Socionics For Dummies

[Singu]

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.

[Exodus]

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.

Source?

Even if this is true, I'd like to think Jung would be insightful enough to see more value in socionics than MBTI.

[Singu]

Source?

Even if this is true, I'd like to think Jung would be insightful enough to see more value in socionics than MBTI.

Well first of all, Jung thought that types weren't static, they changed throughout the course of time.

Psychological type is nothing static — it changes in the course of life.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/0...-face-to-face/

And second, he wasn't a big fan of "labeling people" and rigidly categorizing people, citing to be a "childish parlor game"

... 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://www.businessinsider.com/myers...leading-2014-6

Jung: Even in medical circles the opinion has got about that my
method of treatment consists in fitting patients into this system
and giving them corresponding “advice.” . . . My typology
is far rather a critical apparatus serving to sort out and organize
the welter of empirical material, but not in any sense to
stick labels on people . . . . It is not a physiognomy and not an
anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with
the organization and delimiting of psychic processes that can
be shown to be typical.

Although there are doubtless individuals whose type can be
recognized at first glance, this is by no means always the case.
As a rule, only careful observation and weighing of the evidence
permit a sure classification. However simple and clear
the fundamental principle of the [opposing attitudes and functions]
may be, in actual reality they are complicated and hard to make out, because every individual is an exception to the rule.

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.

[Sol]

Well first of all, Jung thought that types weren't static, they changed throughout the course of time.

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.

The G in Model G stands for God.

Not in his native language which is Russian.