SRSI's view on Socionics and MBTI (in Russian)

[Petter]

You remember this article by Roan LaPlante/Aestrivex? It is pretty apparent that whatever Jung, MBTI, nor socionics talks about are abstractions that have little to do with each other, beyond rudimentary similarities. Now, in fact, socionics and MBTI are rudimentary closer to each other that whatever Jung's esoteric writings have to say.

https://www.techhouse.org/socionics/essay_jcf.html

First of all, Roan is not a socionist. He's a self-proclaimed expert. He compares descriptions of information aspects with Jungian functions, but he draws the wrong conclusions.

For example; "Externalized sense of value. Belief of values and worth is dependent on the external surroundings. When our surrounding tells us that it is important to be respectful of friends and family, that is what we utilize as Fe value. When we accept values of the church, it becomes our Fe value. It tells us to adopt social roles based on our external surroundings."

What are those beliefs/evaluations based on? Emotions! So Socionics Fe and Jungian Fe refer to same thing.

Most importantly, though, do the descriptions correspond with definitions of information aspects?

[Soupman]

What are those beliefs/evaluations based on? Emotions! So Socionics Fe and Jungian Fe refer to same thing.

Actually no, beliefs do not have to be derived from emotions contrary to popular misunderstanding, (Jung's) "feelings" are detached from emotions or sentiment being instead, a rational impartial perspective of the world.

Emotions are a separate irrational and personal aspect of decision-making that are "involved" and influenced by sentiment. A couple of socionists and MBTI chose to interpret impersonal and personal decision making as the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" but Jung doesn't talk about that at all rather vehemently arguing the contrary.

Socionics is a derivative system with its own perspectives influenced with observations that align with reality as opposed to Jung's esoteric system. The logic of socionics follows it's own axiom so if you are ever to merge the two with MBTI then whatever you are calling socionics isn't socionics. In before real vs fake Socionics/socionists, that's another can of worms people in the east have failed to fix the past 30 years due to a flawed premise - the failure to employ scientific methods.

I spoke to this ESFJ girl a couple of years ago about the idea which seemed stupid to me, but it turns out she was a thinker yet her thinking naturally can be explained by the overlap negating the emotional interpretation of the world.
http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-arti...-function.html

[Petter]

Actually no, beliefs do not have to be derived from emotions contrary to popular misunderstanding, (Jung's) "feelings" are detached from emotions or sentiment being instead, a rational impartial perspective of the world.

No, there are emotions, social cognition and cognition. Jungian Fe and Fi (as well as Aushra's Fe and Fi) are about social cognition. Social cognition: "Judging a person's beliefs vs. attributes about an object". And social cognition is a part of the limbic system.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n05/mente/struct_i.htm

Wikipedia (machine translation):

"The front of Cingulate gyrus is central to the affective response of physical pain and is involved in the discovery and interpretation of social pain such as threats, rejection, exclusion, loss and negative evaluation of others. The front of Cingulate gyrus is particularly active when the individual is thinking negative thoughts about themselves."

We must also distinguish between SSS theory and mainstream Socionics. SSS E (Fe) seems to be about emotions.

A couple of socionists and MBTI chose to interpret impersonal and personal decision making as the difference between "thinking" and "feeling" but

...and that is an accurate assessment.

Jung doesn't talk about that at all rather vehemently arguing the contrary.

I spoke to this ESFJ girl a couple of years ago about the idea which seemed stupid to me, but it turns out she was a thinker yet her thinking naturally can be explained by the overlap negating the emotional interpretation of the world.

http://personalitycafe.com/esfj-arti...-function.html

“What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on. Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect, which is, as the words convey, an involuntary manifestation. Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterize an emotion. Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)”

Yes! But this does not contradict my previous comment. Feeling (or Ethics of emotions) is a judgement that is based on emotions, i.e. it considers emotional responses in people.

Socionics is a derivative system with its own perspectives influenced with observations that align with reality as opposed to Jung's esoteric system. The logic of socionics follows it's own axiom so if you are ever to merge the two with MBTI then whatever you are calling socionics isn't socionics. In before real vs fake Socionics/socionists, that's another can of worms people in the east have failed to fix the past 30 years due to a flawed premise - the failure to employ scientific methods.

First of all, Jung's/MBTI's observations align most accurately with reality. And it is not that complicated. If you want to combine a personality theory/theory of the psyche (Jung) with information metabolism, then you must define eight different kinds of information (aspects). Otherwise you cannot analyze language, exchange of information and social interaction.

Socionics distinguishes between functions and aspects (and sometimes IM elements). 'Aspect' is included in MBTT/Jungian 'function'. Btw, SSS uses 'aspect' but calls it 'information element'.

The big difference between Socionics and MBTT is that aspects are defined in Socionics but functions (including aspects) are only approximately described in MBTT.

[Soupman]

“What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on. Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect, which is, as the words convey, an involuntary manifestation. Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterize an emotion. Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)”

Yes! But this does not contradict my previous comment. Feeling (or Ethics of emotions) is a judgement that is based on emotions, i.e. it considers emotional responses in people.

You need to reanalyse the quote, it clearly doesn't insinuate that it is a judgement based on emotions when several lines in the quote contradict your statement: eg
"Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect" & "Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterise an emotion".
Finally, the last statement contradicts your statement clearly talking about how it is: "Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)"

That is in contradiction of your vested interest in the desire to see the Jungian-inspired typology converge, it's blinding you with regards to being absolutely honest about the facts: the numerous subtle but significant contradictions affecting how the theories can be understood. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy by connecting dots where none exist, also with several alternatives to rationalise the unhelpful esoteric writing.

[Petter]

You need to reanalyse the quote, it clearly doesn't insinuate that it is a judgement based on emotions when several lines in the quote contradict your statement: eg
"Feeling so defined is not an emotion or affect" & "Feeling as I mean it is a judgment without any of the obvious bodily reactions that characterise an emotion".
Finally, the last statement contradicts your statement clearly talking about how it is: "Like thinking, it is a rational function. (p. 219)"

There is a difference between emotion and social cognition. Jung's description of Feeling corresponds to social cognition. Jung: "What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on."

That judgement of value is based on emotions. Why do we think some people are good and others are bad? Because we react emotionally to good behavior vs. bad behavior, and then we contemplate our reactions (i.e. Feeling, morality).

That is in contradiction of your vested interest in the desire to see the Jungian-inspired typology converge, it's blinding you with regards to being absolutely honest about the facts: the numerous subtle but significant contradictions affecting how the theories can be understood. You are committing the slippery-slope fallacy by connecting dots where none exist, also with several alternatives to rationalise the unhelpful esoteric writing.

Jungian typology is already an intrinsic part of Socionics. SRSI: "Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years."

[Soupman]

There is a difference between emotion and social cognition. Jung's description of Feeling corresponds to social cognition. Jung: "What I mean by feeling in contrast to thinking is a judgment of value; agreeable or disagreeable, good or bad, and so on."

That judgement of value is based on emotions. Why do we think some people are good and others are bad? Because we react emotionally to good behavior vs. bad behavior, and then we contemplate our reactions (i.e. Feeling, morality).



Jungian typology is already an intrinsic part of Socionics. SRSI: "Correspondence of information aspects with Jung’s functions has been proved experimentally in observations of many years."

You are mistaking values as being feelings about something rather that is not what the rational perspective of values entails. From the rational front values are believes reasoned and justified, for example when they are instilled into society. "Feelings" are irrational and comical justification that have nothing to do with what is justified to be entailed onto society.

You are making an unsubstantiated claim on the supposed ubiquitous similarity of Jungian derived conceptions when actual analysis of the details rationally exposes important deviations that affect the derivative theories themselves. It's not scientific to be sloppy in analysis.

[Petter]

You are mistaking values as being feelings about something rather that is not what the rational perspective of values entails. From the rational front values are believes reasoned and justified, for example when they are instilled into society. "Feelings" are irrational and comical justification that have nothing to do with what is justified to be entailed onto society.

I apologize for a delayed reply. No, I am saying that a judgement of value is based on emotions.

Jung: "Like thinking, it is a rational function."

You: "From the rational front values are believes reasoned and justified"

"Jung described the psychological functions of thinking and feeling as rational because they are decisively influenced by reflection."

"The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history."

"Most objective values – and reason itself – are firmly established complexes of ideas handed down through the ages. Countless generations have laboured at their organization with the same necessity with which the living organism reacts to the average, constantly recurring environmental conditions, confronting them with corresponding functional complexes, as the eye, for instance, perfectly corresponds to the nature of light. … Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and govern the average, “correct,” adapted attitude. Everything is “rational” that accords with these laws, everything that contravenes them is “irrational”. [“Definitions,” ibid., par. 785f.]"

Yes! I agree with all of these comments. The laws corresponds to the "correct, adapted attitude". But what is the adapted attitude based on in the first place? It is based on preservation of energy/efficiency (Thinking) and emotions (Feeling).

You are making an unsubstantiated claim on the supposed ubiquitous similarity of Jungian derived conceptions when actual analysis of the details rationally exposes important deviations that affect the derivative theories themselves. It's not scientific to be sloppy in analysis.

Okay, what are those deviations according to you?