Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Jung and Augusta

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung and Augusta

    Let's get this straight:

    Augusta attempted to model essentially the same general behaviors and traits that Jung did, and the relationship between the two is undeniable.

    However, Jung did not use strict parameters for defining the functions, and, as such, some of the specifics of his functional attributions may be skewed or not entirely accurate from a Socionics perspective. Jung observed the co-incidence and correlation of certain behavioral tendencies that seemed to coincide with an underlying process. Augusta's contribution to the theory is, by using Kepinsky's theory of Information Metabolism, the advancement of our understanding of the nature of the processing underlying the tendencies in trait exhibition that Jung initially observed.

    Does this make it exceptionally fucking clear, and can we all agree on this? If not, let's hear it.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is my belief that, while the particulars of Jung's functional descriptions are often overly specific and somewhat superficial, tending to cast a "stereotype" on each function, one can glimpse the general nature of the thought processes involved when reading his descriptions, if one does not become mired in the specifics.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  3. #3
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Tick tock.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  4. #4
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola aka Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    Meat Popsicle
    Posts
    3,566
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys should look into the work of Carl Rogers for a while I reckon
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  5. #5
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is good shit.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  6. #6
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khola View Post
    You guys should look into the work of Buck Rogers for a while I reckon

  7. #7
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,792
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Well. It's a little more complicated than what you're laying out here. Maybe I'll post about it later idk. Too much effort. Nvm I'll just re-paste something I wrote the other day:

    Jung's approach to the functions/IEs gives us a phenomenological definition—i.e., we're given a portrait of what each IE process is essentially like from the experiential POV of those possessing it as a base function. Aushra's approach OTOH tries to give us more of an operational definition, attempting to illustrate more of the concrete manifestations of how IE processes generally appear when viewed externally.

    I tend to like Jung's IE descriptions, because he explicitly acknowledges the fact that his perceptions of each IE will be necessarily biased by his own IEs (and actually warns us for this very reason, against taking a strongly operational approach in attempting to determine types). And I think he does succeed as best he can in partially overcoming these inherent limitations, in managing to accurately tell us something about what IEs are actually like from the user's perspective. Whereas I don't think Aushra ever acknowledges the problem of inherent IE bias… and so the result is that her IE descriptions exemplify this issue. Invariably, her descriptions tell us more about what each IE is like according to an ENTp perspective and less about what they are actually like apart from that.
    Afaik, Augusta does acknowledge her bias. But that's irrelevant because all she's providing is an operational definition that can be checked by others, so it's less of an issue than Jung's bias.

    Jung's definitions are probably important to study and make sense of in terms of socionics.

  8. #8
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Jung's approach to the functions/IEs gives us a phenomenological definition—i.e., we're given a portrait of what each IE process is essentially like from the experiential POV of those possessing it as a base function. Aushra's approach OTOH tries to give us more of an operational definition, attempting to illustrate more of the concrete manifestations of how IE processes generally appear when viewed externally.
    Mmmm, I don't think Augusta's are so much how they are viewed externally, as how they are dissected in terms of how the brain actually processes them; not from a direct-experiential standpoint, like Jung, but a more detached sense of how the brain actually processes and sorts thing.

    I tend to like Jung's IE descriptions, because he explicitly acknowledges the fact that his perceptions of each IE will be necessarily biased by his own IEs (and actually warns us for this very reason, against taking a strongly operational approach in attempting to determine types). And I think he does succeed as best he can in partially overcoming these inherent limitations, in managing to accurately tell us something about what IEs are actually like from the user's perspective. Whereas I don't think Aushra ever acknowledges the problem of inherent IE bias… and so the result is that her IE descriptions exemplify this issue. Invariably, her descriptions tell us more about what each IE is like according to an ENTp perspective and less about what they are actually like apart from that.
    I suppose, but I don't think Jung is any less "biased," so to speak. Personally I find his descriptions easy to read, but I think Augusta's, especially with the aid of IM theory, are much closer to developing a teachable understanding of the actual underlying processes; using the subjective approach will invariably leave anyone attempting to develop a consensual understanding of these things mired in confusion and impressionistic disagreement, whereas Augusta's approach at least gives some space for discussion, dissection, and clear categorization; while this attempt to make things more concrete is abused by some people, like niffweed and expat, in an attempt to make the theory as simple as possible, it is at least a step in the direction of making Jung's theory practicable.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  9. #9
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,685
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Huh? She says nothing about how the brain actually processes things. Don't be retarded.
    I mean that the IM elements are an attempt to describe how the brain sorts information. I'm not saying it's perfect; I'm saying its a good attempt, and it seems to work.

    No, he's definitely less biased.
    Care to back that up at all?

    No they're not.
    Actually they are. You can't teach dumb people to read between the lines with Jung; anyone can learn IM theory if they take the time.


    The problem with Aushra is that her approach is subjective too, and she apparently doesn't know it and treats it as objective.
    It's closer to at least being comprehensible and transmittable in a logical sense, as opposed to Jung's raw impressionism.


    Except her IM descriptions are effectively worthless, except as a study of IMs via ENTp perception.
    No, you are just too mired in your own interpretation and methods to see their worth. I use her IE definitions, and the improved understanding of the functions they've given me, to type people all the time.

    Take it from someone who has gone shore to shore on this one: IM theory is definitely useful.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •