Why the type descriptions are how they are

[Ezra]

This is just a theory, so don't get all hung up on it.

In short, the reason I think they bear so much resemblance to MBTT descriptions is because they're derived from them. The only reason people like Pheadrus think MBTT types are the same as their socionics 'equivalent' are because they are written from an MBTT perspective. Put it this way:

*A socionists comes along*

"Ooh, this LSE has the same functional ordering as the ESTJ in MBTT. Hence, they must be the same thing! I will write a description of the LSE which bears likeness to the ESTJ."

What the socionist should be thinking is this:

"LSEs may have the same functional ordering as the ESTJ, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same kinds of people. Hence, we will write about the LSE from a socionics perspective; obviously their ego is Te and Si blocked together. So, let's talk about how said Te and Si influence the character."

[XoX]

I'm not sure if that is how it happened. Who knows. What I would like to see is non type related stuff removed from type descriptions through some kind of intense peer review. Currently they are so full of details which are not really related to the theoretical socionics type but more like observations of individuals or something which don't carry well to all individuals of the same type. So if you don't see those details in yourself you find it very hard to relate to the type description.

[Joy]

Possibly as the result of observing mistyped people?

[XoX]

Possibly as the result of observing mistyped people?

That's one possibility. More likely cause is making observations of individuals to be observations of type without actually mapping those observations to types via socionics theory. Like "That's an ISTj, he drinks Coke, thus all ISTjs drink Coke". Even if drinking Coke is not related to ISTjs at all.

[strrrng]

socionics does not copy myers briggs...

[tcaudilllg]

socionics does not copy myers briggs...

No, but that doesn't mean its practitioners don't....

[XoX]

socionics does not copy myers briggs...

I give you an example:

"ENTjs are very enthusiastic when starting new projects sometimes becoming so passionate that they can forget about everything else. They normally start small, gradually working their way up to bigger things."

Whee. I'm ENTj now.

"When in conversation, ESTps always show self-restraint and tact. They generally interact in an open and friendly manner"

Oh wow. Now I'm ESTp.

"Whatever ISTps do, they try to extract a practical use from it."

And...Im also ISTp

[Steve]

No, but that doesn't mean its practitioners don't....

Right, and that's the problem. Even some of the russians, who write material that some people regard as socionics scripture, seem guilty of this.

I give you an example:

"ENTjs are very enthusiastic when starting new projects sometimes becoming so passionate that they can forget about everything else. They normally start small, gradually working their way up to bigger things."

Whee. I'm ENTj now.

"When in conversation, ESTps always show self-restraint and tact. They generally interact in an open and friendly manner"

Oh wow. Now I'm ESTp.

"Whatever ISTps do, they try to extract a practical use from it."

And...Im also ISTp

You're right. It's exactly how people misunderstand socionics and basically turn it into a more complicated MBTI with superficial traits, only now since it's socionics, people think they can get more intellectual with it, so they make complicated theories about these superficial traits and call it brilliance. TRUE socionics (based on the incorporation of Carl Jung, and Kepinski's information metabolism) can no way incorporate such general surface traits as type determinations. Check out Jung's descriptions of the functions and functional types (if you have the Ti patience, lol):
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

I highly doubt you'll find any overly concrete traits in there.

Also what's happening there is people are building zip-lines across the tops of trees, and not seeing the traits within their proper contexts (the trunk and roots of the tree), so they say "If I can zip from the top branch of one tree to another, I'm making a connection between the trees." ("If I generally interact in an open and friendly manner, I must be ESTp" - which btw is such an extremely general trait, you'll find at least 50% of the population possessing this trait, and 50% of the population isn't ESTp) - And fwiw, the top branches of trees aren't nearly as strong or as thick as the trunk

What the socionist should be thinking is this:

"LSEs may have the same functional ordering as the ESTJ, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are the same kinds of people. Hence, we will write about the LSE from a socionics perspective; obviously their ego is Te and Si blocked together. So, let's talk about how said Te and Si influence the character."

Right, its about how Te, Si, Fi, Ne work together for an ESTj. Sometimes, although its very tempting to break stuff down to the smallest micron, a lot of stuff with functions can't be isolated so precisely. I think people in general need to also consider a holistic point of view when examining functions in a type. Like you said - how do Te and Si work together (TeSi), and not just seeing it as Te+Si.

[Expat]

Socionics is not the same as Jung's typology. Those who use Jung's descriptions as if they were the "true" socionics functions will be typing people according to Jung's typology, not socionics.

If anyone's interested, we (meaning Rick and myself) put our views on that here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...g%27s_Typology

For what it's worth, that socionics functions were based on - or inspired by - Jung's functions is clear and acknowledged by socionists; but those who understand socionics for what it is - a system to explain intertype relationships - also see that the latter are based on functions that are different from Jung's. That Augusta used Jung's functions a starting point, but also modified them as she developed socionics, is not only obvious if you read what she and other socionists wrote, but it is also what Igor Weisband (the author of the first full set of socionics descriptions) confirmed to us in Duesseldorf.

Obviously, socionics functions retain similarities with the Jungian ones, to a lesser or greater degree.

To those - like Steve - who seem to take for granted that Jungian descriptions are the "true" socionics functions, for socionics purposes, I would ask to provide evidence besides simply stating it as a fact; I would also ask, then, to explain how things like quadras and therefore intertype relationships even hang together if you make your case using the Jungian understanding of the functions. It won't work.

[strrrng]

we're not talking about what works best in each system; jung's descriptions capture the essence of functions. if you want to understand what the functions really are, reading jung is the best way to go. obviously socionics deals with much more stuff, but with a solid understanding of the functions, one will not be as prone to making superficial generalizations, mistyping, etc.

[XoX]

we're not talking about what works best in each system; jung's descriptions capture the essence of functions. if you want to understand what the functions really are, reading jung is the best way to go.

Jung's descriptions of the function are...well... Jung's descriptions of the functions. Nothing more nothing less.

[strrrng]

Jung's descriptions of the function are...well... Jung's descriptions of the functions. Nothing more nothing less.

ok...the sky is...the sky...nothing more, nothing less...wtf is your point. he came up with the idea - that's why his descriptions capture the essence.

[Expat]

we're not talking about what works best in each system; jung's descriptions capture the essence of functions. if you want to understand what the functions really are, reading jung is the best way to go.

Not at all. If you want to understand what the socionics functions really are, reading Augusta - and those who elaborated on her writings - is the best way to go.

To say that Jung's functions are the essence of the socionics functions is to avoid the issue. If you read, say, Jung's views on the essence of Extraverted Sensing, it is clearly different from what Augusta saw as the essence of . And that is valid for all functions, although to different degrees.

This is relevant not only for what "works in each system", it is relevant to understand that we're talking about the same thing.

[strrrng]

Not at all. If you want to understand what the socionics functions really are, reading Augusta - and those who elaborated on her writings - is the best way to go.

To say that Jung's functions are the essence of the socionics functions is to avoid the issue. If you read, say, Jung's views on the essence of Extraverted Sensing, it is clearly different from what Augusta saw as the essence of . And that is valid for all functions, although to different degrees.

This is relevant not only for what "works in each system", it is relevant to understand that we're talking about the same thing.

I didn't say understanding the socionics functions; I said understanding the functions in and of themselves. and I didn't say Jung's functions are the essence of socionics, stop putting words in my mouth to support your belief. I said that he came up with them, and his descriptions capture the essence of what they are, INDEPENDENT of any system.

[Expat]

I didn't say understanding the socionics functions; I said understanding the functions in and of themselves. and I didn't say Jung's functions are the essence of socionics, stop putting words in my mouth to support your belief. I said that he came up with them, and his descriptions capture the essence of what they are, INDEPENDENT of any system.

I wasn't "putting words in your mouth to support my belief", unless that is your term for "misunderstanding". I must say that I still don't understand the point of your argument; but if you are not arguing that Jung's functions, as such, should be used for socionics purposes, then there is no relevant disagreement as far as I am concerned.

[strrrng]

I wasn't "putting words in your mouth to support my belief", unless that is your term for "misunderstanding". I must say that I still don't understand the point of your argument; but if you are not arguing that Jung's functions, as such, should be used for socionics purposes, then there is no relevant disagreement as far as I am concerned.

ok cool. no point in arguing on this forum anyway

And why do you suppose this?

he didn't create any type system. he simply observed what he believed to be the core components of perception

[Ezra]

Socionics is not the same as Jung's typology. Those who use Jung's descriptions as if they were the "true" socionics functions will be typing people according to Jung's typology, not socionics.

...


For what it's worth, that socionics functions were based on - or inspired by - Jung's functions is clear and acknowledged by socionists; but those who understand socionics for what it is - a system to explain intertype relationships - also see that the latter are based on functions that are different from Jung's. That Augusta used Jung's functions a starting point, but also modified them as she developed socionics, is not only obvious if you read what she and other socionists wrote, but it is also what Igor Weisband (the author of the first full set of socionics descriptions) confirmed to us in Duesseldorf.

Obviously, socionics functions retain similarities with the Jungian ones, to a lesser or greater degree.

To those - like Steve - who seem to take for granted that Jungian descriptions are the "true" socionics functions, for socionics purposes, I would ask to provide evidence besides simply stating it as a fact; I would also ask, then, to explain how things like quadras and therefore intertype relationships even hang together if you make your case using the Jungian understanding of the functions. It won't work.

This is essentially what Phaedrus needs to get into his head, and won't. He is a lost cause until he accepts this. He's already started plaguing Fabio's impressionable mind with his bullshit, to the point where Fabio believes that creative Te in socionics equates to dominant Te in MBTT.

If anyone's interested, we (meaning Rick and myself) put our views on that here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...7;27s_Typology

Just read it then. Good page. I agree about Se and Te because I've had most experience with Se in socionics, and with Te in MBTT.

Not at all. If you want to understand what the socionics functions really are, reading Augusta - and those who elaborated on her writings - is the best way to go.

People sidetracked on "respectable socionists" all the time, without realising that these socionists are as fallible as anyone else, and all they do is interpret what Augusta has said. If someone studies socionics, they should take Augusta's word as close to the divine truth, because what she said about the functions is socionics. Her observations are the cause of her adding these new twists to the functions in socionics; she probably saw what Jung had said, and then thought 'hmm, I disagree. I've observed x phenomena in y, and have noticed that this is in fact related to z function, as opposed to p function.

To say that Jung's functions are the essence of the socionics functions is to avoid the issue. If you read, say, Jung's views on the essence of Extraverted Sensing, it is clearly different from what Augusta saw as the essence of . And that is valid for all functions, although to different degrees.

And this brings us to the question: who on this site is a socionist, and who is a Jungist? Who would rather study Jung and use his ideas in collaboration with elements of socionics they deem important (probably not, in this case, Augusta's functions)?

ok cool. no point in arguing on this forum anyway

It depends what you count as 'arguing'.

he didn't create any type system. he simply observed what he believed to be the core components of perception

So why does that mean we must puritanically incorporate every element of his descriptions and explanations into socionics, without considering the fact that Augusta has changed meanings and descriptions (quite extensively in many cases), and that she is the mother of socionics?

[Expat]

Something I think should be kept in mind.

Jung was looking at people as individuals, in isolation - of course also in how they compared to others (one of Jung's points was that factors such as introversion and extroversion meant nothing as absolute terms), but not how they related to others - as far as I know he just commented in passing that extroverts seemed more drawn to introverts and vice-versa.

Augusta, by everyone's account, also by Igor Weisband's when I asked him directly, first started wondering what made people relate so differently to (apparently) very similar people. So from the beginning her way of looking at functions was connected to how they affected personal relationships.

So - to use again the same soft target - Jung's Extraverted Sensing is not really the essence of what an ILI expects from their duals, nor is it the essence of what puts EIIs off. is.

[Expat]

People sidetracked on "respectable socionists" all the time, without realising that these socionists are as fallible as anyone else, and all they do is interpret what Augusta has said. If someone studies socionics, they should take Augusta's word as close to the divine truth, because what she said about the functions is socionics. Her observations are the cause of her adding these new twists to the functions in socionics; she probably saw what Jung had said, and then thought 'hmm, I disagree. I've observed x phenomena in y, and have noticed that this is in fact related to z function, as opposed to p function.

Well, I don't think you need to take Augusta's every word as divine truth; for instance, I think that her description of has a bias as opposed to (understandably).

I've also come to think that some of her descriptions of duality relationships - as the LSE - EII one - do not quite hit the mark. And so on and so forth.

Also, it's not true that "all they do is interpret what Augusta has said". Augusta pointed the way to the functions, types, and relationships; as soon you understand those, then you can move on to your own observations and interpretations.

I don't think that you are crossing the line into non-socionics when you go into areas that Augusta did not go, or even when you change some of her concepts; I think the line is crossed when you are clearly contradicting her outlines of socionics.

[Minde]

I've also come to think that some of her descriptions of duality relationships - as the LSE - EII one - do not quite hit the mark. And so on and so forth.

*interest is piqued* I would invite you to explain further, but perhaps not in this thread.

[XoX]

ok...the sky is...the sky...nothing more, nothing less...wtf is your point. he came up with the idea - that's why his descriptions capture the essence.

We not talking about the sky but different descriptions of the sky. I see it more as Jung trying to create a model of a phenomena which is observable in reality. He did his best and provided a starting point for further research. An initial model. When socionists (or whoever) tried to build upon this model they were not completely satisfied with Jung's model and felt the need to improve it so that it better matches their perception of reality. Thus there is no more "essence" in Jung's descriptions than there is in the modified socionics descriptions.

[Steve]

Sure Jung is pure functions, as opposed to predicting inter-type relations as socionics does, however I've found that the way he describes the functions is right on par with the way Aushra formulated the information elements. For example: Se = external static objects, as as Jung describes is "sensation directed toward the object", with a repression of the subjective (subjective in socionics relates with fields). And the way I've seen Se people sensate in this object by object manner just seems quite true, the same way I've seen his description of Si fit along with Aushra's information elements External Field Dynamics, and my own personal experience of Si.

Now I understand that the way he described functions isn't exactly the way Aushra did, in the sense that she added "Time, Space" etc among other aspects. She referred to Ne as the intuition of space, Ni as the intuition of time. I think I know what she was getting at by using those labels, but I believe that it was more of an abstract metaphoric definition for getting a feel of Ne and Ni (the static and dynamic aspects), and how Ne seems to expand outward, while Ni evolves forward. I think other people have taken for example the aspects of "Space, and Time" and have applied it in an overly concrete way, to where Ni people somehow know how to "be on time" or whatever. It basically is taking an originally abstract metaphor and seemingly taking it out of context.

[Expat]

Sure Jung is pure functions, as opposed to predicting inter-type relations as socionics does, however I've found that the way he describes the functions is right on par with the way Aushra formulated the information elements.

Good to know. For my part, I've found that if you read what Jung wrote, and what Augusta wrote, especially on the types, you see clear differences. Of course, you have to bother to read what she - and others - actually wrote, instead of assuming that you just have to go into Jung.

have applied it in an overly concrete way, to where Ni people somehow know how to "be on time" or whatever. It basically is taking an originally abstract metaphor and seemingly taking it out of context.

Not at all. Some socionists - especially Stratievskaya - have indeed exaggerated the "being on time" thing, especially when she says that ILIs somehow always manage to be on time. But very few socionists - even in the most basic material available - really say Ni is only, or even mainly, that.

Nor do we say so in the wiki, we tried to say how Ni is manifested in all positions of model A here:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...rted_intuition

And there is a reason for the "being on time" thing, although it is more a negative one than positive one - that is, it is not so much that Ni ego types are "always on time", it is rather that Ni PoLR types - ESEs and LSEs - have an inclination to be late for appointments; that, or they over-compensate by putting everything in a diary (my ESE ex did both - she put everything possible in a diary, and yet she was always late for appointments).

The reason is that Ni PoLR, Si creative types tend to focus on the task at hand - a "task" as defined by what they think they should do, according to Te or Fe as the case may be. In doing that, they tend to be "distracted" by last-moment things, as in, "hmm, I could finish this" or "I still could tidy this up" where a stronger Ni person would be more inclined to think of less immediate (and so less "sensory") priorities such as, "hmm, I have a date later today".

A pure Si person would be like a machine that just responds to immediate stimulii, regardless of their longer-term (more "imaginary") relevance. A pure Ni person would simply do nothing at all on a daily basis, perhaps in a sort of catatonic state, lost in a fantasy world, or thinking of what they'll do in ten years. Most people lie between these two extremes, but it is possible to see how closer they are to one extreme or the other.

[Ezra]

Sure Jung is pure functions, as opposed to predicting inter-type relations as socionics does, however I've found that the way he describes the functions is right on par with the way Aushra formulated the information elements. For example: Se = external static objects, as as Jung describes is "sensation directed toward the object", with a repression of the subjective (subjective in socionics relates with fields). And the way I've seen Se people sensate in this object by object manner just seems quite true, the same way I've seen his description of Si fit along with Aushra's information elements External Field Dynamics, and my own personal experience of Si.

Please quote Jung when he talks about Se in relation to power dynamics.

are these even similar? a lot of the russian ones are specifically done through socionics and socionic types...

LSE and ESTJ are similar in many aspects. I'm not quite sure what you meant by the second statement.

[Phaedrus]

Now I understand that the way he described functions isn't exactly the way Aushra did, in the sense that she added "Time, Space" etc among other aspects. She referred to Ne as the intuition of space, Ni as the intuition of time.

The idea to call Ni the intuition of time comes from Jung (see the first of his five Tavistock Lectures).

[Ezra]

well socionics types is just basically i meant that looking at the "real" people in that your theory perfectly matches reality or smth...

To borrow a leaf from Keirsey's book, I know very few SJs. Since we're not talking about Keirsey though, I know no LSEs personally whatsoever. I don't think I even know of anyway.

[Phaedrus]

To borrow a leaf from Keirsey's book, I know very few SJs.

That's because you know very few things.

[Ezra]

That's because you know very few things.

And you know absolutely fuck all.

[misutii]

now now children, be nice

[Phaedrus]

now now children, be nice

That was several days ago, and children have short memories. We are already back in kindergarten, playing different games and having fun.

[Phaedrus]

hey hey hey, hold your horses! are you so sure you wanna get a load of my Se up your tiny asshole?

I have no will, and my mind is a blank. I am an ignorant Taoist ... didn't I post something about that some time ago?

[Logos]

I have no will, and my mind is a blank. I am an ignorant Taoist ... didn't I post something about that some time ago?

It's good to know that we finally agree on something.

[Ezra]

I am an ignorant Taoist ...

*coughpretensecough*

It's good to know that we finally agree on something.

OMFGROFLMFAO