Carl Jung on Introverted Sensing Si

[ArchonAlarion]

In Jung's Psychological Types he says the following on Introverted Sensation:


"Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensastion transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day."


This description of Si is the only place where time as pertains to a function is mentioned explicitly in the book. The Ni description does not mention time, only the Si description.


This is another relevent passage in the Si description:


"Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons."


This is something I had personally noticed about Si, and was delighted when I read it in Jung's words.


I was gonna play a prank on you guys and switch out the references to Si with Ni and later reveal what I had done, but I think you get my point anyways.

[Creepy-male]

SPOILER WARNING: SOCIONICS IS NOT JUNG.

[ArchonAlarion]

You're right, socionics is a typological theory and Jung was a very very smart psychologist.

[ArchonAlarion]

Once again, you demonstrate more concern over who made what, and less concern over the actual content of what people say.

Also I'd like to point out that you would not (nor would anyone else) have made that comment if I had replaced Si with Ni in the passages lol.

So predictable.

[Creepy-male]

Wait, what?

The problem here is that the two are totally different systems.

That's like saying that Enneagram and Socionics are interchangeable.

Or that socionics is a way of studying schizophrenics.

[ArchonAlarion]

Nope, not really.

The human physiology is one system in a bigger system composed of smaller systems.

Basically you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to the description. Augusta derived the elements directly from Jung, but modified them based on her personal observations. She also tried to make connections where there were none. Its called being a human being.

Jung for instance was overly harsh on Te and Fe because he felt they were aggrandized in contemporary society and he wanted to take them down a peg.

The rest of his descriptions are mostly right on.

So the real question is, who's content makes more sense?

Do you want me to post some of his Ni description?

[Not A Communist Shill]

This has been discussed many times before.

Jung' describes the introverted intuitive as being somewhat removed from the concrete world and time as it is generally perceived - e.g. "But, since he tends to rely exclusively upon his vision, his moral effort becomes one-sided; he makes himself and his life symbolic, adapted, it is true, to the inner and eternal meaning of events, but unadapted to the actual present-day reality. Therewith he also deprives himself of any influence upon it, because he remains unintelligible. His language is not that which is commonly spoken -- it becomes too subjective."

But Gulanzon is quite right.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-male]

The human physiology is one system in a bigger system composed of smaller systems.

Basically you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to the description. Augusta derived the elements directly from Jung, but modified them based on her personal observations.

Saved me the effort of saying it.

Ok.

You're standing in front of a sphere. If you must, it's a lawn globe.

You walk around it for a small distance, let's say 20 degrees.

Protip: you're not standing where you started.

What's my point? Sphere's don't have points.

What's my real point? Jung is one angle of approach. Socionics is another. Tony-poo's psychotic theories are another. When try to say that they're the same thing, you're being retarded.

Anyway, I'm Ni-base by Jung. You might not have noticed.

[ArchonAlarion]

This is a really excellent example of why you can't apply Jung's types and element descriptions to socionics types. They're describing different things. This is not a description of what in socionics is called Si.

Socionics, like MBTI used Jung in its development, but not in any kind of "pure" form, and the various elements are not the same. You have to resist getting caught up in the label, and remember not to assume it transfers with the same meaning from one list or system to another.

Lol, okay okay.

Call whatever you want whatever you want.

I think I'm going to call Fi "Introverted intuition" and I'm going to call Te "Dog-shit"

I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope...

Enjoy your "Ni".

[Creepy-male]

Lol, okay okay.

Call whatever you want whatever you want.

I think I'm going to call Fi "Introverted intuition" and I'm going to call Te "Dog-shit"

I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope, I still have hope...

Enjoy your "Ni".

"Hi. I'm Jake. I'm an IEI, but I use an ILE typing to personally validate me to be a dick on the internet, because I read that it's cool for ILEs to be dicks. In fact, I read that that makes them very attractive to some types."

[Jarno]

The Ni description does not mention time, only the Si description.

Well in his book Tavistock Lectures he calls intuition 'Time'.

And if I remember it correctly he mentions Time for Ni in his book psychological types at least once. (yes I agree it's not much)

But then again, time isn't that a great definition for Ni. Future is a better word etc.

Though I agree that Jung has some other akward ideas about Ni. But whatever, he uses dichotomies so he gets at the right type anyways.

[Jarno]

Basically you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to the description. Augusta derived the elements directly from Jung, but modified them based on her personal observations.

exactly. it's the same system, Jung just used other words than Augusta. That's because we are human and not copied robots of eachother...

[marooned]

I was thinking Jung's Si description was interesting... I haven't finalized my thoughts on the matter. But in any case, I do think it's important to consider whether Jung's Si and Socionics Si are the same thing; and if they overlap, to what degree? To simply say "Si is this" and post a Jung description is not a critical evaluation of the matter. And had you switched it to being "Ni" I think people would have recognized the source anyway (I hope anyway) and so it wouldn't have worked. The main question is why are you so insistent that Jungian-defined functions = Socionics IM precisely, or are you? I need to look into it more and that's why I'm not giving an opinion, because I'm being lazy, but my suspicion so far is that there is some overlap. I also have been thinking about Ni pertaining to time for a while, and haven't finalized my thoughts on this either.

[Jarno]

What's my real point? Jung is one angle of approach. Socionics is another. Tony-poo's psychotic theories are another.

Different angle of approach at the same object is something different than a different approach to another object.

Both jung and augusta described the psychological types that exist among humans. Why do you think you cannot compare them?

If Jung used a sytem called happy people and sad people, oke that's different.

But both used the same parts like introvert and extravert. How much more comparable do you want it to be??

[Jarno]

I've got a dreadlock witch as a neighbour and she would explain all elements with symbolic words. That's just her perspective on the world. Geez, is it that surprising that Jung used some different words to describe the IM then augusta did??

If you can see through that, you'll notice that they are both on the same path.

Now I stop before I have to declare another war :-)

[Creepy-male]

But both used the same parts like introvert and extravert. How much more comparable do you want it to be??

It would probably help if I knew my way around Jung.

Anyway, Boxxy knows what this thread is about.

Gul, checking out.

[xerx]

In Jung's Psychological Types he says the following on Introverted Sensation:

"Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensastion transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day."

This description of Si is the only place where time as pertains to a function is mentioned explicitly in the book. The Ni description does not mention time, only the Si description.

I don't think Jung is describing "time" in the strictest sense. He's describing the Si [introverted] function's connection with an underlying metaphysical reality that's ultimately related to his theory of archetypes.

In socionics "discrete jumps in time" is now closely associated with Ne. I think they got a lot of backlash to the Ni = time thing, and they admitted they were wrong. It's likely that the metaphor they used to describe Ni was too Ne based, and this mostly irritated the Ni types.

"Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons."

I can actually see this as a possible description of an SEI - but a very artistically inclined one, perhaps a genius. Nobody that socionics really fully pertains to anyway.

You're right, socionics is a typological theory and Jung was a very very smart psychologist.

How do you know Augusta wasn't smarter?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-male]

Does Jung matter? His theory on psychological type opened the door for Aushra, but his definitions are like footprints on the beach which the tide has washed away.

More succinctly: "Jung was some guy, Aushra was some ILE."

[Expat]

The key question is: is it clear, reading Jung's Introverted Sensing and Extraverted Intuition description, that they complement each other? And not just "they complement each other because they're supposed to".

In socionics, the very nature of and means that they complement each other. It is as much part of the nature of an IEE to seek above all in other people, as it is to provide . It's not something that "just happens" - it is an integral part of it.

Personally I think that to assume that Jung is the One True Source of socionics is a sign of intellectual laziness - much easier to assume that all you have to do is to read Jung rather than try to understand how socionics differs from it, in its own terms.

Can we really say that Jung's Introverted Sensing and Extraverted Intuition types really, necessarily, complement each other? I doubt it.

[strrrng]

The key question is: is it clear, reading Jung's Introverted Sensing and Extraverted Intuition description, that they complement each other? And not just "they complement each other because they're supposed to".

In socionics, the very nature of and means that they complement each other. It is as much part of the nature of an IEE to seek above all in other people, as it is to provide . It's not something that "just happens" - it is an integral part of it.

And maybe you want to consider the content of Aushra and Jung's definitions, from this standpoint. The former was bent on modeling how the functions complimented each other in communication, while the latter was focused on illuminating the more "intrapsychic" processes occurring with the functions, and how they pertained to archetypes. Now tell me, which one of them sounds more likely to leave stuff out in their description, perhaps limit the context a little, so as to "make things fit"?

And this is why it's so irritating to me when people insist on this singular Aushra context -- because it's blatantly obvious that things have been dumbed down, and functions aren't being described in their full actuality, because of her motivations behind the model.

Personally I think that to assume that Jung is the One True Source of socionics is a sign of intellectual laziness - much easier to assume that all you have to do is to read Jung rather than try to understand how socionics differs from it, in its own terms.

I wouldn't assume this; there's something valid to gain from many people. Shit, I even read some weird-ass russian article on model A a while back that had a sine curve supposedly correlating to neurological stuff. But, I still think Jung was more insightful into "what goes on in peoples' heads" and closer to seeing the "essence" of how functions work, beyond any behavioral-communicative level.

Can we really say that Jung's Introverted Sensing and Extraverted Intuition types really, necessarily, complement each other? I doubt it.

Guess not. Guess you have to write them off as irrelevant now, to stay in your box.

[Creepy-male]

Really now, what's wrong with boxes?

I suppose what confuses me is how you can even begin to incorporate Jung into something only tangentially related.

Quick reminder: Aushra was an ILE. What does that mean? An example: bits of the idea of information metabolism were used, but that doesn't mean Socionics is only useful on shizophrenics; likewise, Jung is not socionics in any way, shape, or form. "Functions" as a loose idea was adapted.

Again, it mystifies me why there is any confusion about this.

[Waddlesworth]

Really now, what's wrong with boxes?

I suppose what confuses me is how you can even begin to incorporate Jung into something only tangentially related.

Quick reminder: Aushra was an ILE. What does that mean? An example: bits of the idea of information metabolism were used, but that doesn't mean Socionics is only useful on shizophrenics; likewise, Jung is not socionics in any way, shape, or form. "Functions" as a loose idea was adapted.

Again, it mystifies me why there is any confusion about this.

Though it is obvious that Socionics is not exclusively Jung's I don't see any reason why someone that is curious about Socionics shouldn't look into Jung's ideas.

Socionics is based upon Jung's ideas. It is! It is that simple.

The problem here is pretension. People want socionics to be practical and easy and therefore don't want to study Jung or other related thinkers. They want to already know it all. They see something new[well, new to them], something that involves alot of things they never troubled themselves to think about, and they resist. It is laziness or immaturity that stops them.

IMO

[ArchonAlarion]

I don't agree with everything Jung said.

For instance, his extraverted feeling description is very negative. Jung even made note of this in the book by explicitly stating that he felt the extraverted rational functions were over represented in contemporary culture. Obviously he felt the need to bring them down a notch.

Don't try to pigeon hole me into being a Jung fanatic, especially when you'd all go done on Augusta in a heartbeat. I take stuff from anyone who has something decent to say.

Jung is leagues fairer to Si than mainstream socionics makes it out to be.

Time when perceived as affecting or being demonstrated explicitly, concretely, tangibly, sensibly, etc is the domain of Si. Ni (as Jung described) is concerned with hidden abstract meanings and processes of subjective experience. Si concerns itself with the tangible/surface patterns, directions, and fluctuations of subjective experience.

Therefore, a million year old consciousness who see the coming and passing of things simultaneously, who knows the ebb and flow of the universe and the cause-effect ripples of things upon eachother, is a dandy way of explaining Si.

[Creepy-male]

/sigh

Ok, who made socionics? Aushra.

Is Socionics Jung? No.

Again, I'm confused as to why there's confusion over this at all.

[ArchonAlarion]

because types exist outside of socionics

Socionics (and any model) attempts to describe and make clear what is already there, existing before, during, and after any model or theory we come up with.

Socionics is not perfect. IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM

The precisely wrong way to go about something like this is to dogmatically stick to one model and ignore everything else.

There is no confusion.

[Creepy-male]

"Reification (also known as hypostatisation or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it represented a concrete, real event or physical entity."

Types don't exist, sry. They're classifications within a discrete model.

What exists are people with minds. Jung works, Socionics works, the enneagram works; but not together. What you're doing is trying to use one model of the mind and claim its systems, classifications, and whatever else work under another, completely different model of the mind.

Just wanted to point that out.

[ArchonAlarion]

"Reification (also known as hypostatisation or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it represented a concrete, real event or physical entity."

Thats what you're doing, sir.

Types don't exist, sry. They're classifications within a discrete model.

What exists are people with minds. Jung works, Socionics works, the enneagram works; but not together. What you're doing is trying to use one model of the mind and claim its systems, classifications, and whatever else work under another, completely different model of the mind.

Just wanted to point that out.

They do work together for Ne-ers lol!

What I'm doing is cherry picking from whatever works and recombining, tweaking, modulating, and dividing it until I can get something perfect.

I never will reach perfection, hence I will always be searching and changing.

I don't see the theories as boundaried. They just float about and parts of them are wrong and I cut out the wrong parts and store them. I might come back to them at a later date though.

My whole orientation towards life is assimilating and synthesizing different systems and models. I'm not gonna change that for your dogmatism.

[Creepy-male]

Thats what you're doing, sir.

Close textual evidence or it didn't happen.

They do work together for Ne-ers lol!

What I'm doing is cherry picking from whatever works and recombining, tweaking, modulating, and dividing it until I can get something perfect.

I never will reach perfection, hence I will always be searching and changing.

I don't see the theories as boundaried. They just float about and parts of them are wrong and I cut out the wrong parts and store them. I might come back to them at a later date though.

My whole orientation towards life is assimilating and synthesizing different systems and models. I'm not gonna change that for your dogmatism.

Then that's not actually Socionics, and this discussion is thus moot.

/thread

[ArchonAlarion]

SPOILER WARNING: SOCIONICS IS NOT JUNG.

You're right, socionics is a typological theory and Jung was a very very smart psychologist.

Once again, you demonstrate more concern over who made what, and less concern over the actual content of what people say.

Also I'd like to point out that you would not (nor would anyone else) have made that comment if I had replaced Si with Ni in the passages lol.

So predictable.

Wait, what?

The problem here is that the two are totally different systems.

That's like saying that Enneagram and Socionics are interchangeable.

Or that socionics is a way of studying schizophrenics.

Nope, not really.

The human physiology is one system in a bigger system composed of smaller systems.

Basically you're just having a knee-jerk reaction to the description. Augusta derived the elements directly from Jung, but modified them based on her personal observations. She also tried to make connections where there were none. Its called being a human being.

Jung for instance was overly harsh on Te and Fe because he felt they were aggrandized in contemporary society and he wanted to take them down a peg.

The rest of his descriptions are mostly right on.

So the real question is, who's content makes more sense?

Do you want me to post some of his Ni description?

Really now, what's wrong with boxes?

I suppose what confuses me is how you can even begin to incorporate Jung into something only tangentially related.

Quick reminder: Aushra was an ILE. What does that mean? An example: bits of the idea of information metabolism were used, but that doesn't mean Socionics is only useful on shizophrenics; likewise, Jung is not socionics in any way, shape, or form. "Functions" as a loose idea was adapted.

Again, it mystifies me why there is any confusion about this.

/sigh

Ok, who made socionics? Aushra.

Is Socionics Jung? No.

Again, I'm confused as to why there's confusion over this at all.

Close textual evidence or it didn't happen.

Insisting on sticking to one model whilst ignoring others based on them being different (even though they describe the same realm of psychology and also of typology specifically) demonstrates that you don't understand that these models are just floating abstractions in our heads. I inferred this and I don't feel I'm wrong in doing so.

When I use Jung I'm not talking about something different. I'm talking about what socionics is talking about! I'm just using different descriptions that I feel are more accurate.

We ILE's don't give a shit what was the original model. I'm still discussing what socionics discussed here.

What do you promote, Gul??? Some sort of traditionalism or conservatism? Will you ever deviate? Are you just gonna argue which founder had the right way? Are you going to move the fuck on?

I wish that every member here had a different model. I wish new models were created every day. Once in awhile someone would wow everyone and then their model would be integrated into most others. Then we'd move on and continue the process.

Then that's not actually Socionics, and this discussion is thus moot.

/thread

You're a big big fool.

"socionics" is a freakin name.

If I was describing musical theory or calculus then you might have a point. It turns out that I'm actually discussing jungian typology, of which socionics is a sub-typology/offspring/development.

Have fun, kiddo!

[anndelise]

Insisting on sticking to one model whilst ignoring others based on them being different (even though they describe the same realm of psychology and also of typology specifically) demonstrates that you don't understand that these models are just floating abstractions in our heads. I inferred this and I don't feel I'm wrong in doing so.

When I use Jung I'm not talking about something different. I'm talking about what socionics is talking about! I'm just using different descriptions that I feel are more accurate.

We ILE's don't give a shit what was the original model. I'm still discussing what socionics discussed here.

What do you promote, Gul??? Some sort of traditionalism or conservatism? Will you ever deviate? Are you just gonna argue which founder had the right way? Are you going to move the fuck on?

I wish that every member here had a different model. I wish new models were created every day. Once in awhile someone would wow everyone and then their model would be integrated into most others. Then we'd move on and continue the process.



You're a big big fool.

"socionics" is a freakin name.

If I was describing musical theory or calculus then you might have a point. It turns out that I'm actually discussing jungian typology, of which socionics is a sub-typology/offspring/development.

Have fun, kiddo!

The problem is that each of these theories have their own language. They might be using the same words, the same symbols, but the meanings don't necessarily match up.

If you're going to talk with people, it helps to speak the same language.
If you choose to speak greek to a canadian, don't be surprised when you're constantly misunderstood.

Believe it or not, language isn't static, it does grow. Which is why some mexican people can understand some spanish people and/or some latin. But they still often run into problems because a concept uses different words, or a word has different meanings for each of them.

In this case, jung would be like latin.
mbti would be a variant (maybe spanish).
Kiersey would be a different variant (maybe catalan).
and socionics would be yet a different variant (maybe french).
(note, obviously i don't know my languages, lol)

It makes little sense to speak a mishmash of each of them while expecting that every single one of them will be speaking the same mishmash as you are.
If you go to spain...speak spanish.
If you go to france...speak french.
If you go to socionics...speak socionics (or at least try to).



(note, I, too, am learning to attempt to clarify which language I'm speaking when I refer to things like "SeA, TeA, SiA" as Se, Te, Si according to aspectonics.)

[Creepy-male]

Insisting on sticking to one model whilst ignoring others based on them being different (even though they describe the same realm of psychology and also of typology specifically) demonstrates that you don't understand that these models are just floating abstractions in our heads. I inferred this and I don't feel I'm wrong in doing so.

Or rather, that you called types "real" demonstrates that you are guilty of what you accuse me of.

Of. of. of. of.

When I use Jung I'm not talking about something different. I'm talking about what socionics is talking about! I'm just using different descriptions that I feel are more accurate.

Repeated, because I hope it will eventually sink in: Jung is not Socionics.

It's like trying to argue that Australia is Antarctica because they're both continents, on the surface of the earth, and were at one point part of the larger landmass of Gondwanaland.

We ILE's don't give a shit what was the original model. I'm still discussing what socionics discussed here.

*sidestep*

Oh no, not another type discussion.

What do you promote, Gul??? Some sort of traditionalism or conservatism? Will you ever deviate? Are you just gonna argue which founder had the right way? Are you going to move the fuck on?

Temper, temper.

What I promote is logical consistency. Antarctistralia still does not exist, and the analogy still largely applies here too.

Also, Jung didn't found Socionics. Repeated again.

Jung came up with the idea of functions. He came up with extravert/introvert. As an afterthought, on the third day, Jung said "Let there be Thinking and Feeling, and Sensing and Intuiting!" and thus it was so, and Jung was pleased.

Then some scowly Lithuanian lady came in and thought "Hey, I like the idea of logical divisions! I think I'll steal them." and came up with Ethics/Logic and Sensing/Intuition, which were quite a bit removed from Jung's stuff.

Skip forward to 2009, where an angry young man is yelling at a cold young man trying to convince him that Australia and Antarctica are part of Pluto because we're all conglomerated stardust spewed out by a spinning disk of energy.

I wish that every member here had a different model. I wish new models were created every day. Once in awhile someone would wow everyone and then their model would be integrated into most others. Then we'd move on and continue the process.

That's cool, so long as they don't call them socionics, and worse, then try to say that their model is The One True Model To Rule Them All (Because The Others Are Wrong (Because They Aren't Mine)).

You're a big big fool.

"socionics" is a freakin name.

It's a label that refers to a specific, quite discrete model of the human mind.

Here's a google define: on what "model" means:

a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; "the computer program was based on a model of the circulatory and respiratory systems"

If I was describing musical theory or calculus then you might have a point. It turns out that I'm actually discussing jungian typology, of which socionics is a sub-typology/offspring/development.

Have fun, kiddo!

/facepalm deployed

Glad to see you're actually reading and engaging with my posts. It's really encouraging.

And it's great that you've gotten over your issues with being excessively defensive and rude. I really feel you've made a positive change towards being able to communicate rationally with other intelligent human beings. Again, I feel your massive progress is really encouraging.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Gul, do you have autism? Because it seems like you can't really communicate with others socially that well.

Just learn some basic social skills and stop coming across as a douche. Also stop trying to avoid responsibility with 'what they can't take a joke?'

I really do think you have some sort of autistic personality disorder. or Ass-Burgers.

[Creepy-male]

I was diagnosed with Aspergers, but I don't particularly believe it. I don't think my shrink did either tbh.

Anyway, looks like my plan has failed.

So, I leave this thread with a message: Jake, believe whatever the heck you want. Apparently I can't troll you without people realizing that I'm the villain. I also think you're just plain wrong, but whatever, it basically boils down to a religious war at this stage.

EDIT

I honestly just don't get why people seem to act like I'm speaking to them in an unintelligibly thick brogue. There's like, this tiny bubble of people who seem to actually respond to what I say, and then the rest have to just improvise off little bits and pieces that they snatch? I always assumed there was some reason other than "There's a vague possibility that you maybe might have Aspergers".

Personally my favourite scapegoat is the internet.

Anyway, </gulrant>. Feel free to leave a message solving yet another one of my lifelong mysteries.

[ArchonAlarion]

Or rather, that you called types "real" demonstrates that you are guilty of what you accuse me of.

Of. of. of. of.

Nope. I'm really not. In what way have I demonstrated this.

Show me.

Repeated, because I hope it will eventually sink in: Jung is not Socionics.

It's like trying to argue that Australia is Antarctica because they're both continents, on the surface of the earth, and were at one point part of the larger landmass of Gondwanaland.

No its not.

What you seem to be missing is that there is no single agreed upon interpretation of socionics. People come here to discuss, expand, revise, and interpret the theory. Unless you, Gulanzon, has the one single answer... I'd suggest backing off on this point.

*sidestep*

Oh no, not another type discussion.

Its relevent. You constantly question my type when its totally unrelated to the topic at hand. So good job being a hypocrite, son.

Temper, temper.

What I promote is logical consistency. Antarctistralia still does not exist, and the analogy still largely applies here too.

Also, Jung didn't found Socionics. Repeated again.

and I'll repeat, "Socionics is developed directly from Jungian typology. It is absolutely relevent to bring up and discuss Jung within a socionics forum."

Maybe if you read Psychological Types then you'd actually get that Socionics has hardly advanced beyond what Jung had to say. All thats changed is inter-types and specific models of what each function does. Please do research before you shoot your mouth off.

Jung came up with the idea of functions. He came up with extravert/introvert. As an afterthought, on the third day, Jung said "Let there be Thinking and Feeling, and Sensing and Intuiting!" and thus it was so, and Jung was pleased.

Then some scowly Lithuanian lady came in and thought "Hey, I like the idea of logical divisions! I think I'll steal them." and came up with Ethics/Logic and Sensing/Intuition, which were quite a bit removed from Jung's stuff.

Skip forward to 2009, where an angry young man is yelling at a cold young man trying to convince him that Australia and Antarctica are part of Pluto because we're all conglomerated stardust spewed out by a spinning disk of energy.

Poor analogy. Also the functions aren't really that different.

Also not all the socionics material was written by Augusta. Much of what you think is hers is stuff by later authors and interpretations by Ganin, Expat, and Rick.

That's cool, so long as they don't call them socionics, and worse, then try to say that their model is The One True Model To Rule Them All (Because The Others Are Wrong (Because They Aren't Mine)).

lol aren't you doing that?

Its perfectly fine for people to believe they are right... right? Sre you actually suggesting that people shouldn't have opinions and advocate them?

You are clinging to the word "socionics", making it into a big package deal propaganda icon. You do understand that socionics is a model itself right?

Here lets make this fun:

Jungian typology = A

Socionics = A1

Model A = A1,1

Model X = A1,2


So by "socionics" I'm sure you're implying "model A". The fact is that socionics has premises F, G, M, K.

Model A [F,G,M,K]

Model X [F,G,M,K]


Now since Socionics is actually an expansion of Jungian typology, the neat thing is that it only adds to Jung.

Therefore:

Jung contains premises B, V, Z

Socionics contains premises B, V, Z, E, Y


So by using Jung I'm not actually altering any of Socionic's premises and therefore its legitimate to discuss Jung within the context of a socionics forum.

At most you may disagree with my description of the element based on rationalistic or observational experiences you may have undergone.

Too bad. All you can do is discuss or bitch and moan.

And the best part is that I could easily post this in the model a forum!

Why?

Because model A is a way of organizing the functions and this is just a description of an element and so independent of any model!

It's a label that refers to a specific, quite discrete model of the human mind.

Here's a google define: on what "model" means:

a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; "the computer program was based on a model of the circulatory and respiratory systems"

/facepalm deployed

Glad to see you're actually reading and engaging with my posts. It's really encouraging.

And it's great that you've gotten over your issues with being excessively defensive and rude. I really feel you've made a positive change towards being able to communicate rationally with other intelligent human beings. Again, I feel your massive progress is really encouraging.

Gul you're very tedious. I feel you are attention seeking and extremely image focused. I feel the same way about JuJu and to some extent Gilly. I dont feel like rational arguments mean anything to you. I've tried before with Vero and its just a waste of time.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Eh not to play mediator or anything but the pic of the 'Teen Suicide' girl was just uncalled for. But then again I never really understood Gul. He's like one of those people that seems like he gets a kick on trying to do nothing but instigate others but then when confronted he backpeddals and just goes 'Aw I'm just using Fe and kidding around' or whatever. Like you confront him for being a genuine asshole he giggles and retreats. Very bizarre anti-social behavior. I usually just avoid people like that. Also his eyes look pretty sociopathic like he has a lot of sympathy for himself but not a lot for others. I am generally concerned on if he was raised properly or not.

As for what Si is or isn't. I don't know. And it gives me a headache trying to figure it out.

[Creepy-male]

Ok, yeah, teen suicide was probably a bad message.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Thank you.

However, I am not trying to like- hurt you or anything when I say you're a sociopath. A lot of people are sociopaths and actually do fine in the world. It's funny. Some people just can't feel others' emotions at all, or how they're really making others feel.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

It's gonna hurt you in the interpersonal relationship department, however.