The Esssence and Origin of Socionics

[Singu]

I think you'd find better answers in brain sciences etc... (and even then, answers are still inconclusive).

Much of Jung/Socionics is highly speculative hypothesizing and theorizing with very little if any backing of any concrete data and evidence (then they decide "for once and for all" that "that is because you are a Sensor, and that's why you think so!". It becomes a kind of reductionism where every thoughts become "You think so because of Ti" without actually explaining much of anything. Such is the problem with "psychoanalysis"). Jung was doing what all the other "psychoanalysts" at the time were doing, that is, to come up with random motives and explanations for people's behaviors and insight into their inner thoughts and feelings, without actually coming up with any proof or evidence that whatever that they were saying were actually correct. Basically, what they were doing were "mind-reading", or perhaps more correctly, "planting their own thoughts and feelings" into their patients and anyone who cared to listen. "Psychoanalysis" can be very convincing because it seems plausible, and it's based on intuitively common-sense sounding truisms or whatever, but things based on intuitively plausible things are not necessarily true. For example, Aristotle had intuitively decided that "Heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects", because that seemed intuitively plausible, and it was convincing enough that people believed it to be true for centuries. It only took a simple test by Galileo to test it out and come up with actual evidence that that was not actually the case.

Maybe some of these things are right and not everything is wrong, but well, if it is true, "I'd like to see some evidence".

[Sol]

Jung was doing what all the other "psychoanalysts" at the time were doing, that is, to come up with random motives and explanations for people's behaviors and insight into their inner thoughts and feelings, without actually coming up with any proof or evidence that whatever that they were saying were actually correct.

They based and checked own opinions on personal experience. It's not too "scientific", but it's not baseless. You and anyone do and think a lot just based on same without doubts.
You don't like Ne region as seems it's not valued at you. The funny is you on this forum for 8 years, while the speculative situation in the typology is same. Probably you are trying to make relations with thinking of bad IR there, what have risen your negativism to the typology as a protection.

A little new about objectivity. Check results of how Aramas did my IR test. I suspect possible Ne type helped him.

[Exodus]

I think you'd find better answers in brain sciences etc... (and even then, answers are still inconclusive).

Much of Jung/Socionics is highly speculative hypothesizing and theorizing with very little if any backing of any concrete data and evidence (then they decide "for once and for all" that "that is because you are a Sensor, and that's why you think so!". It becomes a kind of reductionism where every thoughts become "You think so because of Ti" without actually explaining much of anything. Such is the problem with "psychoanalysis"). Jung was doing what all the other "psychoanalysts" at the time were doing, that is, to come up with random motives and explanations for people's behaviors and insight into their inner thoughts and feelings, without actually coming up with any proof or evidence that whatever that they were saying were actually correct.

You may dispute their interpretations, but both Jung and Augusta based their conclusions on a very long history of empirically analyzing individual patients. Their explanations were not "random".

[Sol]

both Jung and Augusta based their conclusions on a very long history of empirically analyzing individual patients

not so long. especially Augustinavichiute
that they did something practically useful is a miracle. Jung could not even to think that types can be used in duality to heal psyche and to make good pairs. more to say the common Jungian conception was that duality is mostly bad and prevents personal growth and abbility to be healthy. they can be partly right if to don't use the idea of deep love in pairs, - that overcomes such issues through introjection of the dual

[Singu]

You may dispute their interpretations, but both Jung and Augusta based their conclusions on a very long history of empirically analyzing individual patients. Their explanations were not "random".

That's nice and all, but they didn't actually turn their observations into some kind of quantifiable data. For example in modern psychology, you are required to put the results of your experiments into statistics, because that's how you can eliminate as much biases and errors as possible (and we know this because statistics are "mathematically proven" to eliminate human errors and biases). I don't think mere observations are good enough, because they are prone to error if they "just stay inside of our own heads".

What Jung and Augusta were doing were essentially "psychoanalysis". It's about coming up with explanations for people's motives and behaviors, even though it can't exactly be proven. The problem with "psychoanalysis" is that you can literally come up with ANY explanations for people's motives, all because "it can not be proven". We can almost never prove what people are "really" thinking, because we have no direct access to people's thoughts and brains. So you can essentially come up with any kind of explanations, like "The reason why you behave that way is because of your relation with your mother" "The reason why you're so pessimistic is because of your death-instinct, it's the libido-theory" "The reason why you think so is because of your Hidden Agenda"... well sure, they could be right and plausible but they also can't be proven.

So anyway, this is nothing new... the "hard" scientists have been criticizing and making fun of psychologists for this very reason since the days of Freud and Jung. And you know, I used to side with the "psychologists", saying that "Well, objectivity isn't everything...! Subjectivity must also be considered...", but now I see the point of the scientists. Sure our subjectivity should be considered, but so should objectivity. We can't just make things up and claim that we are right without any proof and evidence, especially since we are so prone to our own human errors and biases.

So I think the reason why people tend to believe in these "typologies" is mainly due to ignorance of the history and fields of psychology. They don't know that we've already gone through this phase and that they have mainly fallen out of favor for more objectivity. And that's probably why actual psychologists and scientists don't tend to take these "typologies" seriously.

not so long. especially Augustinavichiute
that they did something practically useful is a miracle. Jung could not even to think that types can be used in duality to heal psyche and to make good pairs. more to say the common Jungian conception was that duality is mostly bad and prevents personal growth and abbility to be healthy. they can be partly right if to don't use the idea of deep love in pairs, - that overcomes such issues through introjection of the dual

It seems like what Jung was warning against were one-sided development. He didn't exactly say that there were these exact "types", it's just that too much one-sided development in certain "functions" was detrimental to your growth and it's what makes you more "neurotic". So too much Te turns into someone who only sticks to facts but are otherwise boring, too much Fe turns you into someone who only follows social norms and apparently unthinking, too much Ni turns you into an eccentric crank, and so on... He claimed that we had "strong, conscious, and in-control functions", and "weak, unconscious, primitive and immature functions" (which are probably proven wrong by brain science, but ok). And he also claimed that the use of each functions suppressed all the other functions, and not just their opposing functions. So using T suppressed all F, S and N.