This is basically the same question as why there are different types. It is a result of differentiation or specialization of the psyche. When one function is developed the complementary function gets repressed.
This is basically the same question as why there are different types. It is a result of differentiation or specialization of the psyche. When one function is developed the complementary function gets repressed.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Not really, i was thinking what is the goal of Fi if it can only be supported by Te?Originally Posted by Tallmo
There are no different "types", or at least it's not fixed at 16 types. There could be 16 different types, or there could be 5 billion different types, or this distinction is meaningless and there are no different types per se. The reason why we separate animals into different species for example, has a clear and distinct mechanistic explanations for it. We don't just say that they are different species because they look different, like different races. There's a clear reason and an explanation.
So the "reason" why there are different Socionics types, is "because we defined and separated them that way" or "that's what we observe". There are no clear explanations.
There are no "goals" in evolution. Perhaps at best, you could say that it has adapted to certain things.
Of course. Or a common typology is actually 2 types: men and women. But im talking about the socionics/jungian types now. These are based on a certain phenomenon. This is a socionics forum, I cant constantly repeat what i mean with "the types".
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Well sure, and when we ask why there are men and women, then we can answer: because having men and women allow for sexual-reproduction, which its act diversifies the genes, which is advantageous for adapting to the changing environments. And of course, you can explain that there are biological differences. But there is no explanation for why there are 16 types. Of course, Socionics is not an explanatory model.
You could say that Socionics is an "instrumental" model, as in it is only treated as an "instrument" for being able to predict something. We're not interested in why this or that or whether there's a proper explanation for it. Could separating people into 16 types better able for us to predict people and their relationships? Maybe yes, maybe no. But there are drawbacks to not asking the question of "why". Without asking the question of "why", we just assume that certain things to be true, and it doesn't allow the model to progress from there, by being able to come up with new problems to solve, by being asked the question of "why".
Last edited by Singu; 06-02-2018 at 09:27 AM.
Its descriptive. Socionics is based on the observation that there are 16 kinds of information metabolism. So the model describes these. That in itself is a huge achievement. The "why" is a different problem. It can be interesting though, and people are in fact thinking about it.
About "separating people into 16 types". It simply is so that there are 16 kinds of information metabolism. That itself covers only a small part of human personality, but it is a matter of experience that IM is in fact relevant or central for personality. So it makes sense to have a typology based on that. It's not that there are only 16 kinds of people though. It's just that we pick this phenomenon as the most interesting/fruitful to focus on.
The question why there are types has been asked. It probably has to do with economy of specialization. The idea is that its more efficient having specialized individuals that can concentrate well on certain limited tasks. Erich Neumann has written about this in The Origin and History of Consciousness. This is related what I wrote in my first response to Delilah.
But I've understood that you think it's very problematic to even observe these 16 types. In my experience it is possible in many ways, but I don't want to get into a debate about that now, it's really mostly a matter of real life observations for a long time. This is becoming a derail already.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote