Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Jungian definitions

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Creepy-z987654321

    Default Jungian definitions

    ...

  2. #2
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't like that last cirkel.

    As I recall from reading his book, he talks about only 1 auxilary function.

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had never heard of Singer Loomis typology. Interesting stuff!

  4. #4
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Come to think of it, my book (psychological types 1947 edition) doesn't have diagrams at all.

  5. #5
    Creepy-Korpsey

    Default

    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

  6. #6
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    371
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ananke View Post
    However, Model A is extremely forced and probably a reason reality doesn't fit Socionics.
    What part of your reality in particular? Intertype relations? Or people behaving in ways their type would make you think are unexpected?
    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  7. #7
    Inception Mastermind KeroZen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Paris, France
    TIM
    infecting u with Fe
    Posts
    371
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ha! Sorry but the "it's useless" delusional phase was about one year ago for me, but now I'm done with that!

    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."

    "Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
    At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."

    C. G. Jung


    -----
    Know your body, know your mind, know your limits.

  8. #8
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ananke View Post
    Socionics is mostly useless and not even close to explaining anything you don't know instinctively.
    I admire your instinct.

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton2 View Post
    In many ways Socionics is incredibly regressive and a significant step backwards from better foundations that were laid down by Jung, et. al.
    Really? I cannot see it like that.

    Where's Jung's relationship model?
    Is going from 8 types to 16 regressive?
    Where are Jung's subtypes?

Posting Permissions

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