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

[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?

[Soupman]

Okay, what are those deviations according to you?

Excellent question and this took me over 4 years of relentless prodding on the matter, a simple fact I didn't want to accept but was forced to do so was that everyone comes out with a personal interpretation of Jung's ideas and there is no impartial metric of evaluation to segregate various interpretations, beyond what a person feels is correct. The similar semantics only obfuscate the deviations, ask the people for absolute clarity and everyone reveals how they actually understand the ideas thus precisely their actual personal deviation.

*Myers & Briggs focus on simplifying everything to being about feelings - outer feelings, the society what is right and wrong as society dictates & inner feelings - the personal morality affecting how a person sees things & their inner feelings.

*Socionics focuses on emotions & relations: as emotions - feelings expressions, outer subjective experience displayed & relations - encompasses things that are fully thought out and analysed about society - morality, various forms of relations as they are thought about and analysed.

This stuff above is something you've correctly labelled as "descriptions", they amount to being substantiated rationalisations of whatever Jung meant in his esoteric writings. Everyone keeps trying to guess and people just end up choosing whatever they feel. There is no information to judge and discriminate between how people feel in the absence of robust evidence. All complex interpretations of these Jungian ideas all serve to hide people's subjective feelings about what they think is correct; furthermore, people only further confuse themselves with complexity trying to do mental-gymnastics that they overlook the collective confusion not in just themselves but everyone as they argue on what they want Jung to mean. The simplistic interpretation, which is correct & accurate, is that people arbitrarily drew borders around "descriptions" of what supposedly Jung meant is the only rational interpretation.

energy/efficiency (Thinking)

Energy and efficiency have nothing to do with Logic in socionics or Jung's esoteric theory, but rather this is part of the temperament theory which is actually substantiated. Extroverts (linear/abruptly applying solutions & flexible/weighing-all-options alike) don't think in terms of efficiency use of energy and task/problems acquisition, rather expending high energy on problems available; contrary Introverts are energy and efficiency conscious regarding how they apply themselves to tasks and problems at hand.

People with emotions predominantly think, it is just that their expressive nature has a strong rational (as reasoned and societally beneficial behaviour) aura that affects and dictates the social environment, ending up colouring most of what is thought to be their personality on observation - particularly the derivative of the personality abstraction.

[Exodus]

Excellent question and this took me over 4 years of relentless prodding on the matter, a simple fact I didn't want to accept but was forced to do so was that everyone comes out with a personal interpretation of Jung's ideas and there is no impartial metric of evaluation to segregate various interpretations, beyond what a person feels is correct. The similar semantics only obfuscate the deviations, ask the people for absolute clarity and everyone reveals how they actually understand the ideas thus precisely their actual personal deviation.

This stuff above is something you've correctly labelled as "descriptions", they amount to being substantiated rationalisations of whatever Jung meant in his esoteric writings. Everyone keeps trying to guess and people just end up choosing whatever they feel. There is no information to judge and discriminate between how people feel in the absence of robust evidence. All complex interpretations of these Jungian ideas all serve to hide people's subjective feelings about what they think is correct; furthermore, people only further confuse themselves with complexity trying to do mental-gymnastics that they overlook the collective confusion not in just themselves but everyone as they argue on what they want Jung to mean. The simplistic interpretation, which is correct & accurate, is that people arbitrarily drew borders around "descriptions" of what supposedly Jung meant is the only rational interpretation.

I'm having trouble parsing this last sentence, but as I understand what you're saying it's not true. Augusta was not merely trying to guess at "what Jung meant" based on her feelings, she arrived at socionics through observation of real people. Socionics is not just a philosophical system, it has empirical content. Jung was the starting point but needed to be modified to agree with reality. She writes herself:

"Therefore, I feel it my duty to warn that we have not thought up anything ourselves, but have just extended and elaborated on the provisions of C.G. Jung, though in the process some of them have changed beyond recognition. This happened as a result of studying the specific ways of thinking of individual people."

"There isn't a drop here of 'pure theory' that doesn't come out of our observations."

I can't speak for others but this has also generally been my approach and it seems to be the approach of many people who have investigated the theory thoroughly.

[Soupman]

I'm having trouble parsing this last sentence, but as I understand what you're saying it's not true. Augusta was not merely trying to guess at "what Jung meant" based on her feelings, she arrived at socionics through observation of real people. Socionics is not just a philosophical system, it has empirical content. Jung was the starting point but needed to be modified to agree with reality. She writes herself:

"Therefore, I feel it my duty to warn that we have not thought up anything ourselves, but have just extended and elaborated on the provisions of C.G. Jung, though in the process some of them have changed beyond recognition. This happened as a result of studying the specific ways of thinking of individual people."

"There isn't a drop here of 'pure theory' that doesn't come out of our observations."

I can't speak for others but this has also generally been my approach and it seems to be the approach of many people who have investigated the theory thoroughly.

This is exactly why our final conversation tanked when you came to the conclusion that I couldn't understand "simple ideas".

I don't blame you but then this is part of the complex esoteric foundation Carl Jung failed to convey as it operates on a complex abstraction of the nature of the reality of "information-styles". If you were one of the few people that have attempted to understand this perspective of reality then, you'd get a gist of the communication issues you and I possess from the incompatibility of our "reality-abstraction-styles" on information. People with shared "information-abstraction-styles" find it easier to exchange and analyse information given that they exchange this data in a manner they are naturally accustomed to.

Aušra Augustinavičiūtė rightfully notes that she gave up given her own failure to understand such an esoteric perspective. I don't deny her expansive research going beyond Jung, but she restricted her queries to a layer of reality on her cognitive limits. It's so simplistic that its one of the reasons why the theory is a joke when critically analysing its foundation from a scientific perspective... but I don't expect this to make sense to you given the barrier in the conceptual idea itself.

BTW I also looked at your posts from several years ago & I noticed that you have a problem understanding subjectivity and objectivity from the esoteric Jungian perspective:

When both you and her (as well as socionists leaning in that perspective/worldview) talk about empiricism you are talking about the Jungian esoteric "objectivity". And this has both it has upside and downsides as a style of abstracting information. And there, others are wired differently as Jungian "subjectivists" and we see several structural issues in your ideas and don't appreciate your "empirical" perspective everything sounds wrong and it's frustrating (if approaching the issue from a lazy perspective that there is something wrong with a person if I don't like or get frustrated by their conceptions on reality). We have a mutual but incompatible relationship with "empiricism" and "structural-analysis" on our conceptions regarding reality.

[Tigerfadder]

This is exactly why our final conversation tanked when you came to the conclusion that I couldn't understand "simple ideas".

I don't blame you but then this is part of the complex esoteric foundation Carl Jung failed to convey as it operates on a complex abstraction of the nature of the reality of "information-styles". If you were one of the few people that have attempted to understand this perspective of reality then, you'd get a gist of the communication issues you and I possess from the incompatibility of our "reality-abstraction-styles" on information. People with shared "information-abstraction-styles" find it easier to exchange and analyse information given that they exchange this data in a manner they are naturally accustomed to.

Aušra Augustinavičiūtė rightfully notes that she gave up given her own failure to understand such an esoteric perspective. I don't deny her expansive research going beyond Jung, but she restricted her queries to a layer of reality on her cognitive limits. It's so simplistic that its one of the reasons why the theory is a joke when critically analysing its foundation from a scientific perspective... but I don't expect this to make sense to you given the barrier in the conceptual idea itself.

Just maybe you think to highly of your own intellect. to express something complex with simple words yet capture the essence of the subject is something of an art. There should not really be any "subjectivity", now what that really means, in typology. But you can stay trying to determine type from the perspective of subjective, objects and systems if you so like.

[Exodus]

Aušra Augustinavičiūtė rightfully notes that she gave up given her own failure to understand such an esoteric perspective.

She said nothing of the sort. Perhaps she did fail to understand what Jung intended but this is not how she viewed it. Jung was merely a stepping stone for her.

It should also be noted that Augusta was no stranger to the esoteric sciences (nor am I, for that matter). By all accounts she delved into them deeply in her later years. But everything has its place in the search for knowledge.