And maybe you want to consider the content of Aushra and Jung's definitions, from this standpoint. The former was bent on modeling how the functions complimented each other in communication, while the latter was focused on illuminating the more "intrapsychic" processes occurring with the functions, and how they pertained to archetypes. Now tell me, which one of them sounds more likely to leave stuff out in their description, perhaps limit the context a little, so as to "make things fit"?
And this is why it's so irritating to me when people insist on this singular Aushra context -- because it's blatantly obvious that things have been dumbed down, and functions aren't being described in their full actuality, because of her motivations behind the model.
I wouldn't assume this; there's something valid to gain from many people. Shit, I even read some weird-ass russian article on model A a while back that had a sine curve supposedly correlating to neurological stuff. But, I still think Jung was more insightful into "what goes on in peoples' heads" and closer to seeing the "essence" of how functions work, beyond any behavioral-communicative level.Personally I think that to assume that Jung is the One True Source of socionics is a sign of intellectual laziness - much easier to assume that all you have to do is to read Jung rather than try to understand how socionics differs from it, in its own terms.
Guess not. Guess you have to write them off as irrelevant now, to stay in your box.Can we really say that Jung's Introverted Sensing and Extraverted Intuition types really, necessarily, complement each other? I doubt it.