
Originally Posted by
glam
why are there always these periodic disputes that come up about Jung vs socionics? it's not that hard to understand: Jung first observed and wrote about functions, and Aushra used his ideas (and others') to create socionics. so people who really want to understand the theory behind socionics can read Jung as well as Aushra. also, socionics is a Jungian typology, but not all Jungian typologies are socionics. so reading Jung alone isn't going to teach you socionics, but doing so can be valuable for your understanding of the theory. to declare Jung/socionics as one and the same, or as two completely separate theories that should never be talked about together - both views are wrong and unhelpful, IMO.