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.

[Sol]

And how did Jung discover typology?

I recommend to read his "Psychological Types". There is some about.

> Is Jung's typology simply a model for human behavior?

of human consciousness, made for psychiatry tasks

> 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.

It's the way to heal psyche of modern humans. it was done for this initially

> I am trying to discover how psychological types and the things we talk about in Socionics actually came to exist in humans

It's the question of paleoanthropology, but not psychology.

> 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.

What I may say, that types were in same time when people began to talk, maybe befor too. As when children begin to talk, you may notice their types. There were no glory times without IR issues, polr, etc. of homo sapiens.
Jung thought that archaistic people (including today "savages") had lesser expressed types and lesser differentiated functions. But types is not from peoples society (it may only sharp them), they are like left and right handed people or Galen tempers. Also seems trance technics may reduce types, at least on the time of trance states.
I think you'd better try to discuss with dudes of Jungian Institutes (seek their forums), than with amateurs even without specialized psychology degree. Also rise such question on paleoanthropology forums. But here you have noone to even understand what do you want and why you need it.

> I speculate that the functions originally came into existence and became part of human nature because they solved problems essential to human survival

This question relates to themes like what is human mind, what is the difference with other primacies and animals, why and when all this appeared. It's not the level of peoples here. And I suspect not your educational level too. You need to research not Socionics, but anthropology stuff about psychology of ancient people. And then maybe you'll find some links with Jung's types.

> I find it hard to believe that you would think that there is nothing new that needs to be discovered in Socionics.

Socionics has all to do what I said - to remove Jung's types from our heads and allow to be complete as persons, not like today half-smart / half-retarted ones with IR limits. As side-effect of the technic offered by me this will change humans minds and society to humanistic way, meanwhile technological/humanitarian progress will compesate the higher need of resources to care better about peoples needs. It may be humanitarian revolution. And today task is: 1) to allow duality be proved, 2) to make and to show such "new" people. Any other things will distract the attention to redundant, doubtful and at best useful for far far times.

> Are there really no more questions to ask?

There are non-types factors for psyche compatibility. It's important for what I said above, but it's not Socionics itself. For example, Enneagram may to be not a total bs, - still needs to be checked.

I have nothing to add here. Nuff said.

[Lao Tzunami]

And how did Jung discover typology? Or did he make all the psychological types and wave a magical wand

No, Arthur Schopenhauer was a huge influence of Jung, who transposed many of his insights into psychology. Here are just a few of many relevant quotes from The World as Will and Representation (First published 1818):

"For the understanding is in itself, even in the case of man's irrational, and is completely and sharply distinguished from the reason, which is a faculty of knowledge that belongs to man alone. The reason can only know; perception remains free from its influence and belongs to the understanding alone." (World as Will and Representation, First Book, §6)

"Those concepts which, as has just been pointed out, are not immediately related to the world of perception, but only through the medium of one, or it may be several other concepts, have been called by preference abstracta, and those which have their ground immediately in the world of perception have been called concreta." (World as Will and Representation, First Book, §9)

"Thus, for example, a practised billiard-player may have a perfect knowledge of the laws of the impact of elastic bodies upon each other, merely in the understanding, merely for direct perception; and for him it is quite sufficient; but on the other hand it is only the man who has studied the science of mechanics, who has, properly speaking, a rational knowledge of these laws, that is, a knowledge of them in the abstract. Such knowledge of the understanding in perception is sufficient even for the construction of machines, when the inventor of the machine executes the work himself; as we often see in the case of talented work men, who have no scientific knowledge. But whenever a number of men, and their united action taking place at different times, is required for the completion of a mechanical work, of a machine, or a building, then he who conducts it must have thought out the plan in the abstract, and such co-operative activity is only possible through the assistance of reason. It is, however, remarkable that in the first kind of activity, in which we have supposed that one man alone, in an uninterrupted course of action, accomplishes something, abstract knowledge, the application of reason or reflection, may often be a hindrance to him; for example, in the case of billiard-playing, of fighting, of tuning an instrument, or in the case of singing. Here perceptive knowledge must directly guide action; its passage through reflection makes it uncertain, for it divides the attention and confuses the man." (World as Will and Representation, First Book, §12)

"The exposition of this belongs to another part of our work; this, however, I may remark here, that the dogmas relating to ethics may be the same in the reason of whole nations, but the action of every individual different; and the converse also holds good; action, we say, is guided by feelings, —that is, simply not by concepts, but as a matter of fact by the ethical character." (World as Will and Representation, First Book, §12)