socionics and jung

[glam]

.

[munenori2]

They're different, but they have some overlap. I like Jung personally, though his descriptions tend to be more formal than I'd like. What he describes in his book about types are more abstractions than what an actual person would be like (they are shown merely from the perspective of the dominant function).

[aka-kitsune]

Er... basically, if Jung hadn't come up with his personality typology, there'd be no socionics. Jung's functions are largely the basis of socionics, like it or not people.

[strrrng]

there's no point in a dichotomy. First of all, as already mentioned, there would be no concept of functions without Jung. But more so, it's irrelevant to use one or the others' definition, because functions only have one true essence, regardless of how many people like to skew them.

[tcaudilllg]

Jung attested to the existence of phenomena he called "functions". Socionics sought to model human relational patterns by presuming them to be contingent on the dynamics between those phenomena. This is where Model A comes from.

Leading socionists (Bukalov, Gulenko, Filitova, etc.) continue to look to Jung for inspiration when better trying to understand human relational phenomena. I should add, too, that the concept of duality was first pioneered by Jung.

[strrrng]

Jung attested to the existence of phenomena he called "functions". Socionics sought to model human relational patterns by presuming them to be contingent on the dynamics between those phenomena.

yea, I think this is very important to note.

[aka-kitsune]

An analogy:

Freud is to Jung as Jung is to socionics & MBTI

[BLauritson]

Basically, from what I understand of it all, Jung was the first person to publish any literature on the concept of psychological types, where he simply defined the 8 functions and had each type based around those 8 functions. Various people have done various things with this as a starting point (MBTI being a famous example) and, from what I understand, Augusta whateverhernameis was basically influenced by Jung and a few other sources which I'm not really aware of when formulating Socionics. So from what I understand, Socionics isn't derived from or inspired by Jung as such, but it was influenced by it. Bear in mind though I haven't studied this subject extensively, so I've just picked this up from reading bits and pieces over time on this forum and possibly a few other places. I'm sure some other members will have a more comprehensive understanding of it all. Heh, interesting...I could simply delete this all with a simple click of a mouse button and nobody would ever know I had typed this. But I won't. Not this time.

[Phaedrus]

Basically, from what I understand of it all, Jung was the first person to publish any literature on the concept of psychological types, where he simply defined the 8 functions and had each type based around those 8 functions.

Not at all. Many typologies were created before Jung's Psychological Types (1921), for example the six types of Eduard Spranger (1914) Economic, Esthetic, Political, Religious, Social, and Theoretic, the four types of Erich Adickes (1907) Innovative, Traditional, Doctrinaire, and Skeptical, the two temperaments of William James (1907) Rationalists and Empiricists, and the two types of Wilhelm Ostwald (1910) Classicists and Romanticists. Hundreds of years before that we have Galen's four temperaments Choleric, Melancholic, Phlegmatic, and Sanguine. And six hundred years before Galen we have Plato's four main characters dianoethic, iconic, noetic, and pistic.

What is very important to keep in mind here is that all of these different typologies are describing the same reality, and that of course includes Jung, Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey. They are all talking about the same basic differences between persons in slightly different ways, but they agree on what we can observe. The types always come first. Functions are not primary -- types are.

So of course strrrng and tcaudilllg are right, and Ezra is completely wrong. He hasn't understood what a typology is.

[strrrng]

Right, okay, but within a system the functions exist, not without. There are many systems. Hence, there are many interpretations of socionics.

umm no...did jung have a "system"? no. but he had the most accurate understanding of the functions.