No they haven't. This is just stupid. Augusta originally based her concept of the IM aspects/elements/whatever on the Jungian functions and only changed them because they didn't match up with reality. Any attempt to "reconcile" the two would just be a step backwards.Originally Posted by Petter
SRSI:
"Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years. That is Jung’s colossal practice and the great work by Aushra Augustinavichuite, by her students and stalwarts. We come across the first semantic tables in Medvedev’s, Vaisband’s (Onufrienko’s) works. Such research are going on till present time, articles on this theme are published from time to time. Big work on a vocabulary compiling is done by V.D. Ermak in Kiev. Many other socionics suggest their own semantic tables."
No, they had to change them. It is much harder to define aspects (i.e. information) than to describe functions (i.e cognitive processes). Both SSS definitions and external statics of objects etc. are good attempts, but they are far from perfect.
Definitions:
Te (external dynamics of objects)
Ti (external statics of fields)
Fe (internal dynamics of objects)
Fi (internal statics of fields)
Ne (internal statics of objects)
Ni (internal dynamics of fields)
Se (external statics of objects)
Si (external dynamics of fields)
Static - "Snapshots"
Dynamic - Objects and fields in motion
Extroverted (object, body) - Things as independent of other things
Introverted (field) - Relationships between things
External - Explicit, directly sensible content of reality
Internal - Implicit, indirectly perceivable content of reality
Irrational - Raw, unfiltered information
Rational - Interpreted information
If a description of aspects contradicts these definitions then it is useless! (SSS uses other definitions)
Last edited by Petter; 11-17-2016 at 10:21 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote