Jung is wrong (with all due respect)

[Hugo]

There are no such units as

They only serve to confuse. There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define


These cause problems in typing.

Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right. They are independant from S, N, F and T.

Also there are no such things as p or j, and there is no need for them.

Because Jung is wrong (with all due respect) so is Model A.

So INTj is not Introverted Thinking with Intuition, but is Introversion with primary Thinking and secondary Intuition.

INTp is not Introverted Intuition with Thinking, but is Introversion with primary Intuition and secondary Thinking.

will be continued...

[Hugo]

That was me above. This site did not log me in properly.

[metaiwan]

I disagree...if you read earlier Jung on his discovery of the introvert and extravert, it seems he agrees with you, but by the times he writes psychological types, he sees extraversion and introversion as attitudes of functions and not qualities in their own right. From my experience I tend to agree with later Jung.

[Hugo]

Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

Thinking (for example) is a process.

Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

[Lee]

I don't think it is a clear cut as you describe it Hugo, but I have been thinking along similar minds lately.

[Hugo]

I don't think it is a clear cut as you describe it Hugo, but I have been thinking along similar minds lately.

As I said before

There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[CuriousSoul]

Hugo, I would say that socionics is still very much unfinished business and until the issue of typing is conclusively solved there is not much point propagating this theory to the wider world, since a wrong type is likely to only do you harm - but whether Jung was wrong - or indeed right - is a complicated question and the answers will probably be found in the dull shades of grey rather than a simple either right or wrong. We may not have found the answers yet, but I warmly appreciate your efforts at devising tests for solving the question of typing. I myself seem to be running out of ideas.

[Hugo]

Dear Transigent,

Thank you for your message. I haven't ignored what you have said, but have read every word.

As you already know, I am I-Tn (what you might call INTj with an intuitive subtype). I analyze concepts but don't accept them without scrutinizing them.

I state my thoughts/findings, which are usually "out of the box", to have a conversation about them and to advance psychology theory, but only in connection with practical application.

Theory is useless without practical application.

[Hugo]

Dear Curious,

Thanks for your post.

I brought up the issue of Jung with the aim of making things simpler.

As I stated:


There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define


The fact that I/E is independant from T, F, N, S would, I believe makes things simpler.

I think with the above in mind, typing, and possibly even subtyping, is made easier. Let me give an example:


Work out whether you are


I or E
S or N
T or F


Now lets say that you are INFx. To work out whether you are j or p, ask yourself :


"What do I find more attractive in my ideal companion, the qualities of S or T?"


If you choose T then you are INFj. If you choose S then you are INFp.

and just make things unnecessarily complicated.


Also, to know what your subtype is ask yourself:


"What describes me better, the qualities of N or F?"


If you choose N then your subtype is N. If you choose F, your subtype is F.

[science as magic]

If anything you are the logical subtype.

[Hugo]

What makes you think that?

[science as magic]

You are overly confident of conclusions you make with Ti not allowing for Ne input. Or that's what it SEEMS like. Maybe I am wrong.

Not that that is a bad thing I'm just saying.

[MysticSonic]

But Hugo, in terms of the actuial theory, that would be an over-simplication of the entire issue. For instance, take the INTj. In your theory, they would be introverted with thinking as the primary function; however, you have failed in one instance: in recognizing the relationship between an introverted nature and the nature of an introverts thought's; if their thoughts were to be introverted, or in other words, directed by subjective factors, thinking would be directed in an introverted fashion. Wouldn't this particular fashion of thinking, in and of itself, be introverted thinking?

Of course, you could simply redefine the term introversion in such a way that would make it compatible with your conjecture, but then your definition would also have to be evaluated.

Also, this theory is completely incompatible with Model A, although I suppose you could regard it as disposable.

[Hugo]

You are overly confident of conclusions you make with Ti not allowing for Ne input. Or that's what it SEEMS like.

The ENTp base function description describes me pretty well:


ENTps have a very well-developed ability to think inventively. Very often they come up with original and radical ideas. They have the ability to foresee the development of many different concepts. Their well developed intuition often helps them to make the right decisions. ENTps are well able to understand the essence of concepts and phenomena. They are interested in and read a lot about everything that is new and unusual.

Maybe even a little bit more than the INTj base function description.

[Hugo]

Thanks Mystic,

As I said before:

Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

Thinking (for example) is a process.

Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

and

Because Jung is wrong (with all due respect) so is Model A.

Please also note that:

There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

[MysticSonic]

Woah, I can't believe I missed all that.

So, Hugo, what is introversion and extraversion?

[Hugo]

You'll find your answer at socionics.com

[MysticSonic]

Are you trying to make this discussion hard? Can you just give me a direct link; I can't find what you're talking about.

[Hugo]

http://www.socionics.com/main/types.htm

[MysticSonic]

I suppose, but you have in no way shown that your model is superior to the Socionic one; show me that and I may begin to believe your model is correct.

The reason I believe the Socionic model to be correct is that I see those particular attitudes as an effect of the nature of the individual's thoughts, with the two natures being interested the objective world, and the other nature being interested in the subjective world.

[Hugo]

As I said:

There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well.

I am not presenting a model but am aiming to "purify" theory.

As I also said:

Introversion and Extroversion are states of mind, not attitudes.

Thinking (for example) is a process.

Whether Thinking is coupled with Introversion or Extroversion, the process in both combinations is identical. Therefore Introversion and Extroversion are qualities in their own right.

[trey]

Interesting. So do you believe the concept of information metabolism is viable?

[Waddlesworth]

Socionics blends many theories together. It is not Jung, although it does elaborate on his system of nomenclature. Information on Socionics is a bit scanty and fragmented, no one here as far as I'm aware has all of the information.

From what I have read it appears that Augustinavichute's "functional rings" were seen as a legitimate discovery. There is something in this that we do not know right now.

Socionics.com is a great resource but most certainly is not the final say the descriptions of each function. It is for beginners and gives beginners a general idea of what functions are, that is all.

What I'm saying, in a nutshell, is that you don't have enough expertise in this area to prove anything wrong. You can believe in it or choose not to believe in it, but I really don't think you can prove anything wrong. Your first flaw lies in the fact that you are assuming socionics automatically accepts everything Jung was saying. I don't think that it does, I think that it uses his ideas and modifies and elaborates on them. It also uses informational metabolism and freud's theory of the Id, Ego and Super-Ego. It modifies Freud's theory by adding a Super-Id, which in itself suggests that Jungs concept of typology was not taken as certian, but more of an intuitive guide.

I'm not saying you aren't making any points, there are all good points you are making, but I don't think you are knowledgible enough to claim you are proving anyone or anything wrong.

[discourse]

Say, waddles , are you in dual relationship as you seem to be so relaxed and
feel so harmonious? I would like to find out the secret of this.

[Hugo]

Interesting. So do you believe the concept of information metabolism is viable?

Good question.

It depends what 'information metabolism' actually means.

I've never seen a definition for it.

[Hugo]

Dear Waddles

Thanks for your reply.

As I said before:

The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well.

I know full well that socionics is not just based on Jungs work, but without Jungs work there is no Model A.

[trey]

Simply, information metabolism is the processing of information between a starting and end point. So I guess I asked the wrong question. More succinctly, does information itself carry properties other than those determined by the IESNTF mechanisms in the brain? If not, how does the mind handle conflicts created by information metabolism differences between said mechanisms?

[Hugo]

I'm afraid that I do not understand what you are asking. Maybe it would be helpful if you give an example.

In additon, I haven't seen a clear enough definition of "information metabolism".

[trey]

I don't think I can make that definition any clearer. Maybe you are just having difficulty putting it into context with your concept of psychological preference?

Conversely, I'm not too sure how to supplement that (or any) question with an example, but if there are segments that confuse you, please pick them out.

Oh, and uh..

There are no such units as

They only serve to confuse. There are problems in defining S, N, F and T. Therefore it is more of a problem trying to define

I hate to backtrack, but would you mind doing us a favor by either substantiating your premises, or at least not arguing them ad ignoratiam?

[Waddlesworth]

Say, waddles , are you in dual relationship as you seem to be so relaxed and
feel so harmonious? I would like to find out the secret of this.

Interesting comment. It is funny because sometimes I feel quite confused as to how my posts 'read' to other people.

I have an older sister, 9 years my senior, which is an ISFp. She taught me alot growing up, but by age 10 or 11 she left home and I had alot of troubles after this. Still, perhaps this has had an impact on my development of a more relaxed temperament. I do have a dual boss and a couple of my best friends are duals. Perhaps this is where you see the harmony. But I still have many problems, especially worrying about the future.


Hugo:

I think you are too bold in your conclusions.

To "prove" something says alot, and I don't think you did this.

[Hugo]

Dear Trey

On the one hand you said that the definition you gave of 'information metabolism' was very basic by using the word "simply", and on the other hand you said that you cannot give a clearer definition.

I'm not so sure that you know/understand what you're saying/asking.

No offense.

[Hugo]

Dear Waddles,

As we are dealing with theory, the matter is one of reasoning.

I have provided reasons, and have therefore proved my case. In conclusion, I believe that Jung is wrong (with all due respect).

If you can disprove it by the use of reason, then be my guest.

[Hugo]

That was me above.

[MysticSonic]

"The purpose of this post was to prove Jung wrong, and in doing so, am indirectly proving Model A wrong as well. "

Well, then, I suppose it can be said that the purpose of my post was in defense of Jung, whose ideas you still haven't proven inferior to your own.

[Hugo]

On what specific grounds?

It's no good making such a general remark without substantiating it.

I've substantiated my conclusion.

[MysticSonic]

All you've done is posited baseless conjectures; you have yet to prove that it is superior to Jung's theory.

[Hugo]

What I have said is based on reason.

Don't forget Mystic, we are talking about a theory.

If what I say is conjecture then so is what Jung says.

Besides, you have said nothing to substantiate your claim.

[Creepy-Pete]

Dear Waddles,

As we are dealing with theory, the matter is one of reasoning.

I have provided reasons, and have therefore proved my case. In conclusion, I believe that Jung is wrong (with all due respect).

If you can disprove it by the use of reason, then be my guest.

How are old are you Hugo? Only youth or an admission of idiocy will excuse your "reasoned" statements.
If the former doesn't apply, you're in a hell of a whole as an INTj without strong reasoning powers

[Creepy-]

I mean "hole".