...
Printable View
...
I don't like that last cirkel.
As I recall from reading his book, he talks about only 1 auxilary function.
I had never heard of Singer Loomis typology. Interesting stuff!
Come to think of it, my book (psychological types 1947 edition) doesn't have diagrams at all.
Get a copy of "The Portable Jung" edited by Joseph Campbell, which contains "A General Description of the Types" as well as several other essays.
I am not surprised to see that kind of diagram considering Jung's fascination with the mandala, the circled square representing the totality of the consciousness, a microcosmic mirror of the universe. Add also his presentation of extroversion/introversion, feeling/thinking, sensing/intuiting, etc. as dichotomies, and it is easy for me to see how this kind of geometric arrangement would be implied in or inferred from his essays. It is this kind of forced symmetry that I find partly responsible for the shortcomings of socionics and other Jungian typologies.
See: Occam's Donkey - thinking critically: Mind myth 2: Left brain right brain
Ha! Sorry but the "it's useless" delusional phase was about one year ago for me, but now I'm done with that! :cool:
I do agree some types seem to get this all instinctively pretty well while others need to put words on all these concepts in able to fully grasp them (or don't grasp them at all or very superficially)
The more people I test the more I discover how many don't even practice introspection on their own and don't want to know what's in their mind and worse in their shadow... The good side is that most are more than happy to learn these notions.
Typology is beautiful and as William Morris once said: "Nothing useless can be truly beautiful."
XD
Hehe! No it was more a hope message addressed at future readers, for you it seems clear hope is long gone... :8*
And I do stick in my shadow what I see fit! Don't complain there is no motivation on this forum anymore if you tell all people having a good will like me to do a half-turn and go back home...
I dislike how Jung says that "thinking must always completely exclude feeling". My experience has been more along the lines of Ti working very narrowly together with Fe and Fi with Te, etc.
It's always the unvalued functions and function axes that are most alien and most counterintuitive to the person, ime. The weak valued ones are poorly attended, but not excluded from one's mindset.
Agree completely with your last post, Ashton. Jung said that you could keep dividing people into more defined types, but he personally found it uninteresting to do so.
Where socionics, imo, adds to Jungian theory is in intertype relations. IR, however, are based on real life observations rather than theory. Augusta's model tries to explain the IR but, imo, she crams/bends the functions (or subtly misunderstands them) to make them fit her theory - thereby making her model as a whole practically useless or downright misleading.
It is much more interesting to go back to Jung and try to build from there adding what parts of socionics that work into a functioning concept.
yeah, I was in a hurry sorry.
ok. I also read somewhere he observed duality, but didn't go into further investigation.Quote:
He does mention a few things about type interactions and their effects if you read, so obviously he wasn't oblivious that there was something going on in this regard. No, there isn't a full matrix of intertype relations like what Socionics posits… but what of it? I never said Socionics was entirely useless, only that it's flawed and over-simplified in the way it represent types themselves, especially in Model A.
But from my standards this would mean Jung's theory lacks some important pieces.
yeah, but still I find it pretty incredible how different the relationships work out and that something like that can be predicted.Quote:
Aside from this failure, intertype relations manage to be redeeming as somewhat useful in predicting how certain type interactions under certain conditions will likely play out. Though this needs to be taken with a caveat, that understanding of intertypes remains fairly rudimentary and far from perfect. More observational work needs to be conducted to flesh these out further and take into account the many factors beyond type that influence human interpersonal relations.
Yes but then I would pull the card: you never mentioned that we were talking about "classical" socionics. :-)Quote:
It's plenty fair. Simply splicing a phenomena up by fiat into more categories doesn't necessarily make a theory any more substantive.
Not sure why you're bringing up subtypes exactly. Technically I could pull the fundie "that's not classical socionics" card on you.
I too fail to see how it's a regression.
You might call it a failed attempt, as I'm sure many people (including me) got the strong intuition that this theory is onto something real but didn't "succeed" completely (even if it's already way more adequate than MBTI for instance)
What I don't know is if socionics just need refining or if we'll need a new unifying theory at some point (a fork?)
What I do know is that our resources are already very limited, online communities are very small compared to other "hobbies" and the more fork there are, the less grouped we are.
So while I agree socionics is not the sociological saint graal, I'm not ready to ditch it until there's something better to replace it. I'm nonetheless open to help find this utopian ideal theory of everything.