how compatible are Jung and socionics

[ashlesha]

always seeing people argue about this but I want to hear from people I haven't noticed talk about it much

@labster
@octo
@InvisibleJim
@GuavaDrunk
@Pa3s

lots of others but I'm sick of typing out names on my phone.

seems like an important thing and I was surprised when I realized I don't know what a lot of people think about it.

[krieger]

i don't have too much to add to what i've already told you in chat. i generally view them as complementary and compatible.

[Absurd]

I don't, they're completely different thing as in same shit in a different package. Jungian stuff is socionics stuff upside down and vice versa.

[InvisibleJim]

Jung is the basis of socionics. If they are not directly relevant they are at least reconcilable.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Conflictors

[Pa3s]

I'm not sure, what I've read sounded fairly compatible. I think it fits better than the MBTI-descriptions of the IEs.

[Absurd]

I'm not sure, what I've read sounded fairly compatible. I think it fits better than the MBTI-descriptions of the IEs.

Of course is going to fit "better". MBTI ditched Jung so to speak, that is, went ahead and disregarded what he has said once upon a time. Thing is, when you give something a name, it becomes this something for it is in the realm of communication, realm of symbolic, and that's exactly what happened here.

[tcaudilllg]

I haven't actually read any Jung and I'm not really planning to, which would explain why I don't talk about it much But if he's IEI I assume he'll just rehash my own thoughts, right? *rationalises laziness away*

He's IEI but definitely less technical and more "aware" than you. I'd read him anyway.

[Gilly]

Of course is going to fit "better". MBTI ditched Jung so to speak, that is, went ahead and disregarded what he has said once upon a time. Thing is, when you give something a name, it becomes this something for it is in the realm of communication, realm of symbolic, and that's exactly what happened here.

I didn't know you were on Lacan.

Hi.

[rat1]

Jung and socionics are both describing the same thing, assuming what they're describing is real. They're either compatible of they're wrong and we can ignore them.

[Absurd]

I didn't know you were on Lacan.

Hi.

No comprende and hey.

[Gilly]

No comprende and hey.

Oh. You referenced "the symbolic" which is one of Lacan's major concepts.

[thePirate]

Jung is good background reading for Socionics but they categorize individuals differently (for instance what it means to be an extrovert/introvert etc).

I wouldn't take a Jung based approach to typing like some others have here, the mixing of him & Augusta's work in this sense are at odds - the people who do that usually end up with very odd explanations and typing's that don't fit IE's/type portraits/etc.

[Creepy-]

Sometimes I use Jungian principles to try to understand socionics. I couldn't really tell you if they are compatible with each other or at odds with each other, but I'm not sure it would really matter.

[Absurd]

Oh. You referenced "the symbolic" which is one of Lacan's major concepts.

Oh I see. I don't do concepts as weird it may sound. I checked that guy out though and it is the first time I hear about him, and yes, it is not what I have been referring to so Absurd is at odds with Lacan as is Jung with Socionics

[Gilly]

Irony

[Absurd]

It actually is, I found it elsewhere.

[Gilly]

I wasn't being sarcastic...it really is ironic lol. I don't think your understanding is too far off his in terms of the symbolic though, or at least what you are talking about falls within the bounds of what he considers the symbolic