Well I don't think Jung is very much part of Socionics, as Jung probably wouldn't have approved of Socionics, as he didn't approve of MBTI, or at least, he didn't think much of it.
Hmm...thats really intetesting.
I love chicken with french fries, and waffles with syrup and ice cream. I like chocolate cake too specially if its like vienneta style .
My IEE loves vanilla ice cream and hotcakes with a lot (I mean a lot) of syrup. He prefears steak over chicken. I'm not fan of steak (I especially hate it if it bleeds).
The sensation and taste of blood in the mouth is the worst iuk!
that's a good question but I think a lot of it goes to cognitive style, and whether you're rational/irrational. 4d fi 2d ti is going to look a lot different than 3dfi 1dti, the latter being far more flexible in how it approaches what words function to do. i think a lot of my criticisms of olimpia have a built in preconception of what language functions to do and how it ought to operate, which is informed by that rational character. i took a lot of formal logic as an undergrad which more than fleshing out thinking per se it more honed rationality, which beleive it or not influences how feeling processes the world. the feeler when they make judgements still operates with sufficient->necessary chains. they still reason, it just works from base ethical material
keep in mind the philosopher hegel was typed EIE, same with Nietzsche. their reasoning tended to be complex and sound, it was the base concern and material they drew on that lent it its ethical character... I think when people think of ethicals they assume reasoning goes out the window, but between rational types, the reasoning should be roughly equally rigorous it should just more or less focus on different topics, perhaps with different appurtenant symbolism and jargon (which may look like nonsense--whereas "thinking" style jargon carries with it the air of "authority" and ethical jargon tends to be downplayed as less valid--and yet certain poeticisms retain much of their force over the heart)...
"the heart has its reasons which reason does not know" etc
this is I think a true statement in regard to my second paragraph, but it came out in the 17th century, prior to Jung. Now we could say I think more accurately, "the heart has its reasons which thinking does not know"
but there is still a form of reasoning underlying it, which I think can be honed via feedback. the flipside to Fi is Te and I think that is how it handles refining itself in time. in other words Fi develops via Te feedback from the universe in time, and this development is a rational process (interestingly enough Hegel would say it is a historical-dialectical process, which is just another way to put exactly what I said here) "the real is rational and the rational is real"-- this quote used to mystify me for years, but now I think I finally understand it.. what he's saying is you can understand the development of "spirit" (roughly, feeling E or I) as the process in time through which it receives feedback and rationally progresses, which means resolving its inner contradictions, Ti or Te are just the psychic counterweights to feeling which serve as the opposing pole where the dichotomous feeling functions understands the feedback to "come from"
the deal with irrationality is it entails all sorts of inner contradictions and an irrational dominant tends not to be concerned with resolving them, whereas the rational makes it a priority to root out and resolve such tensions wherever they are perceived if at all possible. the sisyphean nature of this makes "rationality" something of an irrationality, and irrationality something of a rational option, hence how we color them is mainly a sign for how they tend to go about living their life, not that one is inherently superior to the other
God is in some sense an ultimately rational concept because it functions to resolve the above inner contradiction (the rational approach being inherently irrational), which is why certain types tend to come to God, because it seems to be a underlying necessary condition of the universe as a rational requirement emerging from a rational temperament... from the irrational perspective there is simply no need for God, because they are comfortable with the universe as is and aren't trying to rationally traverse time... thus from their point of view imposing such a requirement where there need be none, by their temperament, is irrational. this is how you can have holy wars and purges where the parties each individually believe in their own rightness and it goes right to their concept of God, or enlightenment, which confers "absolute" authority hence genocide and so forth... I'd say we're living in an age that is the irrational counterstroke to the ideological conflicts of the 20th century, culminating in the cold war, which basically exhausted people and cast doubt on any rational progression (because it seemed like man was about to anihilate himself via MAD, thus "what rational progression?" became self evident--this is the basis for much of 20th century existentialism)... right now we're starting to see some rational blowback because it seemed like total irrationality just invited jihadism and other forms of extremism in, for lack of a more moderate alternative. the options seem to have been post modernism or fundamentalism... now we're starting to see a rational dialectical emergence of a radical moderation, which Jung represents the seed of in the form of unification
Last edited by Bertrand; 10-18-2017 at 03:40 AM.
Well first of all, Jung thought that types weren't static, they changed throughout the course of time.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/0...-face-to-face/Originally Posted by Jung
And second, he wasn't a big fan of "labeling people" and rigidly categorizing people, citing to be a "childish parlor game"
http://www.businessinsider.com/myers...leading-2014-6... Jung didn't believe that types were easily identifiable, and he didn't believe that people could be permanently slotted into one category or another. "Every individual is an exception to the rule," he wrote; to "stick labels on people at first sight," in his view, was "nothing but a childish parlor game."
http://psychologia.co/jung-personality-types/
Myers sent Jung her Indicator, but Jung merely politely thanked her but declined her visit, so they didn't even meet up.
@Singu that's one of the most beautiful things I've read
He only said that saw the type's change sometimes. So practically he thought them static in the sense of which functions dominate.
> And second, he wasn't a big fan of "labeling people" and rigidly categorizing people
Because he used the types for psychiatry. While other appliance called "childish parlor game", as perceived the types as disorders (which should be compensated, not used for choosing jobs what would accentuated them). If he'd noticed positive duality effect and understood how to use it - he'd changed the opinion. But Jung did not practice group psychotherapy and this limited him much.
> Myers sent Jung her Indicator, but Jung merely politely thanked her but declined her visit, so they didn't even meet up.
Probably because of lack at her the needed education, not so scientific way to create and check that test. It would be just a fan meeting. Later Zurich Jung's Institute used MBTI conception to make own test.
Not in his native language which is Russian.
a lot of people forget or dont know that jung was a very capable and successful psychiatrist especially in areas of schizophrenia - after I learned this I started to put more faith in Jungianism. His books are very interesting but also very fucking esoteric.
CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM
Well I was looking into the history of schizophrenia, and the word "Jung" didn't appear even once. Not that he didn't contribute to the study of schizophrenia of course, but it was probably minimal. His hatred of empiricism and scientific research didn't help, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_schizophrenia
People like Freud and Jung practically founded and contributed a great deal to "psychoanalytic psychology", and influenced and even laid down the groundwork for modern cognitive psychology and even neuroscience... but, they were also wrong. The writings of Jung and Freud should be looked at as an interesting historical artifact... but we shouldn't take them at a face value, like a lot of the people on this forum are doing. They are not some holy text that we should be scrutinizing under a microscope. They are largely outdated theories of the mind of the past.
On some Jung's "historical artifacts" will be proved the duality hypothesis what will create new directions of psychotherapy in the 2nd half of this century. Also making pairs based on Jung's types will become more popular. These "artifacts" live now and will further with more intense and applications.
While Freud have pointed on the role of unconscious in our life. He was not the 1st, but he popularized all this on West. The region of "magic" have come to mainstream psychology, like previously part of "alchemy" have come to "chemistry" as the science. Further researches of unconscious will integrate telepathy effects to mainstream science.
Both have made significant steps for the future where we may see the consequences of their "historical artifacts".
> but we shouldn't take them at a face value
We should study what relates to typology and research it by the means available for us. Keeping conservative borders of classical texts to reduce mistakes of added hypotheses. Subjectively, Jung's typology is correct in its base and useful for psychic compatibility, at least. Freud has only indirect relation to this.
Do not type people primarily based on what you think your guys' Intertype relation is.
Personal like and dislike will skew your result. And picking up on subtle ITR dynamics, especially if you are a beginner, can be very tricky – for a lot of those dynamics become only apparent on a closer psychological distance (aka when you are trying to get closer and more emotionally intimate with someone).
Type someone's Ego functions (and Mobilizing and Demonstrative if possible), and go from there.
There should be more empirical studies done on couples and long term relationships.
One year isn't enough, though. Human mating is set for four-year cycles. There shouldn't actually be any cut-off date in the research, because people are complex and it takes a lot of time to determine one's preferences by trial and error, even when those trials are driven by instincts.
One of the things which made me convinced of Socionic's superiority over MBTI is that MBTI sites often assert that the best matches for ENTJ's are MBTI ISTP's (LSI's). While I've had two relationships with LSI's, we broke up after a while due to different values. I assume that MBTI observers looked at a few LIE's and LSI's and said, "Wow, that was quick and they really like each other. Must be a match."
Without extended follow-up, short-term observations are poor predictors of success.
Socionics needs a reliable typing method/formula which can be applied for studies.
All the current "studies" suck a** because the typing methods are highly questionable/dubious/biased, and the sample sizes are way too small and specific.
The MBTI matches are only based on the 4 main dichotomies: Sensing/Intuition, Feeling/Thinking, Judging/Perceiving, Extroversion/Introversion.
Following that, the best matches according to Keirsey actually include: S+S or N+N, F+T, J+P, E+I.
Which in Socionics translates to either Mirage or Semi-Duality.
(So according to Keirsey, the best match for LIE would be EII.)
Those two relations are fairly good, especially compared to opposite Quadra matches. They are probably the best relations outside one's Quadra. But the best relations are within one's Quadra, so...
P.S: Another common Keirsey favourite used to be F+F and T+T, resulting in Extinguishment matches. I was confused as to why ENFP+INFJ should be a good match, for instance; for they do not share any of the "functions". It's a crack pairing for sure, if people actually self-typed correctly; but most self-typing INFJs happen to be actually EII or ESI, and they can get along well or fine with IEE, so... Maybe that is why that fav pairing has not died off yet.
This video pretty much says everything about Socionics...
Aside from the notorious "difficulty" of "typing" someone... it seems too easy to manipulate the result, saying that when the result conflicts the theory/hypothesis, "Maybe he/she was mistyped" "Maybe it's not type-related". Which just means that when you have changed the variable/environment, it contradicted the hypothesis, so it was not related to the Socionics hypothesis.
Basically the question is... can you replicate the data? Can you say that these are so and so type and get the same result over and over again at a reasonably high success rate? (like say, at least 70% as not to leave to some random chance). Also how would you explain the all the other variables that could affect the outcome? How do we know that it's the Socionics hypothesis that was correct?
I don't believe that Socionics has ever had any kind of such scientific researches and experiments (that are now standard in psychology), which probably got carried over from Jung's tendency to not rely on any scientific researches. There are just endless... explanations for the mechanics of thoughts and behavior. But without ever testing it, it gets pretty old and lame.
Gamma SF guys are often insecure about their perceived lack of intelligence.
Beta ST women are often insecure about their perceived lack of femininity.
The biggest roadblock to Duality is the Imago.
According to Hendrix and Hunt, the human brain has a compelling non-negotiable drive to restore feelings of aliveness and wholeness with which people came into the world.
It is believed by imago therapists that a person's brain constructs an image of characteristics from their primary caretakers including both their best and worst traits. The brain's unconscious drive is to repair damage done in childhood, needs not met, by finding a partner who can give us what our caretakers failed to provide. This is why traits of a future partner often reflect our parents' traits. Our unconscious drives towards this to seek healing and to resolve unresolved childhood wounds, in order to grow.
In this way, wounds received by a person, from their parents, tend to be re-stimulated by new adult partners and potential partners. The re-stimulation triggers old, unresolved emotions. Both people in the relationship can learn how to heal one another, and appreciate each other for the person they are--and--it takes time. Couples must engage in a specific type of dialogue for Imago therapy to work. The conscious self may not be able to see and understand clearly the reflection of unresolved parental issues in his or her current marriage partner. Nonetheless, our unconscious connects with this person in its best (unconscious) effort to heal old wounds and allow love into your life again.
A lot of Fi ego types mistype as Type 4 because they feel like they "feel deeply" and are "special", and that is why they must be Type 4.
Main examples: Type 9 with a 4 fix, Type 7 with a 4 fix, and 3w4.
No, just because you feel "special" does not make you 4 core.
Deep down, 4s feel irreparably flawed, which weighs heavily on their psyche, and creates the desire to be "unique" as a way to compensate for that feeling of inferiority. If you don't have that, you are not 4.
Having said that... Just because you feel flawed, does not make you 4 either, haha. ^-^'
Every time you want to flirt with a cute conflictor - pinch yourself.
All SF of both sexes may think such. They have some base.
They keep rather childish thinking - narrow, with logical issues. Meanwhile, some may be perceived as smart (having high IQ), and those with high responsibility and ready to work hard may study good and do some serious work. But it's better for them to do what fits better to their types - so much such work (kitchen, some arts, ...).
> Beta ST women are often insecure about their perceived lack of femininity.
their femininity just fits to the level of beta FN masculinity
similar is with delta, I suspect
The Social instinct makes people more "Aristocratic" in outlook.
That's how Alphas and Gammas who are SO first or second can seem more "aristocratic" than they truly are.
And that's how Betas and Deltas who are SO last can seem more "democratic" than they truly are.
All IEI hate each other coz territory
Two Se leads hanging out is really clueless
Yes, Socionics is Pseudoscience. Does not mean it is wrong or useless, however.
But if you have a problem with that, you are free to leave... now.
Go ahead and study "scientific" Psychology, then.
But I bet with you, you'll end up missing something.
1. Learn about the Information Elements and basic dichotomies.
2. Learn about Model A.
3. Learn about +/-, according to Gulenko.
4. Learn about the Romance Styles.
5. Learn about the Quadras.
6. Learn about the Intertype relations.
Definitely disagree with this one, many IEIs I know are extremely stylish, pretty and neat in the way they are put together. Also met quite a few IEEs, EIIs and EIEs who are extremely good looking/ have an amazing sense of fashion. And I have met sensors that don't look very good/ sometimes even lack in hygiene.
Last edited by dot; 10-22-2017 at 10:34 PM.