augusta didn't want to delve into them. In practice this is why Jung's typology is incommensurable with socionics.
    Last edited by thehotelambush; 01-25-2019 at 05:05 PM.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  2. #2
    Bildung, baby coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    610
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think any of the things you quoted make any difference except for changing the content of the functions. Socionics is possibly structurally identical to Jung's personality type theory except for how bonkers underspecified Jung's is. I know Jung said no one was completely introverted or extraverted too, which means Aushra is either misquoting or intentionally misrepresenting his thought.

    But as for some of the other points, for example, how could a type have a different orientation than the leading function? The leading function is defined as taking in more time, information, and the rest than the secondary, so it's just mathematically obvious that the orientation of a type and the leading function are the same. The type basically is the leading function with nuances anyways.
    “Don't think money does everything or you are going to end up doing everything for money.” ― Voltaire

  3. #3
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,874
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coeruleum View Post
    I don't think any of the things you quoted make any difference except for changing the content of the functions. Socionics is possibly structurally identical to Jung's personality type theory except for how bonkers underspecified Jung's is. I know Jung said no one was completely introverted or extraverted too, which means Aushra is either misquoting or intentionally misrepresenting his thought.
    Hm? That was one of the similarities.

    But as for some of the other points, for example, how could a type have a different orientation than the leading function? The leading function is defined as taking in more time, information, and the rest than the secondary, so it's just mathematically obvious that the orientation of a type and the leading function are the same. The type basically is the leading function with nuances anyways.
    They are the same yet not the same.

    Actually, when you introduce a secondary function the type is no longer the same as its leading function, because there are two different types with the same leading function. This is one problem that 16-function models solve, but none of them are fully developed as yet.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  4. #4
    Bildung, baby coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    610
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Actually, when you introduce a secondary function the type is no longer the same as its leading function, because there are two different types with the same leading function. This is one problem that 16-function models solve, but none of them are fully developed as yet.
    There's not an extraverted type leading with introverted intuition, for example, though, just a type leading with introverted intuition and following with feeling, and another one with thinking, which are specified as being extraverted in Aushra's model. I'm not sure what impact the fact that they're extraverted has on anything that she explained, which is probably why Jung didn't even bother explaining. Any type leading with introverted intuition is still introverted in both models assuming that Jung didn't intend Aushra's model to begin with.
    “Don't think money does everything or you are going to end up doing everything for money.” ― Voltaire

  5. #5
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,560
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aushra: "Often, Jung is charged with unscientific, unclear and incomprehensible terminology."

    ...

    ...

    ...

    "Let's make some more!" *tries to 1 up Jung with Socionics*


    ​tfw ILEs

  6. #6
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,560
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IIRC Jung also said that type differentiation with a secondary function doesn't necessarily happen or otherwise can't necessarily be observed until a certain age. Whereas Socionics posits people are more or less born as one of the fully differentiated 16 types IIRC. That's another main difference there, more concretely, although idk if that's in that article. Also the approximate age they both agree types are more obvious might also be the same.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,398
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Augustinavichiute may only say about a difference of some of her hypotheses with Jung's opinion. As Socionics is Jung's typology with some expansions. Types are objective, while opinions are not and to relate them to typology as obligate it needs objective experimental basis, or at least strong and clear logical link. In some places Augustinavichiute contradicts to Jung and can be wrong there or describe the other or the same from other side. Jung's core typology theory is Socionics basis, but not Augustinavichiute's hypotheses.

    To claim about Socionics as a different typology to Jung's one is baseless and harmful misleading.
    The similar sometimes is done with MBTI followers probably by probably copyright motives. While with Socionics is done to reduce the competition from Socionics to MBTI practice. And to protect MBTI followers' mistakes where they contradict to Jung's core theory about functions of introverts (alike where they say about irrational leading function at rational introverted types) what discredetes much MBTI practice.

    --

    It's useful to add to Augustinavichiute's opinion about strength of 3rd function compared to 4th one in 4-functional Jung's model.
    In Russian texts 3rd function is also often called as "pain function". What points on how practicians understand it. It's not about strength, but about consciouse pain. And this fits to possibly why Augustinavichiute could to claim about 3th function as the weakest, while Jung said this about 4th (suggestive) function. What in consciouse looks as the most annoying region does not mean this function as weakest. As weaker and meanwhle lesser consciouse function may be perceived as lesser annoying, it's alike anesthesia due to lesser conscious state.

    also

    Where Augustinavichiute says about productive/acceptive functions she sometimes clearly controverts to Jung. She does this baselessly and is wrong.
    Augustinavichiute's description of E/I does not rejects Jung's one, but expands it. It's what is noticable on practice and mb understood in theory.
    Augustinavichiute's usage of Reinin's traits is baseless from theory point, mb wrong and looks redundant. Some (seems any except static/dynamic) those traits she described as drafts, but not serious theory to use.
    Augustinavichiute used new terms "shizotim"/"introtim" for rational/irrational Jung's types (identically described as direct types traits in Socionics texts with J/P in MBTI texts) - it's seen in her own and followers practice; it's not new traits.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  8. #8
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,874
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sbbds View Post
    IIRC Jung also said that type differentiation with a secondary function doesn't necessarily happen or otherwise can't necessarily be observed until a certain age. Whereas Socionics posits people are more or less born as one of the fully differentiated 16 types IIRC. That's another main difference there, more concretely, although idk if that's in that article. Also the approximate age they both agree types are more obvious might also be the same.
    "Whereas Socionics posits people are more or less born as one of the fully differentiated 16 types IIRC."

    This agrees with my observations, but some socionists have said otherwise. Some say that type isn't fully developed until around age 20.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  9. #9
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,560
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    "Whereas Socionics posits people are more or less born as one of the fully differentiated 16 types IIRC."

    This agrees with my observations, but some socionists have said otherwise. Some say that type isn't fully developed until around age 20.
    As far as I know that’s SSS just saying the ego block doesn’t become fully apparent until that time.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Types are objective.
    Always seemed to me as rather that the 'trait clusters' used to define types coincide objectively, i.e. that one which displays a certain defining criterion supposed in theory to be unique to a given type also displays all other defining criteria of that type. 'Types' as in the categories themselves exist as sets of labels, definitions, axioms and categories within the theory as much as those within any other, no more nor less objectively existent.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    To claim about Socionics as a different typology to Jung's one is baseless and harmful misleading.
    Where and why should the line be drawn between Jung's typology and Socionics ? How much do they have to differ to be considered different typologies ? If part of the aim of Typology is to categorize, for the mere sake of such or for another purpose, and typologies can be viewed in terms of how they define their types, then Jung and Socionics would not be identical. For example, Jung describes Se as a function that leads to "a strong sensuous tie to the object" and "the sole criterion of object's value the intensity of the sensation produced", whereas in Socionics such is often delegated to Si and "Caregiver" types, which Jung speaks of as one's who's sensation spreads over the perception of objects content from the collective unconscious, "mythological images" and "primordial possibilities of ideas", interested not in reality but in those images of sensed objects combined with unconscious content which constitute a "psychic mirror world", which leads them to live in a "mythological world where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, andmountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons". ISFj types in Socionics, which for Jung would have been Introverted Feeling ones, are sometimes described as protectors of traditional values, which Jung attributed to Fe instead. These are only a few example to demonstrate my point, there probably are more differences between the two.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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