Jung, Identification, and Socionics

[Korpsy Knievel]

From "Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts" by Daryl Sharp

http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon

Identification: A psychological process in which the personality is partially or totally dissimilated. Identity, denoting an unconscious conformity between subject and object, oneself and others, is the basis for identification, projection and introjection.

Identity is responsible for the naïve assumption that the psychology of one man is like that of another, that the same motives occur everywhere, that what is agreeable to me must obviously be pleasurable for others, that what I find immoral must also be immoral for them, and so on. It is also responsible for the almost universal desire to correct in others what most needs correcting in oneself.["Definitions," ibid., par. 742.]

Identification facilitates early adaptation to the outside world, but in later life becomes a hindrance to individual development.

For example, identification with the father means, in practice, adopting all the father’s ways of behaving, as though the son were the same as the father and not a separate individuality. Identification differs from imitation in that it is an unconscious imitation, whereas imitation is a conscious copying. . . . Identification can be beneficial so long as the individual cannot go his own way. But when a better possibility presents itself, identification shows its morbid character by becoming just as great a hindrance as it was an unconscious help and support before. It now has a dissociative effect, splitting the individual into two mutually estranged personalities.[ Ibid., par. 738.]

Identification with a complex (experienced as possession) is a frequent source of neurosis, but it is also possible to identify with a particular idea or belief.

The ego keeps its integrity only if it does not identify with one of the opposites, and if it understands how to hold the balance between them. This is possible only if it remains conscious of both at once. However, the necessary insight is made exceedingly difficult not by one’s social and political leaders alone, but also by one’s religious mentors. They all want decision in favour of one thing, and therefore the utter identification of the individual with a necessarily one-sided "truth." Even if it were a question of some great truth, identification with it would still be a catastrophe, as it arrests all further spiritual development.["On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 425.]

One-sidedness is usually due to identifying with a particular conscious attitude. This can result in losing touch with the compensating powers of the unconscious.

In a case like this the unconscious usually responds with violent emotions, irritability, lack of control, arrogance, feelings of inferiority, moods, depressions, outbursts of rage, etc., coupled with lack of self-criticism and the misjudgments, mistakes, and delusions which this entails.["The Philosophical Tree," CW 13, par. 454.]

Sample discussion questions:

1. How does identification affect type analysis of both the self and of others?
2. What is its effect on shaping one's self-concept in relation to a self-typing?
3. How does it guide the designation and conceptualization of qualities deemed inherent to one's identified type?
4. Are there dichotomies or types correlated with a proclivity to over-identify?
5. In what way do the IM characteristics of each type color their respective manifestations of identification?
6. When identification becomes pathological is it possible to continue the maintenance of this complex without some measure of irony or self-awareness?
7. How great an identification can one make with a sociotype before morbidity obtains?
8. What means or mechanisms can be called upon to avoid over-identification with a sociotype?
9. In what ways can identification with a sociotype produce a healthy self-concept?

[DividedsGhost]

Even if someone were to answer your questions, anyone can legitimately claim the problem described by the question as also a problem in the answer.

Why not just get a job instead? You could be making money right now instead of wasting your existence being neurotic with socionics. Just follow my proven twelve step program that promises to balance anyone's life, regardless that every action having a reaction means losing something to gain something, making real balance only for Gods, the thoughtless, and the dead.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Given how often you create one pants-shitting account after another and abandon it "forever" before returning incognito, it can be assumed that 11 of the steps in your 12-er program are accounted for by repetitions of that cycle. However, since you just provided yet another specimen of projection, it's hoped that you won't fully cure yourself before we can examine that related defense mechanism in another thread. Oh, and be sure to post a zany picture next time, lil' buddy.

[ashlesha]

I think people are too identified to reply

[Absurd]

How does identification affect type analysis of both the self and of others?

First you have to list all the people on here who, in fact, 'identify' with their fathers or someone else and having done so study every specimen.

What is its effect on shaping one's self-concept in relation to a self-typing?

There is none, at least when it comes to me. I'm still the person I was before. Same values, opinions, etc. Am not going to force myself to act certain way just to please or convince someone of my self-typing.

How does it guide the designation and conceptualization of qualities deemed inherent to one's identified type?

And in English?

Are there dichotomies or types correlated with a proclivity to over-identify?

I think there are people who do that. Problem arises when they identify with not a one father but five or more fathers in their family. Funny question.

In what way do the IM characteristics of each type color their respective manifestations of identification?

Haha. No idea whatsoever.

When identification becomes pathological is it possible to continue the maintenance of this complex without some measure of irony or self-awareness?

Your first question. My first answer. Irony loaded.

How great an identification can one make with a sociotype before morbidity obtains?

One minute.

What means or mechanisms can be called upon to avoid over-identification with a sociotype?

Decapitation.

In what ways can identification with a sociotype produce a healthy self-concept?

Another funny one. Nothing can produce a healthy self-concept. You have to be healthy to begin with.

I think people are too identified to reply

Hehe. Feeling jokey I see.

[woofwoofl]

To paraphrase what I said in the chatbox, I have Ne and Fi as the two biggies here; Ne for dealing in these non-tangible properties of specific objects, and when Fi is tossed in the mix, a certain liking and disliking of said objects (people, very often) based on these non-tangibles.

With Socionics, I keep in mind that its synthesizer, if not creator ("create" is a funny thing sometimes) is Ti-ILE, and the thing with PolRs is that the Creative function, the HA, and/or something else takes up the slack; what we're left with looks to me a hell of a lot like Ti standing in for Fi to approximate this very Ne/Fi thing that I have as being especially prone to identification.

interesting...

[DividedsGhost]

Given how often you create one pants-shitting account after another and abandon it "forever" before returning incognito, it can be assumed that 11 of the steps in your 12-er program are accounted for by repetitions of that cycle. However, since you just provided yet another specimen of projection, it's hoped that you won't fully cure yourself before we can examine that related defense mechanism in another thread. Oh, and be sure to post a zany picture next time, lil' buddy.

Your destructive narcissism is entertaining; enjoy the delusion of your self-grandiose misanthropy. I can't wait to hear how you will turn this into an insult to stroke your ego, yet again.

[FDG]

[*]How does identification affect type analysis of both the self and of others?

For an advanced, well-adjusted socionics user, it should not act as an excessive modulator during the execution of the analysis. In terms of self-bias, someone can always ask someone else to verify and eventually validate one's own self-perception (perhaps it'd be better if multiple sources were asked, in order to obtain a relatively less biases assessment).

[*]What is its effect on shaping one's self-concept in relation to a self-typing?

How could there be any effect? Your personality is your personality. Type is an ex-post diagnosis of your own natural tendencies.

[*]What means or mechanisms can be called upon to avoid over-identification with a sociotype?

A strong grip between the personality's peculiarities of whoever has always had a tendency to become a friend of yours since early childhood and some type of (relatively) objective psychological taxonomy, such as Big-5. If Big-5 self-typing of your closest friend is strongly deviant from what would be considered as optimal socionics compatibility, then perhaps it's time to revise your own self-typing.

[*]In what ways can identification with a sociotype produce a healthy self-concept?

Only insofar as it can give us a glimpse into our own weaknesses, and how to reconcile them (or not, if we think it's better not to) with the demands of the outside world.

[DividedsGhost]

There is none, at least when it comes to me. I'm still the person I was before. Same values, opinions, etc. Am not going to force myself to act certain way just to please or convince someone of my self-typing.

Technically, not identifying is a form of identification. Also what you see as "someone forcing themself to be a type" I could just the same say is "unwillingly becoming the type".

Not identifying doesn't mean you aren't still being self-fulfilling.

Ergo, this thread is stupid.

[Absurd]

If Big-5 self-typing of your closest friend is strongly deviant from what would be considered as optimal socionics compatibility, then perhaps it's time to revise your own self-typing.

Oh noes!

Technically, not identifying is a form of identification

Said it many times before.

Also what you see as "someone forcing themself to be type" I could just the same say is "unwillingly becoming the type".

I don't think one can become what one isn't. You can learn to act certain way depending on your agenda. And I didn't say that I am forcing myself to act certain way, quite contrary, it comes naturally to me vide positive and negative responses directed at me.

Not identifying doesn't mean you aren't still being [i]self-fulfilling[/].

I'm afraid I don't know what that means.

On second thought, it does make sense, but it is so obvious I didn't notice.

Ergo, this thread is stupid.

Be sure to check my books on socionics and enneagram.

[DividedsGhost]

For an advanced, well-adjusted socionics user, it should not act as an excessive modulator during the execution of the analysis. In terms of self-bias, someone can always ask someone else to verify and eventually validate one's own self-perception (perhaps it'd be better if multiple sources were asked, in order to obtain a relatively less biases assessment).

How could there be any effect? Your personality is your personality. Type is an ex-post diagnosis of your own natural tendencies.

Well, the effect is that you use the idea of your type to understand and better yourself; doing this implies it isn't just an ex-post diagnosis because it will have an influence on your future, depending on how you let it or use it. And then your behavior in the present is now influenced, for better or worse, but hopefully for the better. Is the implication that if the influence isn't for the better that the use of types becomes excessive? I'm not sure what you mean by 'excessive modulation' when I try to take it at face value.

I don't think one can become what one isn't. You can learn to act certain way depending on your agenda. And I didn't say that I am forcing myself to act certain way, quite contrary, it comes naturally to me vide positive and negative responses directed at me.

That's pretty interesting, given that this means the idea of your type is in balance with how the world affects you. If nature affects an imbalance, type becomes moot, really.

[leckysupport]

Sample discussion questions:

1. How does identification affect type analysis of both the self and of others?
2. What is its effect on shaping one's self-concept in relation to a self-typing?
3. How does it guide the designation and conceptualization of qualities deemed inherent to one's identified type?
4. Are there dichotomies or types correlated with a proclivity to over-identify?
5. In what way do the IM characteristics of each type color their respective manifestations of identification?
6. When identification becomes pathological is it possible to continue the maintenance of this complex without some measure of irony or self-awareness?
7. How great an identification can one make with a sociotype before morbidity obtains?
8. What means or mechanisms can be called upon to avoid over-identification with a sociotype?
9. In what ways can identification with a sociotype produce a healthy self-concept?

The self is in constant change and is continually affected by outside influences, and these changes cannot be fully understood before they happen. Partly because the self is complex, which influences stick and the power these influences have over an individual are inconsistent. And partly because a future self can't be conceptualised in full by the old self since being can only be understood by experience.

Types are most easily grasped through the lens of behaviour, even socionists who take a cognitive view of socionics have a habit of referring to behavioural aspects of types to put their point across. It may even be impossible to conceptualise types without looking for external behaviours. The majority of people who get involved with socionics see types as intrinsically attached to static patterns of behaviour.

Awareness of type is awareness of behavioural patterns of a type, so to self-type is to see yourself in the context of patterns of behaviour. I believe problems surrounding identification neurosis arises when there is conflict between the naturalistic ever-changing self and a self-concept based on static patterns of behaviour. This where I disagree with people who say self-typing correctly leads to a happy healthy life, I believe the issue is existential.

Over-identification increases as a need for sense and order in someone’s life increases, e.g. when a person wants to avoid or replicate a past situation, the more emotion involved the more over-identification.

[Absurd]

That's pretty interesting, given that this means the idea of your type is in balance with how the world affects you. If nature affects an inbalance, type becomes moot, really.

Wrong. I'm talking physical/genetical changes. You know, the ones that take millions of years to happen. Moreover you have to have a really large pool of specimen to make it work. In other words, you have to have numbers - not everyone is going to survive, but when a few out of many manage to adapt to the changing environment, you're seeing different species.

Paraphrasing Kassie's TIM - not quite human. I do not mean it in a derogatory way. In fact, it is going to be not human at all.

As for the world affecting your self-typing, I find it a bit funny to say the least. I mean that requires a lot of time, unless you see that far in the future or meant something else.

World doesn't give a toss how you self-type, same goes for people on here, at least some of them, me included.

Atlas farted.

[DividedsGhost]

Wrong. I'm talking physical/genetical changes. You know, the ones that take millions of years to happen. Moreover you have to have a really large pool of specimen to make it work. In other words, you have to have numbers - not everyone is going to survive, but when a few out of many manage to adapt to the changing environment, you're seeing different species.

Paraphrasing Kassie's TIM - not quite human. I do not mean it in a derogatory way. In fact, it is going to be not human at all.

As for the world affecting your self-typing, I find it a bit funny to say the least. I mean that requires a lot of time, unless you see that far in the future or meant something else.

nature vs. nurture. You say nature, I say a complex combination of both. You say that's wrong, then fine, I'm not going to argue about right and wrong, but you're oversimplifying reality.

[Absurd]

nature vs. nurture. You say nature, I say a complex combination of both. You say that's wrong, then fine, I'm not going to argue about right and wrong, but you're oversimplifying reality.

Excuse me?

Everything depends on the environment you're in. Many times I laughed my arse off when talking about true types and shit like that. I know few dumbos have taken it seriously. Not my problem though.

I mean just look at Maritsa, she acts like a geneticist even though she isn't one. Geneticists have tried to say that "one type" is normal, the true species representative - this is 100% wrong. It all depends on the environment.

It is like seeing another representative of your species with different wings, eyes and so on, and calling it abnormality, that is, not of your own stock. Wrong again. The other representative is perfectly normal. There is a range of normal.

Go back to school and whoever else is reading this, go back to school as well.

[DividedsGhost]

As for the world affecting your self-typing, I find it a bit funny to say the least. I mean that requires a lot of time, unless you see that far in the future or meant something else.

+

Excuse me?

Everything depends on the environment you're in. Many times I laughed my arse off when talking about true types and shit like that. I know few dumbos have taken it seriously. Not my problem though.

I mean just look at Maritsa, she acts like a geneticist even though she isn't one. Geneticists have tried to say that "one type" is normal, the true species representative - this is 100% wrong. It all depends on the environment.

It is like seeing another representative of your species with different wings, eyes and so on, and calling it abnormality, that is, not of your own stock. Wrong again. The other representative is perfectly normal. There is a range of normal.

Go back to school and whoever else is reading this, go back to school as well.

is cognitively dissonant and a paradox. The first quote claims static representations of people exist and the second quote claims people are completely dynamic.
I'll go back to school when you learn how to be logically coherent.

[Absurd]

is cognitively dissonant and a paradox.

As far as I am concerned you're a paradox. It is hard science whether you like it or not so stick your pop psychology and "type doesn't exist but I'm still concerned about it" up your arse.

Seriously, I mentioned this in chatbox before, reading some of you is like watching Matrix and I hate that film.

[Absurd]

Hey divided and any one who is reading this, be it socionics believers and infidels alike. You're the same to me actually.

Preaching that there is no such thing as socionics to the audience is futile. What are you saying - are you saying that social constructions are wrong?

People make a social distinction between a truck, van, car and bus. Yet they are all vehicles that have a the same if not similar function. One is not better than the other - they are different.

As for Visual Identification - people in society use eyesight, not smell or any other sense, to sexually select partners. Pheromones actually may be the underlying thing that is making this or that type "look good" since the sense of smell is the only sense we have that is directly connected to the limbic brain, the point is still moot to this broad subject since in everyday speech and in society we categorize people at a distance, categorize whole nations. I mean, these great socionics people do that. Rick did that. Ashton is doing that and so on.

That is, humans still go by eyesight - they look at the person's looks to categorize them into this or that "type." Same thing applies when you substitute type with race.

You can even think about quadras as four major races paraphrasing Coon, that is, the great socionics guru, I mean anthropology guru who thought he is better. He thought. Thing is, people sexually select: this one is yummy, that one is yuck. Doing so, you end up with similar looking groups (quadras). Now, pheromones come into play and might be the real, underlying cause of, "I love that group" and "I hate that group" feelings.

So yes, one can say that there is no such thing as socionics, quadras, types and one can say there is. Monkey wants to categorize this into types and quadras - so be it. It is a thing humans do based on the very thing they use to sexually select partners to mate with.

Funny thing is, but I'm not sure about it, racism exists in societies where people have to compete for resources, including jobs. Racism exists when the area is crowded. Tongue in cheek Ashton.

[DividedsGhost]

As far as I am concerned you're a paradox. It is hard science whether you like it or not so stick your pop psychology and "type doesn't exist but I'm still concerned about it" up your arse.

Seriously, I mentioned this in chatbox before, reading some of you is like watching Matrix and I hate that film.

LOL...you're like a constantly agitated, angry little kid. I never said socionics doesn't exist. I said I believe reality is a complex combination of nature and nurture; that both exist independently and not at the same time. Your logical reasoning suggested that they happen at the same time, which is the definition of paradoxical.

Hey divided and any one who is reading this, be it socionics believers and infidels alike. You're the same to me actually.

Preaching that there is no such thing as socionics to the audience is futile. What are you saying - are you saying that social constructions are wrong?

People make a social distinction between a truck, van, car and bus. Yet they are all vehicles that have a the same if not similar function. One is not better than the other - they are different.

As for Visual Identification - people in society use eyesight, not smell or any other sense, to sexually select partners. Pheromones actually may be the underlying thing that is making this or that type "look good" since the sense of smell is the only sense we have that is directly connected to the limbic brain, the point is still moot to this broad subject since in everyday speech and in society we categorize people at a distance, categorize whole nations. I mean, these great socionics people do that. Rick did that. Ashton is doing that and so on.

That is, humans still go by eyesight - they look at the person's looks to categorize them into this or that "type." Same thing applies when you substitute type with race.

You can even think about quadras as four major races paraphrasing Coon, that is, the great socionics guru, I mean anthropology guru who thought he is better. He thought. Thing is, people sexually select: this one is yummy, that one is yuck. Doing so, you end up with similar looking groups (quadras). Now, pheromones come into play and might be the real, underlying cause of, "I love that group" and "I hate that group" feelings.

So yes, one can say that there is no such thing as socionics, quadras, types and one can say there is. Monkey wants to categorize this into types and quadras - so be it. It is a thing humans do based on the very thing they use to sexually select partners to mate with.

Funny thing is, but I'm not sure about it, racism exists in societies where people have to compete for resources, including jobs. Racism exists when the area is crowded. Tongue in cheek Ashton.

Okay, you probably agree with me then. If you asked me, what I would have said is that whether a person is x type is moot when the people around them who are supposed to get along with them happen to hate or dislike them for other reasons, some of which you've listed. Maybe it's something so stupid as to think the other person is another type than one socionics says they will get along with and the one they actually are. Things like that make what socionics attempts to convey ridiculous, presumptuous, and ambiguous at times. I don't see any reason to have anything against the people that find this to be the case and drop the whole together; that is their choice to do what they feel is best. I'm obsessive about understanding everything, including people, so I can't really drop anything that I learn. But that's just me.

[Absurd]

LOL...you're like a constantly agitated, angry little kid.

I'm not angry, I'm pissed having to deal with the likes of you. I bet you're 50yrs old, very mature guy who hangs out on forums getting his panties in a twist whenever somebody disagrees with you.

"LOL"

I never said socionics doesn't exist. I said I believe reality is a complex combination of nature and nurture; that both exist independently and not at the same time. Your logical reasoning suggested that they happen at the same time, which is the definition of paradoxical.

What about instinct versus culture? Nurture versus nature and genes versus environment - is that paradoxical as well?

Okay, you probably agree with me then. If you asked me, what I would have said is that whether a person is x type is moot when the people around them who are supposed to get along with them happen to hate or dislike them for other reasons, some of which you've listed.

Reciting type descriptions word for word and passing it as your own doesn't make one something. Actually it does - it makes one untrustworthy. Seen it done on here many times and every time I see it, it makes me smile, thinking "alright, looks like you're XXXx, get your toys and go play with the gang."

[DividedsGhost]

I'm not angry, I'm pissed having to deal with the likes of you. I bet you're 50yrs old, very mature guy who hangs out on forums getting his panties in a twist whenever somebody disagrees with you.

"LOL"

I guess you'll never know, but I do know that just about everything you post is automatically predicated by abuse and insults. If that's the only measure of your character you can display here, I'd love to stick around and keep you angry of your own stupidity.

What about instinct versus culture? Nurture versus nature and genes versus environment - is that paradoxical as well?

What about a stupor induced dick in your mouth on a Friday night? Is that paradoxical if you're not a ******?

Same shit, different wrapper. You're proving not to be much of a thinker.

Reciting type descriptions word for word and passing it as your own doesn't make one something. Actually it does - it makes one untrustworthy. Seen it done on here many times and every time I see it, it makes me smile, thinking "alright, looks like you're XXXx, get your toys and go play with the gang."

Preaching to the choir, buddy. Of course, you can keep wasting your time with this bullshit. I'm only staying in it to let you keep peeing in your own mouth.

[Beautiful sky]

Personally speaking, I've never wanted to nor stove consciously to identify myself to anyone; in fact, I've striven the opposite direction. If someone were to assume any association to me by identifying with me, I'll start a strange rebellious movement like creating different words to describe me, etc. As an added "health" factor, I do identify with my base function.

Now, is the purpose of the OP to get answers for the questions that have been posted?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Now, is the purpose of the OP to get answers for the questions that have been posted?

As you can see they're labeled "sample discussion questions" so it stands to reason they're meant to provide starting-points for dialogue, to loose the intersubjective libido, and let the data flow.

[Beautiful sky]

As you can see they're labeled "sample discussion questions" so it stands to reason they're meant to provide starting-points for dialogue, to loose the intersubjective libido, and let the data flow.

I assumed they were out of a textbook because they are so academically worded

That's a compliment to how well you write.

[Absurd]

I guess you'll never know, but I do know that just about everything you post is automatically predicated by abuse and insults. If that's the only measure of your character you can display here, I'd love to stick around and keep you angry of your own stupidity.

I don't want to know, I don't even know what makes you think I want to know. You're pretty unstable to begin with. Go make another account you wigwam.

What about a stupor induced dick in your mouth on a Friday night? Is that paradoxical if you're not a ******?

If you're about to deliver, then be a man(?) of your word and re-read what you wrote about abuse and insults. Paraphrasing my favourite philosopher on here, korpsey, I think you're projecting.

Same shit, different wrapper. You're proving not to be much of a thinker.

Oh boy, you insulted me now.

Preaching to the choir, buddy. Of course, you can keep wasting your time with this bullshit. I'm only staying in it to let you keep peeing in your own mouth.

You even sound like korpsey. I think I'm going to paint you in shite.

I assumed they were out of a textbook because they are so academically worded

That's a compliment to how well you write.

You must be his dual Maritsa.

[Gilly]

o shit sun, absurd got owned.

[Absurd]

o shit sun, absurd got owned.

Do it yourself citing Jung and other useless theories that I'm sure help you to acquire splendor and monetary compensation for your efforts on a socionics forum having a problem with typing yourself to begin with, in other words, you're quite effective at it.

Same goes for those useful idiots who typed me Se dominant and Se creative telling me "we're opposing quadras", and now are swinging from the trees like monkeys they are, proudly showing off their new self-typing, that is - Se creative.

In your face.

[Beautiful sky]

Identification: A psychological process in which the personality is partially or totally dissimilated. Identity, denoting an unconscious conformity between subject and object, oneself and others, is the basis for identification, projection and introjection.


[*]How does identification affect type analysis of both the self and of others?

I've only known one person who actively asserted that people are alike; he is unable to analyze himself from types and is unwilling to analyze anyone else from the standpoint of type. He admittedly claimed that there was just not enough evidence to suggest that this was possible and from this statement you can see that this was clearly a sensory extraverted type. He strives to draw others in likeness to his emotional feelings about certain events and external observations; his wife, who he has almost consistent disagreements with (being his conflict type) may benefit from his logical analysis, but he seems quite incapable or unwilling to let some of his subconscious leap to his conscious awareness. Most people I've met are willing to acknowledge the existence of type and distinctness in individuals. The type of this individual is ESE.

[Beautiful sky]

[*]What means or mechanisms can be called upon to avoid over-identification with a sociotype?[/LIST]

By doing it consciously. Some people don't want to be a particular type and they chose the one they want to be. There are other perspectives to this; I've noticed people who have been told for so long that they are of one type that they have assimilated with the qualities of that type and they try to assimilate others who identify with that type to themselves so they are constantly in that type frame of mind.