The Esssence and Origin of Socionics

[Aramas]

The basis of Socionics is Jung's typology.
It's how we think, perceive the world and themselves, what kind of information dominates in our consciousness.

And how did Jung discover typology? Or did he make all the psychological types and wave a magical wand so that everyone on the planet, past, present, and future, would have psychological types? Is Jung's typology simply a model for human behavior? Does it reflect a map that helps us understand the territory of the human mind? Or is typology some innate human characteristic that Jung simply found through observation and his own research? The purpose of my post was to speculate on the origins of psychological types, assuming that psychological type is something more than a model or map of human behavior and thought. I understand completely, and have since I discovered Socionics, that Socionics grew out of Jung's typology. I am not ignorant of that fact, nor have I ever been. So when I say I am trying to learn about the essence or origin of Socionics, I am saying that I am trying to discover how psychological types and the things we talk about in Socionics actually came to exist in humans, assuming that Socionics and psychological types are something more than simply a model.

Irrational functions - perceive the world. Rational - how to deal with it, what is it for us.

It's impossible to say that only irrational functions relate to resources as feelings of others support us and logical information of others helps us in the achieving of our aims.
It's impossible to say that rational functions is only how to deal with other people, as we also deal directly with other objects and information.

I am not saying that irrational functions only relate to resources. Nor am I saying that rational functions only relate to how to deal with other people. You've misunderstood my post. I am trying to hypothesize about what original conditions might have existed that gave rise to the existence of psychological functions and types in human beings. I speculate that the functions originally came into existence and became part of human nature because they solved problems essential to human survival, like how the division of labor is executed, or what kinds of social rules are necessary in certain kinds of situations depending on population density. Since the functions came into existence, I conclude that they must have evolved from their original states to include more abstract information and ideas than they were originally used for. As humanity develops, so psychological functions find new domains that they can understand. But the point of the post was to look into the distant past and try to see what domains the functions originally governed before humans came to live in modern environments with all the hosts of abstractions that modern living brings. All of this assumes, of course, that Socionics and psychological types are something more than a subjective model for human behavior.

Your conception has flaws from the beginning.
There is no need to develop new conceptions in Socionics, the current task is to develop practical usage of the existing ones.

I feel like going back too the beginnings and origins of Socionics and psychological types themselves might help us understand Socionics better if we follow all the possible implications and consequences that come from the two questions I asked. I find it hard to believe that you would think that there is nothing new that needs to be discovered in Socionics. Are there really no more questions to ask? I feel like none of us really knows all that much about it. From my perspective, we've only scratched the surface of what it is or what it could be. There's a lot more to do and to figure out. But first, we have to start by being willing to ask questions and explore what might be true about Socionics. We also have to question assumptions and what prior authors have written about typology and Socionics to test the truth of what they have said. This is how we make progress.