Originally Posted by
JRiddy
I hope that you have not understood me to be claiming some great degree of objectivity in my observations. I do not claim to approach socionics without a model of any kind. What I do suggest is that there is an over-emphasis on some very specific claims of Model A and the cubic model that makes it easy to reify the rather abstract and subtle concept of informational functions and aspects into something far more easily ostensible than they are. Of course you have to have some kind of "model" to interpret information you see. What I do question is the validity of models employed by so-called "classical socionics," as I question the validity of any model that suggests extremely discrete and discernible connections between abstractions as though they were some sort of imminently observable reality.
Gilly, while I find your zealous defense of Augusta admirable in a sense, I think you go too far in suggesting that the extent of "socionics" is defined explicitly and finally by Augusta. This is analogous to claiming that Physics was defined by Newton and Galileo, and therefore relativity and quantum mechanics, which question central assumptions made by those great minds, are not within the scope of physics altogether. I'm not claiming that I am an Einstein or Heisenberg or Bohr, but I am claiming that you can question assumptions and remain firmly and decidedly within the same field, and that this is in fact crucial to the advancement of understanding in these fields.
I think you misunderstand my criticism of the "model" as well. Though I do find Model A to be overwrought, and the cubic model unnecessarily complex, my biggest qualms are not with the models per se, but with a reliance on a faulty epistemology that ignores the complexity of human interaction. The reason why many of us "Socionix" people talk about "observing" functions is because we see this as the way in which the human brain works best. You simply cannot account for every single variable in personality. It is manifestly impossible. So what we do instead is observe people and let our minds find patterns that are more "felt" than explicitly thought out.
How did you learn to drive? Did you learn by determining models and equations for how the accelerator reacts to how hard you push it? Did you learn how to explicitly calculate distances between cars to judge how much room you have? Or did you, like most people, get out there and do it, after learning some of the ground rules, and let your mind's incredible capacity to learn teach your body how to do this extraordinarily complex task? If you are like most people, you don't even have to "think" about driving that much, especially not at a computational level. Though you can certainly learn ostensible, explicit things about driving, the real meat of the learning comes through doing it and feeling it out.
I've already explained why this is completely irrelevant, but let me reiterate: there exists no great definitions czar who defines what is and isn't socionics.
There are elements of all sorts of models within what is commonly seen as the "socionix" viewpoint. Jung certainly plays a role, as he has in Socionics and MBTI. Also there is a lot of Kepinski, who was the guy who kinda came up with the whole "information metabolism" idea. I wouldn't discount some people like William James and Husserl either. I would throw Kierkegaard in as well, but that applies to me more than some of the other guys. I really don't understand how trying to incorporate more influences makes any less "Socionics" than Augusta's work, as she herself incorporated dozens of different ideas and philosophies into her work.
What are you here for, Gilly?