Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

  1. #1
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    On occasion some people insist on going "back to the true source", that is Jung, as if his types were the "true" Socionics types. That leads to a lot of confusion.

    I have gone through his types again and I have reached the folllowing conclusions:

    -Extraverted Feeling type: he was talking essentially about Fe EJ women, mainly ESEs but perhaps some EIEs too. Useful description for Socionics Fe.

    - Introverted Feeling type: he had observed essentially Fi IJ women, mostly ESIs but perhaps some EIIs too.

    These two descriptions remain very helpful for Socionics Fe and Fi.

    - Extraverted Thinking type: a very misleading description for Socionics. It's a mixed bag of logical-rationals, especially LSE and, yes, LSI, very strongly. There's a lot of Ti in it.

    - Introverted Thinking type: he was talking about LIIs and ILIs. Not very helpful for Socionics. Also, that is the reason for Enneagram 5 being a mix of LII and ILI and a source of a lot of confusion.

    - Extraverted Intuition type: he was describing mainly IEEs, perhaps ILEs too but the IEE "vibe" is stronger. Limited use for Socionics.

    - Introverted Intuition type: those were IEIs he was describing, but very, very "out there" IEIs at that. Not at all a good description of what most IEIs are like. Misleading for Socionics.

    - Extraverted Sensation type: it's a good description in as far as he was really describing Se EPs, a mixed bag of SEE and SLE, but he focused on sensation-seeking EP temperament and not so much on the "ready-for-battle" aspect. Misleading in that respect.

    - Introverted Sensation type: I see it as a weird description, he seemed to be observing mainly depressed and "negativistic" SEIs. What I see is Si, Ti and low Ne. In fact, I think LSIs would relate to it as well, definitely more so than to the Introverted Thinking type.


    For this analysis, I am assuming - and I think it's true - that the Socionics types are the true types, those that are best in reflecting real people. Jung's insights were the first in that respect and he was brilliant. It doesn't mean that his insights couldn't be improved upon, which is what Aushra and others did. I have no time for views like "what Jung said was necessarily more correct".
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    - Extraverted Thinking type: a very misleading description for Socionics. It's a mixed bag of logical-rationals, especially LSE and, yes, LSI, very strongly. There's a lot of Ti in it.
    In which parts? Examples?


    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    - Introverted Thinking type: he was talking about LIIs and ILIs. Not very helpful for Socionics. Also, that is the reason for Enneagram 5 being a mix of LII and ILI and a source of a lot of confusion.
    Interesting that you say that. This is very important, so let's focus on this just a bit.

    I think that you could be right, but in that case I think that he primarily describes the behaviour of ILIs and the thinking process of LIIs. Maybe there is something of both in both behaviours and thinking processes, but the way he describes the differences between Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Thinking I think reflects the differences between Objectivists and Subjectivists in the Reinin dichotomies.

    Anyway, if you are mostly right in what you claim, that would help to explain the confusion in MBTT (and Socionics) about which type is the true introverted thinking type -- the INTj/INTJ or the INTP/INTp. And we still need to clear up this mess somehow.

  4. #4
    Dmitri Lytov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In my opinion, Jung's description of Extraverted Sensing is by far more applicable to ESFP than to ESTP. This description is influenced by Jung's old ideas when he equated Introversion to Thinking and Intuition, and Extraversion to Sensing and Feeling (look at his works dedicated to psychological types and written before 1910). For this reason, sensory-logical extraverts often are aloof to Jung's description of Sensing Extraverts (and ESTP's description proposed by Myers), simply because it is focused only on sensual pleasures and ignores their logic.

    What this description definitely lacks, is the idea of capturing and controlling more and more territory, influence etc. This description is focused only on sensual pleasures.

    I also agree that the description of Introverted Thinking is very misleading.

    As for the Extraverted Thinking description: it is equally applicable to the socionic intuitive-logical and logical-intuitive extraverts but is not good for logical-sensing extraverts.

    The Extraverted Intuition description is in my opinion applicable to both intuitive-ethical and ethical-intuitive extraverts in socionics; as for intuitive-logical extraverts, they are reluctant to recognize themselves in this description, they rather say "sometimes such things happen to us but more often with other people".

    In my opinion, in his Psychological Types Jung confused several hypotheses, and this resulted in confusion of describing psychological types. He proposed a good hypothesis but failed to make it logically consistent, this work was rather made by his disciples. This is probably why Jung was reluctant to popularize his psychological types theory.
    www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.

  5. #5
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ironically in his book Psychologischen Typen he gives a couple of very short examples of people who have also a well developed 2nd function. So he's on the exact right path there. But the sentence ends with: "etcetera, etcetera"

    Still I found his book very helpfull, the first time anyone explained introversion and extraversion exactly by how your psyche works at that time. Concentrating on your relation to the object of consciousness (extra), or concentrating on your opinion of the object. (intro)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i think that some of the particulars of all of the analyses here are a little bit suspect. regardless, the clear method is that jung's descriptions are a tad flawed with regards to socionics. some would do very well to note this aspect and stop overplaying the importance of jung's theories. i personally think that everything he wrote about religious tendencies of man and some parts of what he wrote regarding the collective unconscious are a lot more sensible than much of his descriptions of the different types.

  7. #7
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    - Extraverted Thinking type: a very misleading description for Socionics. It's a mixed bag of logical-rationals, especially LSE and, yes, LSI, very strongly. There's a lot of Ti in it.
    In which parts? Examples?
    I was thinking of these:

    As a defence against doubt, the conscious attitude grows fanatical. For fanaticism, after all, is merely overcompensated doubt. Ultimately this development leads to an exaggerated defence of the conscious position, and to the gradual formation of an absolutely antithetic unconscious position; for example, an extreme irrationality develops, in opposition to the conscious rationalism, or it becomes highly archaic and superstitious, in opposition to a conscious standpoint imbued with modern science. This fatal opposition is the source of those narrow-minded and ridiculous views, familiar to the historians of science, into which many praiseworthy pioneers have ultimately blundered.
    This is stereotypical behavior of an unhealthy LSI in defense of a rigid ideology (Robespierre - even if LII; Stalin; Verwoerd).

    Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved.
    This is Ti but perhaps as a hidden agenda.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    These are good points; excellent thread. I agree with just about everything Expat has said here. In particular, it is clear that Jung's Ti description probably doesn't work so well for LSI.

    I have sometimes mentioned Jung's original descriptions as a reference point not because I think they're necessarily right, but because I'm also not sure Socionics is always right either.

    In particular, in my observation, just as Jung maybe over-emphasizes the pleasure-seeking side of Se, Socionics. or some views in Socionic, seem perhaps to over-emphasize the aggression side, and even suggest that any pleasure-seeking at all of any sort is always Si.

    I think there's a myth that gets created that Se types are all rather pushy people, even somewhat mean, and always loud and vulgar. In real life, Se types can be much more pleasant than that, more playful, and not necessarily quite as power-hungry or selfish as the way they're sometimes portrayed.

    Perhaps part of the solution is, as Dmitri pointed out, to view SEEs as having the "softer" kind of SE and SLEs as having the "harder" kind, although even then SLE types can be "nicer" than they sometimes come across in Socionics.. In any case, I think misconceptions persist in that area.

  9. #9
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Perhaps part of the solution is, as Dmitri pointed out, to view SEEs as having the "softer" kind of SE and SLEs as having the "harder" kind, although even then SLE types can be "nicer" than they sometimes come across in Socionics.. In any case, I think misconceptions persist in that area.
    SEE uses Fi (takes more into account the effect of their actions on other people),
    SLE uses Ti

    That's what makes the difference in their behaviour. I don't believe in "softer" Se

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Perhaps part of the solution is, as Dmitri pointed out, to view SEEs as having the "softer" kind of SE and SLEs as having the "harder" kind,
    Confusingly enough if we are to take the conventional interpretation of concrete and abstract functions (+/- respectively) this is precisely the other way around. ESTp uses the 'probing' or 'searching' kind of Se, where as the ESFp uses the more confident kind that draws strength from a specfic item.

    (notice: it would be a mistake to think that either type is restricted to 'their' kind of each function. Notice how I am basically using concrete Ti as I am writing this, which given my INTj type is outside my normal preference.)

    Theosophical thinking has an air that is not in the least reductive, since it exalts everything to transcendental and world-embracing ideas. A dream, for instance, is no [p. 445] longer a modest dream, but an experience upon 'another plane'. The hitherto inexplicable fact of telepathy is ,very simply explained by 'vibrations' which pass from one man to another. An ordinary nervous trouble is quite simply accounted for by the fact that something has collided with the astral body. Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on. We have merely to open a theosophical book to be overwhelmed by the realization that everything is already explained, and that 'spiritual science' has left no enigmas of life unsolved.


    This is Ti but perhaps as a hidden agenda.
    Actually this part of Jung's writing has no relevance on Te, as it is listed under forms of 'negative', non-synthetic, half-conscious thinking, which - as Jung expresses articulately - dominant Te and dominant Ti are not. I agree that it could be called a thinking HA, though let's keep in mind Jung did not intend that passage to be about conscious thinking in the first place.

  11. #11
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    I think that you could be right, but in that case I think that he primarily describes the behaviour of ILIs and the thinking process of LIIs. Maybe there is something of both in both behaviours and thinking processes, but the way he describes the differences between Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Thinking I think reflects the differences between Objectivists and Subjectivists in the Reinin dichotomies.

    Anyway, if you are mostly right in what you claim, that would help to explain the confusion in MBTT (and Socionics) about which type is the true introverted thinking type -- the INTj/INTJ or the INTP/INTp. And we still need to clear up this mess somehow.
    I don't think there is any mess - not in Socionics as I understand it.

    LIIs and ILIs have, in relation to other types, some common behavioral characteristics: introversion (Socionically speaking, and usually also socially), logical thinking, a low focus on Se, a low focus on Fe. So it's not surprising at all that one early thinker of types lumped them together: both are "introverts" who are also thinkers.

    So Jung's Introverted Thinking type description is a mixture of both - and, again, that was carried over into Enneatype 5, and "contaminated" Myers-Briggs. In my opinion, most Myers-Briggs descriptions of both INTP and INTJ are mixtures of both LII and ILI, and they over-emphasized the damn "J/P" external behavior distinction which for those types is often blurred.

    However, for Socionics it's very clear what an LII is and what an ILI is. The LII is an Alpha IJ, Fe-dual-seeking, who likes ESEs and dislikes SEEs. The ILI is a Gamma IP, Se-dual-seeking, who likes SEEs and dislikes ESEs.

    So, if there is a mess, it's in Jung's orginal description, in the Enneagram 5, and in Myers-Briggs. In Socionics, there is no mess at all, except the one brought over from those other systems.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  12. #12
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    In particular, in my observation, just as Jung maybe over-emphasizes the pleasure-seeking side of Se, Socionics. or some views in Socionic, seem perhaps to over-emphasize the aggression side, and even suggest that any pleasure-seeking at all of any sort is always Si.
    It depends on the kind of "pleasure-seeking". For instance, for me, it's a pleasure to read a non-fiction book. That is where Te EJs feel "themselves". For a Se EP, to get into physical action, especially with some competitiveness or obstacles to be conquered, is "pleasure-seeking".

    To relax doing nothing while in a hot tub and drinking beer and eating chocolate is definitely a Si kind of pleasure. Which is not to say that only Si-ego types do it or like it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    I think there's a myth that gets created that Se types are all rather pushy people, even somewhat mean, and always loud and vulgar. In real life, Se types can be much more pleasant than that, more playful, and not necessarily quite as power-hungry or selfish as the way they're sometimes portrayed.
    Se EPs will be more pushy than, say, Ne IJs. Being pushy is part of the Se EP never-ending attempt to change the static order, including the power order around. However, it all depends on exactly what they are trying to change. They also find fulfillment in pushing "objects" around (as in some sports) rather than people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Perhaps part of the solution is, as Dmitri pointed out, to view SEEs as having the "softer" kind of SE and SLEs as having the "harder" kind, although even then SLE types can be "nicer" than they sometimes come across in Socionics.. In any case, I think misconceptions persist in that area.
    I don't think they are misconceptions -- they are simplifications, or exaggerations.

    As for SEE's being "softer": this is due to SEEs being essentially networkers, they achieve their aims by connecting with other people. SLEs, by comparison, are more like "lone hunters".
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    I don't think there is any mess - not in Socionics as I understand it.
    No, there isn't. At least not any big mess. But there is a lot of mess in the minds of many people who try to figure out their own type, the types of others, and how to understand the types in Socionics, MBTT and Keirsey. I don't buy your suggested solution, that we should only focus on Socionics and ignore the other models, because people won't do it anyway. They will continue to become interested in these things after having taking MBTI tests, or having read about Keirsey's types on the Internet, and so on. So, I think it is a good idea to try to explain as clearly as possible how the types in the different models relate to each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    LIIs and ILIs have, in relation to other types, some common behavioral characteristics: introversion (Socionically speaking, and usually also socially), logical thinking, a low focus on Se, a low focus on Fe. So it's not surprising at all that one early thinker of types lumped them together: both are "introverts" who are also thinkers.
    Yes. Many things in the type descriptions of these two types (both in Socionics and MBTT) are common to both. To distinguish them you have to focus on the differences, because the similarities won't settle which type someone is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    So Jung's Introverted Thinking type description is a mixture of both - and, again, that was carried over into Enneatype 5, and "contaminated" Myers-Briggs. In my opinion, most Myers-Briggs descriptions of both INTP and INTJ are mixtures of both LII and ILI
    Yes. From a socionic perspective they are mixtures, especially in the function analyses. In their described behaviours the MBTT descriptions are almost entirely correct, often even better than some socionc type descriptions. To get the whole picture of the behaviours of these two types you should read both socionic and MBTT type descriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    and they over-emphasized the damn "J/P" external behavior distinction which for those types is often blurred.
    No, it isn't. The distinction between J and P -- rational and irrational -- behaviour is equally emphasized in the socionic type descriptions of INTjs and INTps. That can be clearly seen in Filatova's and Stratiyevskaya's descriptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    However, for Socionics it's very clear what an LII is and what an ILI is. The LII is an Alpha IJ, Fe-dual-seeking, who likes ESEs and dislikes SEEs. The ILI is a Gamma IP, Se-dual-seeking, who likes SEEs and dislikes ESEs.
    Yes. That fact is still unknown to the MBTI practitioners.

  14. #14
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    No, there isn't. At least not any big mess. But there is a lot of mess in the minds of many people who try to figure out their own type, the types of others, and how to understand the types in Socionics, MBTT and Keirsey. I don't buy your suggested solution, that we should only focus on Socionics and ignore the other models, because people won't do it anyway. They will continue to become interested in these things after having taking MBTI tests, or having read about Keirsey's types on the Internet, and so on.
    Well in that case I for one can't help them. I also started from MBTI tests and a bit of Keirsey -- so I have little sympathy for that argument. If people want to stick to messy systems, it's their problem. I can only provide the light to show the way.

    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    In their described behaviours the MBTT descriptions are almost entirely correct, often even better than some socionc type descriptions. To get the whole picture of the behaviours of these two types you should read both socionic and MBTT type descriptions.
    We're never going to get out of this discussion, it seems -- as you know, I say, forget Myers-Briggs descriptions. Any small insight they may have on types is more than "compensated" by the otherwise confusion they have and generate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    No, it isn't. The distinction between J and P -- rational and irrational -- behaviour is equally emphasized in the socionic type descriptions of INTjs and INTps. That can be clearly seen in Filatova's and Stratiyevskaya's descriptions.
    And as you know, I mean that the simplified and erroneous versions of J - "on time, desk tidy" and P - "not on time, desk untidy" - found in MBTI questions often contaminate their descriptions as well. And this is the single biggest reason for the INTj-INTp and INFj-INFp mistypings.

    My take on it is -- Myers-Briggs data are simply more problem than they're worth.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    We're never going to get out of this discussion, it seems -- as you know, I say, forget Myers-Briggs descriptions. Any small insight they may have on types is more than "compensated" by the otherwise confusion they have and generate.
    Okay, maybe you're right about that. But I benefit from reading them anyway, and maybe you could too, since you already have got things straight. If one only focus on the described behaviours and statistical differences found between those who have taken MBTI tests, one can get some new insights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    No, it isn't. The distinction between J and P -- rational and irrational -- behaviour is equally emphasized in the socionic type descriptions of INTjs and INTps. That can be clearly seen in Filatova's and Stratiyevskaya's descriptions.
    And as you know, I mean that the simplified and erroneous versions of J - "on time, desk tidy" and P - "not on time, desk untidy" - found in MBTI questions often contaminate their descriptions as well. And this is the single biggest reason for the INTj-INTp and INFj-INFp mistypings.
    Yes, I know that you mean that. And you are still wrong about it. Desks tidy and such stuff are also mentioned in the socionic type descriptions, in almost exactly the same way as it is done in MBTT. There is no real difference between how the types INTj, INTJ, INTp, and INTp are described in that respect. Maybe there is a difference between how other types are described. I haven't checked them as thoroghly.

    So, if you think that is wrong, you are criticizing the socionic descriptions as well.

  16. #16
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Okay, maybe you're right about that. But I benefit from reading them anyway, and maybe you could too, since you already have got things straight. If one only focus on the described behaviours and statistical differences found between those who have taken MBTI tests, one can get some new insights.
    I wish it were true, since I wish we could use the MBTI statistics somehow. But I think they work at best negatively -- that is, Socionics LII is extremely unlikely (to say the least) to test as ESFP in MBTI. It would be complicated to use them even in that way, though.



    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus
    Yes, I know that you mean that. And you are still wrong about it. Desks tidy and such stuff are also mentioned in the socionic type descriptions, in almost exactly the same way as it is done in MBTT. There is no real difference between how the types INTj, INTJ, INTp, and INTp are described in that respect. Maybe there is a difference between how other types are described. I haven't checked them as thoroghly.

    So, if you think that is wrong, you are criticizing the socionic descriptions as well.
    I am focusing on the descriptions as a whole, not just on those. In the case of LII and ILI, perhaps they make sense since the LII is more Si-focused. But in the case of other types that focus leads to confusion.

    And yes, I can find a lot to criticize in Socionics descriptions, also in Stratiyevskaya's and Filatova's. For instance, I think Jonathan identified with stuff that Stratiyevskaya attributes to the Te PoLR in the IEI and SEI descriptions, which I would attribute to the IP temperament.

    And as I have said before, regardless of the descriptions, MBTI tests - and most people will continue to over-focus on their tests - do emphasize silly things in their J/P scales, as well as in their I/E scales, and those silly things contaminate their type descriptions as well.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    However, for Socionics it's very clear what an LII is and what an ILI is. The LII is an Alpha IJ, Fe-dual-seeking, who likes ESEs and dislikes SEEs. The ILI is a Gamma IP, Se-dual-seeking, who likes SEEs and dislikes ESEs.

    So, if there is a mess, it's in Jung's orginal description, in the Enneagram 5, and in Myers-Briggs. In Socionics, there is no mess at all, except the one brought over from those other systems.
    I think the confusion is that both Socionics and MBTI are models, whereas actual people are more complicated. For example, I like SEEs, and I like ESEs. And even if I'm not an INT type, I think that in real life the behaviors and intertype relations are more subtle and complex than what either theory can represent. That's, of course, why Tcaud, Gulenko, etc. try to come up with extensions of the theory.

    Probably people who don't "fit" the theory well in some respects will see more ambiguity; focusing on observing other people (rather than oneself) may help one get a better sense of what "pure" types are like.

  18. #18
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    I think the confusion is that both Socionics and MBTI are models, whereas actual people are more complicated. For example, I like SEEs, and I like ESEs. And even if I'm not an INT type, I think that in real life the behaviors and intertype relations are more subtle and complex than what either theory can represent.
    Well, that's taken for granted; but if you do understand the types, an ILI should be more attracted to the concept of an SEE than to the concept of an ESE and, all things being equal, feel more at ease with an SEE than with an ESE. Of course it doesn't mean actively liking or disliking individuals of either type.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    For example, I like SEEs, and I like ESEs. And even if I'm not an INT type, I think that in real life the behaviors and intertype relations are more subtle and complex than what either theory can represent.
    If you know any correctly typed SEEs and ESEs I suggest that you try to discuss things with them for at least 30 minutes or so in a row. Observe your own feelings and behaviour when you do that. By that "method" (especially if you repeat the "test" many times with different examples of SEEs and ESEs) you should be able to determine with near certainty which type is your dual and which is your conflictor -- if you are an ILI that is. I have found that Rick's description of the nature of the conflict relation to be very helpful. You can also take a look at what he says about as a dominant function in relation to ILIs.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: A Socionics typing of Jung's original type descriptions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Probably people who don't "fit" the theory well in some respects will see more ambiguity; focusing on observing other people (rather than oneself) may help one get a better sense of what "pure" types are like.
    I do not think there is such thing as "pure type."
    "Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
    martin_g_karlsson


  21. #21
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Descriptions in MBTI and Socionics are on paper. Which makes it more dificult to understand a type, then when you finally know someone's type in reallife. I guess that's just the weak point of both models.

    But a very big advantage of Socionics is that by explaining relationships, it can be helpful to determine your own type. Because if you feel completeness with an SEE you are an ILI.

    (of course an ILI can also like an ESE, but the feeling of completeness is clearly missing, instead conflict is certain to arise at one time)

Posting Permissions

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