Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
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.