Was Augusta on the fringe?

[tcaudilllg]

Reposted from socionix:
http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?showtopic=1533

I've been wondering for the past two years what socionics actually means. Tonight I began considering something that I had not previously considered: that it means nothing.

In her writings, Augusta at one point makes the assertion that everyone is various types, nothing more. It was as though by the end of her life she saw people as nothing but types. I previously did not want to take it seriously, but the conserved relational process perspective renders everything so objectively that I think it is worth considering that she may have actually meant it.

Socionics renders the subjective objective. But, it does nothing to make the objective subjective. This is experienced as a total mechanization of the human experience, making people into essentially robots. It's on the one hand a realization that human experience does absolutely exist, but it seeks to undermine that truth by rendering experience unimportant. Yes, X person has X weakness, but what does it mean to them? Socionics says nothing about this.

Socionics is important. Awareness of conserved relationships is important. But we are more than our relationships, aren't we? Our relationships have consequences to us on a personal level. Let us not lose sight of the fact that on that point, Augusta was acutely wrong. We are not types; we merely have types. Confidence may define how we behave, but it does not define who we are.

What do you think about Augusta as a person? Would you classify Augusta's notion of "people as types" as extremist? Do you think Augusta intended to create a system which rendered human relationships meaningless?

[Elro]

Reposted from socionix:
http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?showtopic=1533


What do you think about Augusta as a person? Would you classify Augusta's notion of "people as types" as extremist? Do you think Augusta intended to create a system which rendered human relationships meaningless?

What do you think about people that present opinions in a way that seems to ask a question? Do they make you want to kick them? Should they start working in journalism? Please answer in incomplete sentences.

[tcaudilllg]

What do you think about people that present opinions in a way that seems to ask a question? Do they make you want to kick them? Should they start working in journalism? Please answer in incomplete sentences.

Would you like to kick me, Elro? Howabout I go ahead and let you, and after you're done I can smash your head against concrete?

[Elro]

Would you like to kick me, Elro? Howabout I go ahead and let you, and after you're done I can smash your head against concrete?

Whatever you say, doc.

[force my hand]

What do you think about Augusta as a person? Would you classify Augusta's notion of "people as types" as extremist? Do you think Augusta intended to create a system which rendered human relationships meaningless?

No. Models simplify reality and help us understand. I think the intent was to do just that, not destroy the meaning in relationships. That's stretching the plausible result of personality typing.

[tcaudilllg]

No. Models simplify reality and help us understand. I think the intent was to do just that, not destroy the meaning in relationships. That's stretching the plausible result of personality typing.

There are letters on socioniko which suggest otherwise, that she actually believed people were types.

Personality is something so personal, that a simplification threatens dehumanization. Psychology is not biology.

[dbmmama]

to me, all it shows is her bias BECAUSE of her own type. so, take it and use it with a grain of salt with that knowledge.

[force my hand]

There are letters on socioniko which suggest otherwise, that she actually believed people were types.

Personality is something so personal, that a simplification threatens dehumanization. Psychology is not biology.

It threatens nothing of the kind, because implicit in the idea of a model is that it is indeed a simplification. Despite all the morons who would remain oblivious to this, Socionics will never be in the position to 'dehumanize'.

And if Augusta wrote letters to this effect, then I guess you just answered your own question.

[tcaudilllg]

There is a general critique of socionics viewable on socioniko:
http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/trans...v-comment.html

Its translation isn't perfect, but intelligible enough.

I'm reviewing her letters. I may have misread them the first time through.

Archive of many of Augusta's works, including the letters:
http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/trans...2faugusta.html

[tcaudilllg]

It threatens nothing of the kind, because implicit in the idea of a model is that it is indeed a simplification. Despite all the morons who would remain oblivious to this, Socionics will never be in the position to 'dehumanize'.

Even if it is further developed? Is there no point at which a model completely captures reality?

[kensi]

Reposted from socionix:
http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?showtopic=1533


What do you think about Augusta as a person? Would you classify Augusta's notion of "people as types" as extremist? Do you think Augusta intended to create a system which rendered human relationships meaningless?

Dont know... but do you think she labelled herself as the right type?

[tcaudilllg]

Dont know... but do you think she labelled herself as the right type?

I do. I remember having an ILE math instructor in high school who was remarkably similar.

[kensi]

I do. I remember having an ILE math instructor in high school who was remarkably similar.

Thanks. I had to ask.

I have an ESTj Management instructor and and she seems to think she is intuitive almost in an ENTp like way but i know for sure she is ESTj despite her heightened awareness of her hidden agenda(Ne).

[Ezra]

What do you think about Augusta as a person? Would you classify Augusta's notion of "people as types" as extremist?

To me, she's pretty normal. But that's because her functional make-up is very similar to mine. I think those who are likely to regard Augusta as being odd in what she says are Fi ego types. This is because she really does take away all the shit from behind relationships that a hell of a lot of people believe are there. What this is, I don't know (don't ask me - I'm Fi PoLR ).

Do you think Augusta intended to create a system which rendered human relationships meaningless?

The kind of person who answers "yes" to this question has a clouded view of relationships; they believe there is something mystical or non-material about them, or some shit like that.

[anndelise]

Personally, I think augusta was doing what she could to try to understand people and human relationships better. 'Typing people' takes a bit of a statistical approach, stereotypes. Unfortunately, individuals themselves do not tend to 'abide by' statistics nor stereotypes. There are numerous individual differences that counter statistics/stereotypes, and thus far, socionics fails to accommodate for that. Some newer stuff has potential to allow socionics to expand beyond the statistics/stereotypes. But which of these potentials, and where they go seems to depend upon socionist practitioners.

Socionics, as is commonly used, attempts to describe people using norms, ignoring situation and development. (in essence, ignoring the individual and focusing on some mental construction of a group)
IMO, if socionists want to more accurately grasp individuals and their relationships, then it needs to find a way of allowing for and recognizing situational differences, as well as modifications that a person goes through over time and over varying situations.

[tcaudilllg]

The kind of person who answers "yes" to this question has a clouded view of relationships; they believe there is something mystical or non-material about them, or some shit like that.

Anything done has consequences to experience. Not feeling able to change a negative relationship between yourself and someone you care about hurts you inside. You must either grapple with the problem or put emotional distance between yourself and that person. It can be especially difficult if the relationship is rewarding in other ways, in which a very acute ethical question comes into play.

[Ezra]

Anything done has consequences to experience. Not feeling able to change a negative relationship between yourself and someone you care about hurts you inside. You must either grapple with the problem or put emotional distance between yourself and that person. It can be especially difficult if the relationship is rewarding in other ways, in which a very acute ethical question comes into play.

I'm a very honest guy, so I will tell someone when something is off.

[iAnnAu]

Even if it is further developed? Is there no point at which a model completely captures reality?

No. The map is not the territory. Reality will always hand us something unexpected. We always have to leave that little bit of space for consideration of what has not been captured by the statistics.
Not that I'm saying models are useless. They way I see it, most of our decisions are made with incomplete data. We personally reach a point of "good enough to work with." Other people can pick up where we left off, or even challenge the point we reached. But even at a high level of refinement, it's like an upper arc of a parabola - it never actually becomes perfectly parallel to the axis.