Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
What's your problem now? You need continuous admiration or what?

Sorry to burst your bubble, where I clicked constructive, I clicked it regardless of who posted that post. It wasn't personal admiration of you.
Must've went over your head on that. It doesn't make a difference who posted it.

You clicked the constructive for the information posted. I stated that Peterson is a dead ringer for Ti based on Jung's description and then posted excerpts from Jung's description of Ti.

I don't know how you managed to misinterpret my post this much. I was talking about the issues with MBTI's function model, not about the issues with Jung. Because you were pretty much using MBTI logic in your post.
Well the only logic in my post was that Peter's story described Te based upon Jung's description of Te and in the aspect of model A, creative Te. That's typological reasoning in socionics since Jung is a primary resource on the functions. MBTI and Socionics both branch off from Jung although each have aspects that make it unique from the other. You will recall that I used the same logic on the Jordan Peterson thread when I posted Jung's description of Ti and said it was a dead ringer for Jordan Peterson. I note that you didn't state it being MBTI logic then. Also, an hour before you made the post to me on this thread, you notified me on another thread to let me know that I was an idiot over something having to do with me typing you ILE.

But sure, Jung isn't god.
He is certainly not a God. However, his descriptions are the primary resource for understanding each function, so it's essential to know if you're interested in Socionics. As far as Socionics goes, Jung's descriptions have a permanent place in the theory. Keep in mind that the chosen names for the functions are Fi, Ne, Te, Si, Se, etc. It's one thing to make elaborations upon Jung for sound reasons. Updating Jung because what Jung says doesn't fit the way some people type themselves or some set of possibilities you want to explore is not a sound reason for doing so, and by updating, it doesn't mean throwing Jung away (his descriptions still inform on the basic qualities for each function). If you're just going to make up your definitions for these functions, you would do better to rename them and start your own typology system.

Some of his stuff is ok, some of it needed an update.
Well, if anybody can grasp the possibility for a Socionics without Jung it's you. I would expect you to want to 'innovate' socionic concepts including descriptions for the functions to fit with your own personal vision of Socionics.

Also, I think you just can't recognize LSIs, you retyped both me and peteronfireee...

Lol and I had a good laugh at your creative word use "garble-brained".
I recognize them just fine, thanks...maybe when you can see yourself with more detachment, you will come around to it. and I haven't retyped Peteronfireee. I typed what what he described in the story as more Te-creative. I noted it sounds more Si/Te. That doesn't automatically mean he is SLI.