Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Augusta's Commentary on Jung's typology

  1. #1
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,777
    Mentioned
    264 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 06:05 PM.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  2. #2
    Black Dog Tour 2019 coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    352
    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.

  3. #3
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,777
    Mentioned
    264 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
    Black Dog Tour 2019 coeruleum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    352
    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.

  5. #5
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,514
    Mentioned
    86 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
    1,514
    Mentioned
    86 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.

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
  •