Jung, Socionics whatever

[Myst]

@Sol So I'm gonna put my post here in response to yours so it's not off topic in the Peterson thread.

I doubt in this as Jung had the opposite opinion, while Augustinavichiute's arguments are not better.

Exactly what opposite opinion of Jung's are you referring to?

You mean one of the possible interpretations of his writings as in: Dominant function being of one attitude (I or E), and the Auxiliary/Tertiary/Inferior being of the opposite attitude? This is just one possible interpretation by Jung followers. Jung himself never specified his theory to this degree of detail. There is actually another interpretation claiming the Auxiliary is of the same attitude as the Dominant because Jung mentioned that idea too somewhere. These were not finalized ideas is all we can say for sure. Socionics elaborates more here wihout having to contradict Jung since he never made this part of the theory proven and fixed.

> that ID is unconscious

Strong function can't be called as unconscious with the Jung's understanding of functions. It's better to use other term, for example "shadow".

Actually Jung doesn't claim this. Show me where you think he does.

All he claims is the conscious Dominant function is abstract pure information and sometimes an Auxiliary function can serve up partially abstracted pure information too (hence also conscious) but the one that is of the same function dichotomy as the Dominant function but of opposite I/E attitude should be unconscious because Jung stated that the Dominant function's I/E attitude is what makes up the attitude of the consciousness. The fourth strong function is not discussed anywhere, it gets "lost" in the debate about what I/E attitude the Auxiliary may have.

So e.g. Ti-dominant Sensing type will have basically quite unconscious Te and at least partially unconscious Se and Si but more unconscious than conscious according to Jung, by default. However if someone develops their Auxiliary a lot, optionally, it's possible to make it somewhat conscious. Jung did not flesh out this part of the theory tho', only Socionics did. Jung does not really say for sure whether this Auxiliary would even be Se or Si. I'm personally the version that developed their Auxiliary into consciousness enough and it fits me alright in both theories, and it happens to be Se and not Si, sure. According to some Socionics views (Talanov test) the conscious Creative function isn't that terribly strong though by default (so not very conscious or focused on beyond a point*) so that's in line with Jung.

*: To elaborate: by default it's subordinated to the Base function and "channeled" by it and not very conscious without it. But it's possible to go beyond that and make it conscious optionally like I said above, it serving up its own information content partially abstracted away beyond just what the Base function gives to it to serve the Base function's cognition and agenda.

> try on LSI and see if that part of the theory works better then.

Te and Si are not neither non-valued, nor unconscious for me. It's the common content of my mind when I think about important.

So you say all of Ti, Te, Si and Se are conscious for you?

For me personally Si can get conscious a bit but not for long. Te can't really. I mean the action oriented Dynamic logic, and that's not simply being about being objective. And sure Ti and Se are conscious enough.

> Also the PoLR concept fits me great.

I've given the explanation why this may look so. You may to have harder problems in suggestive region, but lesser notice them directly. They may even manifest through distortions of more conscious functions. But if you'd solve the problem on suggestive level, some problems in other regions "magically" would disappear.
For example. LSI feels shame (Fe) for something and this makes him more suspicious (Ne) to other people in general. So you see a paranoid dude and try to explain him "all is ok. the world is safe" - this will not work, as the real reason is deeper in his unconscious shame. You dig in his soul and find that the dude blames himself for something doing in a not worthy way, explain him that it's lesser bad than seems for him or help him to solve the situation - and then magically notice the dude became lesser mistrustful to people.
The problems hardest to be solved can be in suggestive function. It's what Jung thought. As he dealed with neuroses he should practically see where the hardest problems people have. The annoying issues you have with polr can be lighter and lesser stable than the ones in suggestive region, in case the suggestive indeed is the least conscious like Jung thought.
The other reason for looking polr as the weakest - as suggestive is valued function people may lesser try to ignore info and norms there. LSE may look as more polite compared to SLE. This mb not because Fi in SLE is weaker, but because SLE want lesser care about that - may easier understand the feelings of others but lesser want to take this into account.

Actually I find the problems caused for me by Ne PoLR are bad while insidiuous af. I am really good at ignoring the PoLR but it gets in the way anyway. Thanks to Socionics, I managed to discover its influence in my life and figure out some ways to counter it. I find this a very important development for myself actually. Easiest to counter it though is just by being around EIE, unfortunately this is true lol.

Examples of the PoLR issues (and example solutions) I put in spoiler.

A few typical ways it gets in the way insidiously (unnoticed): 1. when I'm set on my course and something comes up without me ever really considering possible outcomes beforehand (my default), and gets in the way, 1a. I get either really pissed (which isn't always cool, I can act rash and get more in my own way with that sometimes, depending, or at least it isn't always an efficient route) 1b. and/or get disoriented too. When I get disoriented I don't even notice this, because I am just focused on trying to reorient lol, and I can waste time "running around" with it. 2. Being unreceptive to some suggestions from people, 2a. sometimes this is a problem in practice too if the perspective would've actually been relevant and useful. 2b. The Ne PoLR unreceptiveness can cause interpersonal conflicts too ...except with EIE, apparently.

Some of the solutions: for 1a. for important matters try to stop and think and see some possible bad outcomes (ew), and be prepared by simply being focused on the fact that they may happen plus also preparing a basic response sometimes. For 1b. I can stop and recognize the state I am in (Ne PoLR state) and then consider better methods to waste less time. 2a+2b. Stop and try to "fall into" (not under conscious control) deeply reflective Ni mode and let the inner thread of the suggested perspective or other input come to me. Etc. +1 Just dualize with EIE lol and then no problems

As for the Fe shame thingy in your example: I don't relate. I respond to shit with hostility back at the person way more easily than with shame. I see zero point in shame, it leads nowhere. That is, I'd rather orient by what I myself think, not by what other people think of me. Self-respect > shame.

Also... I don't find digging in the soul solves Fe issues efficiently for me lol. Fe is extraverted after all... digging that much just brings out Fi too much after a while. Being around EIE does solve many of the Fe issues, or just simply being around fun engaging people (positivity is a good thing but I don't mind some negative emotions either, can be engaging in a kind of interesting way if not directed at me - I'll just get engaged plus also get into problem solving). No big trick there really. Sometimes it is necessary to dig into my Ni stuff yeah, to sort out some stuff about Fe too but usually no big trick is needed. So yeah in this way Ne is not less of a pain in the ass. Overall Fe can be a pain in the ass too but it's not a bigger pain in the ass than Ne.


Oh also Jung did not say that the Inferior function was the most unconscious. Nope... The Inferior function is the gate to the unconscious but not wholly unconscious itself. This is in line with Socionics theory, too. In line with my own observations of myself etc. The Shadow beyond the Inferior is unconscious yes. But that goes further than the Inferior function.

As for LSE/SLE: nah I find they are polite in different ways. Fe HA of SLE can really make for a lot of nice attentiveness that you can call polite in the sense of it being nice. LSE is just less random so they are more consistently polite in some ways sure but they don't always care to do the same kind of nice emotional attentiveness that SLE can do in cases where LSE fails to, in my experience.

> I don't want to use MBTI notation for Socionics.

As it's the same Jung's typology and preferences/dichotomies are correct in MBT - it's possible. And good to help accept the Socionics for the ones which already know MBT.

> The lowercase letters are the Socionics notation

As types in MBT and the description of this dichotomy is identical - it's wrong to use another notation for it like it's not.

No, not wrong. I prefer not to mix up official notations causing further confusion. Thank-you.

This goes from the position that types in MBT should be converted in J/P for Socionics theory. It's wrong. In other case you should to get P in dichotomy tests and LSI (with Ti and Se in ego introverts) I know should be lesser organised.

Yeah the j/p switch crap is wrong

[Myst]

Socionics is data, not a hypothesis. Just like Big 5 is data, and not a hypothesis. Socionics is based on observations. Is that not objective data? An EII is an "observed fact". Model A is an "observed fact".

A hypothesis is a conjecture, a guess. It's another way of saying, "This is what would happen, or what would look like, if we suppose that this is true".

You might say that Model A is a hypothesis, but I don't think that it is. They're also based on observations, they're just more detailed observations of each types. For instance, "I observe EIIs to be such and such a personality. I observe within EII, he shows a lot of Fi, thereby I call Fi the most frequent observation, which I shall call it Fi Base Function. I observe Ne the second most, thereby I call Ne the second most frequent observation, which I shall call it Ne Creative Function. I observe EII show Se the least, and painfully accept Se, thereby I call it his weak point, thereby I call it Se PoLR. etc...".

The conscious/unconscious part may be a hypothesis.

"Information Metabolism" is 100% a hypothesis.

Socionics has both data and hypotheses. Who told you otherwise?

Here's an example of testing BTW here (copypasting here):

Comparing the way of explanining of behaviour by more core concepts of the theory such as Extraversion vs by crazy unprovable (actually falsified) nuances "Bold Se".

"But yeah what I said above, is what I find works out much better in reality. At least it's not as quickly falsified. If I try to use these more nuanced assumptions like "bold Se" without anything directly necessitating such, it all falls apart very quickly once I try to observe if there is any consistency to it in reality. In general, when verifying the idea of "boldness" of functions, in one situation x thing seems to get explained by the "boldness" of a function, but the same thing in the next situation isn't explained by it or I'd have to continually retype people, which again obviously would very quickly lead to inconsistency. So the "boldness" property of a function is not a valid thing to me. Taking this example of "bold Se", there are also problems with some conceptualizations of Se but we again disagree there heh"


As for your example on the EII whatever functional observations - it isn't simply observations, it already provides understanding beyond that. If you want me to explain more on how, I'm happy to do so.

[Singu]

Socionics has both data and hypotheses. Who told you otherwise?

Yah, that's why I said conscious/unconscious might be a hypothesis, but it's a weak one, and "Information Metabolism" is 100% a hypothesis. There's not much else that are hypothesis. However the things like Reinin dichotomies I think, are hypothesis, and hence why Sol complains that they're "heresy". Reinin dichotomies are not derived from observations, but they're entirely derived or calculated from Model A.

But a "type" is data, as in it's an observed generalization of many different people, and their behaviors and traits. The same with functions, and the same with ITR (i.e. observed personality X and Y conflicts, which we call relationship Z).

Here's how I view types: You observe a bunch of people, and some of them might share similar behaviors and traits, and we will call them a certain "type", like an EII. And if a person fits the "typical" behavior of an EII, then that's great. If they don't, it just means that the person doesn't or didn't act like a "typical" EII, at that time, but we have no idea why that is the case. It's not explicable by Socionics.

As for your example on the EII whatever functional observations - it isn't simply observations, it already provides understanding beyond that. If you want me to explain more on how, I'm happy to do so.

If you look at descriptions of functions, they're all based on observations.

[Myst]

Yah, that's why I said conscious/unconscious might be a hypothesis, but it's a weak one, and "Information Metabolism" is 100% a hypothesis. There's not much else that are hypothesis. However the things like Reinin dichotomies I think, are hypothesis, and hence why Sol complains that they're "heresy". Reinin dichotomies are not derived from observations, but they're entirely derived or calculated from Model A.

How do you mean weak?

Reinin is easy to falsify in the way they attempted to operationalize the dichotomies, sigh

As for theoretical truth to Reinin: harder to determine if there's any and if there seems to be any then harder to determine whether it's actually explained best by Reinin's maths (in my opinion no, for the same reason I reject a lot of nuances of the Socionics model(s)).

But a "type" is data, as in it's an observed generalization of many different people, and their behaviors and traits. The same with functions, and the same with ITR (i.e. observed personality X and Y conflicts, which we call relationship Z).

Here's how I view types: You observe a bunch of people, and some of them might share similar behaviors and traits, and we will call them a certain "type", like an EII. And if a person fits the "typical" behavior of an EII, then that's great. If they don't, it just means that the person doesn't or didn't act like a "typical" EII, at that time, but we have no idea why that is the case. It's not explicable by Socionics.

If you look at descriptions of functions, they're all based on observations.

It's a good thing they are based on observations lol and not just totally pulled out of the ass by speculative deductions.

"I observe within EII, he shows a lot of Fi, thereby I call Fi the most frequent observation, which I shall call it Fi Base Function. I observe Ne the second most, thereby I call Ne the second most frequent observation, which I shall call it Ne Creative Function. I observe EII show Se the least, and painfully accept Se, thereby I call it his weak point, thereby I call it Se PoLR."

These observations are already building a model. If e.g. EII has weak Se, a few consequences of that will follow. Testable, too.


Please comment on my example for testing Socionics. Thank-you.

[Singu]

How do you mean weak?

Weak as in, I don't think it makes a lot of important assumptions. It doesn't seem to matter much whether it's conscious or unconscious, but ok.

Reinin is easy to falsify in the way they attempted to operationalize the dichotomies, sigh

As for theoretical truth to Reinin: harder to determine if there's any and if there seems to be any then harder to determine whether it's actually explained best by Reinin's maths (in my opinion no, for the same reason I reject a lot of nuances of the Socionics model(s)).

I'm not saying that Reinin isn't falsifiable, but I'm saying that the entire premise of the Reinin is wrong. How are we supposed to deduce anything from Model A? I think that is only possible, if we assume that Model A is the correct model of the mind, which isn't. I don't think Socionics is supposing that Model A is the model of the mind. They're a categorization of observations.

It's a good thing they are based on observations lol and not just totally pulled out of the ass by speculative deductions.

I'm not commenting on whether it's right or wrong. But whether it's a good thing or not, well that depends. If you just want to observe and categorize things, then ok, it's good. If you want to predict things or look into the deeper underlining mechanisms or explanations of things, then no.

These observations are already building a model. If e.g. EII has weak Se, a few consequences of that will follow. Testable, too.

"Weak Se" means something like "I observe a weakness of physical abilities in an EII".

For example, this is the description of Se PoLR:

The individual tends to overreact to aggressive or confrontational behavior, taking it as a personal threat when it may only be a knee-jerk reaction or the result of a bad mood. He tends to avoid intruding on others' space or engaging in behavior that may be perceived as coercive, and tries hard to handle his needs by being disciplined and well-prepared himself - rather than relying on others to do things for him. If these strategies fail, his efforts at dealing with the resulting conflict make him look actively pushy in a way that appears awkward and unnatural to others. This opens him up to painful criticism and feelings of weakness and helplessness.

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/i...on_elements/Se

All the other descriptions of the function are similar.

Please comment on my example for testing Socionics. Thank-you.

I'm not sure how to comment on it, since I think there's a disagreement over what a type is. For me, a type isn't a theoretical construct. It's a generalization of observations of multiple people with similar personalities.

[Sol]

Exactly what opposite opinion of Jung's are you referring to?

Jung thought as the least conscious and weakest - his 4th (suggestive function), but not 3rd ("polr" in model A). For LSI in his model: Ti, Se, Ne, Fe.

> You mean one of the possible interpretations of his writings as in: Dominant function being of one attitude (I or E), and the Auxiliary/Tertiary/Inferior being of the opposite attitude?

The question I discussed is other and above. While about this one Jung said directly in "Psychological Types" and there is no reasonable basis for other understanding.

> There is actually another interpretation claiming the Auxiliary is of the same attitude as the Dominant because Jung mentioned that idea too somewhere.

To notice light possibility and to have the opinion assured enough for the usage - is different. Jung never rejected the model in PT. To say about "another Jung's interpretation", as "not fixed" - is baseless.
Also I do not know where he said that 2nd function may to have same E/I as the 1st. The citation is needed.

As there is no in model A that 8 function is stronger than 2 - this idea is not part of Socionics.
This is baseless heresy which contradicts to Jung, Augustinavichiute and my experience. I do not remember Augustinavichiute's text with such bs.
Also there are functional tests by Talanov where can be experimental proof that 2nd function by strenght has other E/I. At 1st he got other result and then said that was due to mistake in his formulas, he then showed the other results.

>> Strong function can't be called as unconscious with the Jung's understanding of functions.
> Actually Jung doesn't claim this. Show me where you think he does.

What Socionics calls as strong function is about _conscious_ abbility to use it good.
By Jung if you may to use the function _consciously_ good - it does not relate to unconscious ones.

If you read PT this should be evident for you.
You do not understand the basics of the theory.

[Myst]

Jung thought as the least conscious and weakest - his 4th (suggestive function), but not 3rd ("polr" in model A). For LSI in his model: Ti, Se, Ne, Fe.

He never claimed it with finality that this is his model, sorry.

> You mean one of the possible interpretations of his writings as in: Dominant function being of one attitude (I or E), and the Auxiliary/Tertiary/Inferior being of the opposite attitude?

The question I discussed is other and above. While about this one Jung said directly in "Psychological Types" and there is no reasonable basis for other understanding.

He did not say this clearly anywhere. If you are thinking of this idea:

"For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth. "

Well no, this does not say that it's of opposite I/E attitude. It can be of the opposite attitude based on other writings (see below too) but it doesn't say this and doesn't make it part of the definite model unlike MBTI or Socionics would. That's a big difference between Jung and these other models.

And actually what is said right away:

"Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle."

So this means the "attitude" being referred to was not the I/E attitude but the Rationality/Irrationality one.

> There is actually another interpretation claiming the Auxiliary is of the same attitude as the Dominant because Jung mentioned that idea too somewhere.

To notice light possibility and to have the opinion assured enough for the usage - is different. Jung never rejected the model in PT. To say about "another Jung's interpretation", as "not fixed" - is baseless.

I said it's just an interpretation. What you noted of Jung is also just an interpretation. "Light possibility"

I use neither in an "assured enough way". If you thought so, you failed to read and comprehend what I said. My whole point was that there is more than one way for this Auxiliary attitude to go.

See below for more on how the Auxiliary may have the same I/E attitude as the Dominant.

Also I do not know where he said that 2nd function may to have same E/I as the 1st. The citation is needed.

Here you go:

1. "His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without." (of the Extravert type)
2. "Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious."

This means that inasmuch as an Auxiliary function is conscious, it's taking on the same conscious I/E attitude as the Dominant function.


It's also said (already quoted) that the Auxiliary cannot get as fully conscious as the Dominant or it'd take over:

"As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle."

So it will have, compared to the Dominant function, a lower degree of differentiation into the consciousness with its I/E attitude, so a bigger part (relatively bigger compared to the Dominant function) is unconscious and of the opposite I/E attitude. This is in line with Socionics's idea of the Creative and Demonstrative, however, what's in conflict is that Jung would call the Demonstrative conscious instead of the Creative. I personally don't really think that there is one single answer to this issue that applies to everyone, so like I said in my observation the opposite I/E attitude can get quite a degree of consciousness too but this depends on the individual.

Note "function" here for Jung's stuff is used in a way that it never has the I/E attitude, that has to be separately considered, as the orientation of the consciousness. So it just means function dichotomy, actually.

As there is no in model A that 8 function is stronger than 2 - this idea is not part of Socionics.
This is baseless heresy which contradicts to Jung, Augustinavichiute and my experience. I do not remember Augustinavichiute's text with such bs.
Also there are functional tests by Talanov where can be experimental proof that 2nd function by strenght has other E/I. At 1st he got other result and then said that was due to mistake in his formulas, he then showed the other results.

Actually if you mean Demonstrative being stronger than Creative, that idea is very much part of Model A.

How are Talanov's tests proving that?

>> Strong function can't be called as unconscious with the Jung's understanding of functions.
> Actually Jung doesn't claim this. Show me where you think he does.

What Socionics calls as strong function is about _conscious_ abbility to use it good.
By Jung if you may to use the function _consciously_ good - it does not relate to unconscious ones.

And that (bolded) means all unconscious functions are weak in information processing? Show me the quote already from Jung that says this. You will not be able to.

But first understand the idea about differentiated vs undifferentiated function. It's not the same as weak vs strong, either.

Do you understand what Abstract and Concrete functions mean? If a function is conscious and has information abstracted into a pure form it's Abstract, otherwise it has less differentiated information, that is it will be mixed with others, and thus undeveloped, undifferentiated, or Concrete.

So, What Jung said is: "But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality."

Primitive mentality does not mean weak in the Socionics sense of the word. It just means it's not abstracted away pure information presented to the consciousness and thus not controlled by consciousness, but by unconscious influences and is not differentiated hence "primitive". Socionics's idea is that the ID functions while unconscious still handle much information easily and refined to be able to serve the needs of the conscious Ego functions. This does not mean they have to be pure abstracted away, that is, consciously differentiated information. So undifferentiated information in this sense can still be processed with high bandwidth hence strong function.

Like I said I personally find it questionable as to the I/E attitude of the conscious Auxiliary, and both interpretations seem to exist in writings (writings of Jung's direct followers e.g. Van der Hoop). That is, one interpretation is that the Auxiliary takes on the same I/E attitude that the Dominant does, see Van der Hoop here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160305...H-van-der-Hoop

And the other interpretation is Myers's and yours etc., that it's the opposite I/E attitude. Of course Myers's interpretation is based on that idea about the inferior functions all having the opposite I/E attitude compared to the Dominant but then Myers makes the Auxiliary function conscious so that's in conflict with that same idea from Jung about the inferior functions heh.


More quotes here:

"In a general way, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the process of psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual behaves invariably in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological happenings may be observed, in which the mechanism of introversion is concerned. A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree."

Inferior =! Auxiliary, but some people did want to interpret it that way.

And then some people did try to see if the Tertiary has an opposing I/E attitude or the same as the consciousness and the Dominant function. Again various interpretations exist about that.

Then Jung says "the inferior functions also possess a slight degree of consciousness".

Which can be interpreted to mean that they have a consciously aligned I/E attitude that's same as the Dominant's though to a smaller degree than their unconscious opposing I/E attitude. And then it's 8 functions at this point and not just 4, but Jung never definitely organizes these 8 functions at all for us to be able to say if PoLR is weakest or not in his theory.

Also there are various aspects here about what could be interpreted as weak vs strong that need to be made distinct. 1. Degree of being conscious vs degree of being unconscious/Degree of repression 2. Degree of influence in unconsciousness. 3. Degree of being differentiated/abstract vs undifferentiated/concrete-mixed Etc.

For the PoLR function when checking for it in Jung's model, in terms of 1st option it makes the Tertiary (PoLR if of same I/E attitude as Inferior but there are different interpretations on this too... in which case it would be the Mobilizing function) stronger than the Inferior (or Suggestive), but this is in terms of degree of influence in consciousness. Since it's less repressed. Now for the 2nd aspect, Jung makes the Inferior (or Suggestive) clearly stronger than the Tertiary (PoLR or Mobilizing depending on interpretation of the I/E attitude), as Jung elaborates on how the Inferior function gains much power in the unconscious. There is also something about how the Tertiary (PoLR or Mobilizing) is serving up stuff for the Inferior much like the Auxiliary serves the Dominant. Again that would mean Tertiary is weaker in an aspect than the Inferior function: it has less influence in the unconscious. As for 3rd aspect, Jung makes no further differentiation in terms of degrees there. Both are just mostly undifferentiated.

None of this is directly corresponding to the idea of strong/weak function in Socionics. In Socionics that means ability or lack of ability to process information in nuanced ways. The one thing that's clear in Jung's theory that was discussed is that the Inferior does have a very not nuanced way of processing so yeah that one is weak while the Dominant and Auxiliary or Auxiliaries are of course strong.

Socionics also states that the opposing I/E attitude of a strong function will still be strong because it relies on that opposite attitude too to do good processing. Jung never said anything that would contradict this, good luck showing such a thing. This is also despite him saying that the opposing I/E attitude of the Dominant cannot be a conscious function. He does say one has both I/E attitudes of the function dichotomy that in one orientation becomes the Dominant, just the other side gets repressed into the unconscious to varying degrees but it doesn't mean it's weak in overall information processing or it would not be able to support the Dominant function. That function is unconscious yet can't be weak. So consider this. Your idea of "By Jung if you may to use the function _consciously_ good - it does not relate to unconscious ones" is just wrong according to all these theories you subscribe to, lol.

So yeah. If you really claim that you have both Dynamic Te logic of actions and Static Ti logic of relations conscious while one of these (Te supposedly) is the Base function as well, I really find that hard to believe, I'm sorry. How are both Ti and Te conscious for you, examples...? I doubt you can give any. But sure if you can, I'm glad to hear about it.

But as things are, you've basically just claimed that Ni as PoLR isn't as weak for you as for other LSEs and you have a conscious Ti and Se. Heh...

If you read PT this should be evident for you.
You do not understand the basics of the theory.

And you are really an idiot if you think that just because I disagree with you, it must just mean that I don't understand the basics of the theory. Lol... What are you compensating for with your incredible and baseless arrogance, seriously??? I just seriously can't believe the idiocy sometimes coming from you. It's really all the more weird because then sometimes you have lucid thoughts.

So. If you are serious here, then I honestly regret that I wasted this much time writing my above post elaborating on Jung's stuff. I don't know why I thought you'd stop and consider at least a little bit of it. Your Ne PoLR is way worse than mine, honestly, because it's coupled with unjustified arrogance when you lose your objectivity and that just makes you look really stupid and biased.

You really do switch these two modes, between objective and considered, and between biased and losing objectivity. Like the way you get to type some people a Feeling type, too, lol. That's also often really not objective.

So again. If you stop and do read and process what I said, then cool, if not then well I'm just gonna lose more respect for you. And in that case I won't bother with writing out all my reasonings to you in future, not gonna waste my time.

[ouronis]

Here's something on this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung...over_attitudes

When I read psych types, I also got the impression that the dominant and auxiliary were of the same attitude, and all other (inferior functions) were opposite, but I can't recall where it was and it would likely take more than a cursory search to find.

[Myst]

Here's something on this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung...over_attitudes

When I read psych types, I also got the impression that the dominant and auxiliary were of the same attitude, and all other (inferior functions) were opposite, but I can't recall where it was and it would likely take more than a cursory search to find.

It's not any of the Jung quotes as above (they are italicized in the above post of mine)?

[Muddy]

I sincerely thought my eyes were playing tricks on me when I saw @Myst as the thread author. Myst, starting a thread. Wat?

[Myst]

I sincerely thought my eyes were playing tricks on me when I saw @Myst as the thread author. Myst, starting a thread. Wat?

Wanted to avoid too much off topic elsewhere and found no relevant thread for this topic.

[ouronis]

It's not any of the Jung quotes as above (they are italicized in the above post of mine)?

I think there's some overlap, but the link offers its own perspective.

[Bertrand]

Here's something on this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung...over_attitudes

When I read psych types, I also got the impression that the dominant and auxiliary were of the same attitude, and all other (inferior functions) were opposite, but I can't recall where it was and it would likely take more than a cursory search to find.

yeah I think model G handles this nicely

[Singu]

It's pretty sad that they're still arguing over the "interpretation" of what Jung said or didn't say, when they should be focusing on whether it actually matches with reality or not.

[Myst]

It's pretty sad that they're still arguing over the "interpretation" of what Jung said or didn't say, when they should be focusing on whether it actually matches with reality or not.

It's pretty sad that you make these assumptions on what others are or are not focusing on. Your assumption crap is actually getting very annoying.

[Singu]

It's pretty sad that you make these assumptions on what others are or are not focusing on. Your assumption crap is actually getting very annoying.

Well that's what it said on the Wikipedia article.

[squark]

It's pretty sad that they're still arguing over the "interpretation" of what Jung said or didn't say, when they should be focusing on whether it actually matches with reality or not.

Well, although I don't think the discussion regarding Jung necessarily fits this, a lot of arguments tend to come down to confirmation bias, with people becoming more convinced of what they already believe. I agree with the quote from this LINK:

In order to make informed decisions, people need to be able to consider the merits and weaknesses of different opinions and adapt to new information. This involuntary, ‘reflex-like’ tendency to consider things we already believe in as being true, might dampen our ability to think things through in a rational way. Future studies could explore how other factors, such as acute stress or liberal or conservative viewpoints, affect this tendency to accept or reject opinions in a ‘knee-jerk’ manner.

The trick is to recognize this in yourself before you recognize it in other people. If you can do that, and so can the other person, it becomes a discussion and trading/exploring of ideas instead of an argument, imo. I also think that when you see very argumentative people, always involved in long, drawn-out arguments that it may be more about "winning" for them than it is about learning. So, it's good to keep in mind that you might have two very different agendas.

Also, I think we can all get into that mindset sometimes, and that's where stubbornness can really set in, because it becomes about defending one's ego:

The correlations indicate that people with a strong need to win as compared with people who like to perform well or like difficult tasks tend to have poorer coping skills (e.g., tend to engage in denial and become behaviorally and mentally disengaged when stressed), tend to see the world as more hostile (e.g., “it is a dog-eat-dog world”), tend to have an entity view of intelligence/skills (e.g., intelligence is fixed), tend to view the route to success as coming from such things as modeling and appearance.

In addition, people with a need to win tend to have poorer self-esteem (SE) and tend to be lower in hope (HOPE) than people who like to perform well (PW) and people who like difficult tasks (DIFF). These results are consistent with the idea that people with a need to win tend to have an ego orientation whereas people who like to perform well and who like difficult tasks tend to have a mastery orientation.

[Tigerfadder]

Here's something on this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jung...over_attitudes

When I read psych types, I also got the impression that the dominant and auxiliary were of the same attitude, and all other (inferior functions) were opposite, but I can't recall where it was and it would likely take more than a cursory search to find.

I found MBTI mentioned a few times in that article, "Many, however, have found Jung's writing to be ambiguous, and those who study and follow Jung's theories (Jungians) are typically adamant that Myers is incorrect.", but never Socionics.

[chemical]

I think the best reading of Jung would put him as thinking dom/aux are in the same attitude. However, this is a very loaded statement, and it's true his ideas are kind of all over the place here/open to different interpretation.

The basic thing about Jung in Psychological Types is he thought of the attitude as belonging to the conscious or unconscious, not to a function. So it was more like your introvert/extravert attitude and your dominant function gave your conscious orientation.


The whole Ti, Te, etc thing is a lot more modern a development -- Jung did allude to the idea that the combination of thinking-extraversion, thinking-introversion etc yield some definite peculiarities, looking very different, and so on, in Ch. X. But a lot of non-Ch. X Psychological Types is just about the 2 attitudes introversion/extraversion separately as orienting consciousness.


In terms of the auxiliary, Jung's remarks leave open some possibilities, in the following sense: on the one hand Jung says 1 function alone can be conscious and have absolute sovereignty. On the other, he is fond of referring to the top two dom/aux as the conscious functions -- and this is the best explanation of why he types Nietzsche as both an introverted intuitive (Ch. III) and introverted thinking type (ch. X). Indeed, it wasn't infrequent in his later writings that he'd loosely refer to someone who is, say, introverted + with auxiliary feeling, as an "introverted feeling type".

However, it's clear his remarks on the '1 function alone' leave open the idea of what the auxiliary's attitude really should be, because if he's thinking of the attitude of a function as resulting from its consciousness (+ the fact that consciousness is either introverted or extraverted), you'd think the fact the auxiliary is only relatively conscious
would leave it quite open what its attitude is.
It's here that I think his ideas remain kind of unfinished, because you can't have it both ways -- do you want to regard the auxiliary as conscious or not? It seems to me Jung thought frequently enough you could think of it as a conscious function. Maybe because it pairs with the dominant. Still, I find this part is unfinished/ambiguous, and so even though I think *Jung* had a certain slant on this issue, it didn't influence too much what I thought the best perspective should be.

I tend to be happy with how socionics handled this for the most part.

[Myst]

@Sol

So you asked me earlier here:

"I offer you to follow your new appoach for the objectivity. Try to find where Jung have changed his assured opinion clearly said in PT and later claimed that now he thinks with _significant possibility_ that 2nd function in common may to have E/I like 1st one. Or where is his text which can be adequately interpreted about such his _assured_ opinion to claim about just other possible his interpretation.
Then try to find _Augustinavichiute's_ text where she says with assurance that 8 function is stronger than 2nd. There is some chance that she said an assumption for this, but I doubt that bs was said as assured opinion. I read her articles long ago, could to forget something. 2 and 8 have close formal strenght, where 2 has better skills as has more of the interest. At best there is the _possibility to develop_ ANY strong function a little better than other strong one, what is not common"

1. It's not a new approach, I don't need your condescending remarks lol.
2. As for Jung: he does not have any 100.00% unambigious CLEAR wording anywhere in his text, your opinions for interpretation of Jung are also not derived from any such CLEAR wording.

I do think it's a significant enough possibility for interpretation in that way though, this bit I already posted in my post #7 in this thread earlier:

"1. "His entire consciousness looks outwards to the world, because the important and decisive determination always comes to him from without." (of the Extravert type)
2. "Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious."

This means that inasmuch as an Auxiliary function is conscious, it's taking on the same conscious I/E attitude as the Dominant function."

3. As for Augustinavichiute, regarding 8th vs 2nd functions, you mean this text by her: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute Yes? You yourself use a more extended model* than the one laid out here so I do not see the point of your request here. Explain the point to it. (BTW, if you are familiar with some Russian-only texts of hers, well I don't speak Russian and even if google translator can finally help enough there now, I don't have access to other material. Link me to any relevant material if any is online.)
*: You use Role function concept for example, this is not in her text here. Otoh, if we are willing to dare and go beyond original Augustinavichiute texts, then according to dimensionality theory by Irina Eglit for example, 8th function is stronger than 2nd. According to common sense logic and even if going by Jung's original logic, it's pretty logical that with 8th function aligning with the introversion/extraversion attitude of the Base function, it can be stronger than the Creative function which has opposing I/E attitude.

[Myst]

I think the best reading of Jung would put him as thinking dom/aux are in the same attitude. However, this is a very loaded statement, and it's true his ideas are kind of all over the place here/open to different interpretation.

The basic thing about Jung in Psychological Types is he thought of the attitude as belonging to the conscious or unconscious, not to a function.

I have to agree that Jung made this one pretty clear... as clear as Jung would ever make things anyhow LOL

So it was more like your introvert/extravert attitude and your dominant function gave your conscious orientation.


The whole Ti, Te, etc thing is a lot more modern a development -- Jung did allude to the idea that the combination of thinking-extraversion, thinking-introversion etc yield some definite peculiarities, looking very different, and so on, in Ch. X. But a lot of non-Ch. X Psychological Types is just about the 2 attitudes introversion/extraversion separately as orienting consciousness.


In terms of the auxiliary, Jung's remarks leave open some possibilities, in the following sense: on the one hand Jung says 1 function alone can be conscious and have absolute sovereignty. On the other, he is fond of referring to the top two dom/aux as the conscious functions -- and this is the best explanation of why he types Nietzsche as both an introverted intuitive (Ch. III) and introverted thinking type (ch. X). Indeed, it wasn't infrequent in his later writings that he'd loosely refer to someone who is, say, introverted + with auxiliary feeling, as an "introverted feeling type".

True, I almost forgot that he would have these opinions of people (himself included) as having two introverted main functions.

However, it's clear his remarks on the '1 function alone' leave open the idea of what the auxiliary's attitude really should be, because if he's thinking of the attitude of a function as resulting from its consciousness (+ the fact that consciousness is either introverted or extraverted), you'd think the fact the auxiliary is only relatively conscious
would leave it quite open what its attitude is.
It's here that I think his ideas remain kind of unfinished, because you can't have it both ways -- do you want to regard the auxiliary as conscious or not? It seems to me Jung thought frequently enough you could think of it as a conscious function. Maybe because it pairs with the dominant. Still, I find this part is unfinished/ambiguous, and so even though I think *Jung* had a certain slant on this issue, it didn't influence too much what I thought the best perspective should be.

I think this is a good and impartial summary.

I tend to be happy with how socionics handled this for the most part.

Hmm yeah, well my best interpretation personally... Dominant function e.g. I+T being T(i) and then S auxiliaries with it, that's both S(e) and S(i). This is close enough to Socionics's Model A really which does take care of both 2nd and 8th functions - for Sensing in the example - as being strong functions with BOTH adding to the basic worldview of the type. Yes the demonstrative, 8th function adds to it heavily according to the Model A. This is also easily demonstrated by analysing common type profiles. In addition, the model claims Si would be unconscious while Se would be conscious, I can only interpret that as the process itself may be unconscious for Si processing, while the Se process is consciously manipulated, but regardless - with me as test subject for checking the model - I do get Si "updates", results of the process frequently enough to almost call it conscious. It's technically *not* conscious, since the process for Si information processing is not consciously manipulated. So yeah, I still accept Model A's take on it while seeing how the 8th function could be viewed as a conscious function superficially by other views, due to the frequent processing results being provided by the function and due to its quite big role in the worldview of the type.

[chemical]

Yeah, so while I think it's still unclear whether Jung thought the aux should be seen as conscious/what he even thinks that would mean....(because of two apparently contradictory uses of a function being considered conscious -- one, saying only one function is conscious/has absolute soveriegnty, and two, almost immediately later referring to the dom-aux as 'the conscious functions' a-la the practical-intellect vs intuitive feeling)...

My best guess is here's how he was thinking (without endorsing or contradicting -- for now, just getting in Jung's head)

(1) If by 'conscious' you mean capable of operating in a way that is not relative to any other function (which is what I think the absolute sovereign thing means -- that is, independent), only one is conscious. The auxiliary, he'd I think say, is operating subordinate to the dominant's principle. So for instance, with a F/N-aux, the possibilities of N might be only be cognitively seen as relevant in so much as they can support the making of value judgments.

(2) The sense in which I think he probably saw the auxiliary as conscious is if he was using the word 'conscious' to mean 'more conscious than not'

I think (1) is more related to Jung's concept of differentiated function, which is related to the idea of conscious function, in that it signifies a function not being fused with others/attaining the maturity to be independent (e.g. to not be subordinate to another). Notice you can make a more 'absolute' statement here -- that the dom is simply NOT dependent on any other function's principle. It's not a relative/vague statement.

OTOH (2), the idea that the aux is conscious, seems to me to be intended in the vaguer sense, where you define the function as conscious if it is more aligned with the conscious attitude than with the unconscious attitude


My support for this interpretation is that the time Jung says only one function is conscious, he clarifies what he means by saying there must be clear, unambiguous aims -- i.e. another function's principle should not conflict with that of the dominant.... and OTOH, when speaking of the aux being conscious, he seems to be proceeding more in the sense of someone's conscious attitude being introverted or extraverted or intuitive vs sensation: here, he always talked in degrees. That is, more influenced by the subjective factor than the outside...more influenced by the principle of intuition than by that of sensation, and so on.
Indeed, Jung didn't believe in the pure introvert/extravert/I think likely not pure types in general. Whereas the one time he does seem to speak of absolutes is the case of absolute sovereignty of the dominant, and by sovereignty I think he just means not dependent on another function when influencing the conscious functioning.

[Bertrand]

one function is dominant

auxiliary is just auxiliary in the colloqiual sense of the word--the first in service to the dominant

that any function could be made conscious is a cornerstone of Jung's psychoanalysis: "unless you make the unconscious conscious it will control your destiny and you will call it fate", etc. however that doesn't change the fact that one must always be the default go-to lens, which is dominant, and default go-to assistant which is aux. inferior is simply that which must be repressed in light of the dominant

[chemical]

Yeah, so the above is using 'conscious' in sense (2), I think. That is, the sense in which the aux is seen as conscious if it is relatively conscious > unconscious.

It would also fit with calling Nietzsche an introverted thinker (despite T being only second to N), as Jung does both in ch. III and X -- that is, if thinking is more conscious than unconscious in Nietzsche, and if introversion is also more conscious than unconscious, then for Jung's relatively dichotomies way of thinking of the 8 combinations Ti/Te/Se/etc, this would make him more of an introverted thinker than an extraverted one.


Personally, I think the subtlety in all this is that the only unambiguous thing to speak of consciousness of is the dominant. It's not (without further specification) clear what it means to call the aux conscious.

There are basically two directions to go: either the operating-true-to-your-principle direction or the relatively-more-conscious-than-not way.
It seems to me the true-to-principle in the case of the auxiliary is already a complex issue, because there seem to be two ways it can do that. First, it can pair with the dominant -- this is the way it can be raised most to consciousness because then it is operating seamlessly within the conscious agenda.
Second, it can operate opposed to the dominant, because here, say if the dom is irrational, the aux gets to oppose that irrational principle and go with the rational.

Now, it is my sense that the second of these corresponds to the demonstrative/seems to be more autonomous to the ego. Whereas the first of the two options seems to be where it would remain in the ego block.

There's a little leap here, which is that one might think it's odd that it's the extraverted version of the auxiliary that sits in the ego block. After all, in the case the aux is operating seamlessly with the dom, why not do so in the dominant attitude? Here, however, there is a sense in which I appeal to the similarity between e/i complementing and p/j: If in Jung, a P-function attains the most consciousness when paired with a J-function successfully, and remains relatively inferior otherwise, rather than attaining consciousness through autonomous operation of P, an analogous thing may as well be true of e/i (after all, it seems indispensable for cognitive processing to behave as if there's not only an information processing system, but also an environment being processed).

[Bertrand]

right the aux has to be something that can operate with the dominant, i.e.: it cannot extinguish it (be of the opposing attitude) or be repugnant to it, i.e.: an antithetical form of rationality. so Ti base can go with Se or Ne aux, but not Te Fe or Fi. The reason why it cannot be paired with Si or Ni is more complex, but the short answer is: it can and it does, because the creative function is such that it synthesizes both attitudes when used as auxiliary


the attitude of the creative function is more an indicator of quadral values than how the internal monologue plays out, for example ILI is directed by Te, but thinks internally as Ti and perceives externally in terms of Ni. LII thinks externally in terms of Ti and perceives internally in terms of Ni. In other words, LII views the world as governed by laws whereas ILI is more archetypes and other irrational images and subsequently only thinks internally, whereas LII sees those same images as originating in oneself and not the world and manipulates them, whereas ILI manipulates the logic arising out of those images. in the final analysis both are highly subjective introverted processes, but its the sense of primary/secondary that one's values and hence how fits in with others is explained. Fe base for example gets along better with someone who sees the world in terms of laws because it compliments extroverted feeling, whereas extroverted thinking simply competes with it, thus instead of a complimentary relationship flowing from how they naturally think a conflicting relationship tends to develop

this raises all sorts of questions like why can't Fe be aux to Ti dominant, and the answer is that Ti and Fe are the same thing, so implicit in Ti is Fe and in Fe is Ti, and that when one is used as auxiliary to the other it is known as "self dualization" which is when you supply your own suggestive function to yourself, which can happen. the reason the "stack" is not Ti Fe Si Ne is simply because as a matter of time one cannot develop both sufficiently such that one is 4d and the other 3d, but what is possible is in irrationals you can have one be 3d and the other 2d, so ILE has Ti Fe in the middle, and this is to say that it can supply for itself Fe in greater quantities and more often than LII, but the consequence is Ti can never truly dominate, and is therefore in the flexible and creative position rather than the more rigid dominant position, and that is a consequence precisely of the greater Fe input. in other words, as soon as you start to generate your own suggestive function in sufficient quantities you are by definition nudged into a different type. its not that it can't be done, its that space is covered by a different type. a better question would be can you change type and if not why not. the reason you can't simply be good at all things all at the same time is just a basic premise of type, that type is precisely the "fall" from that situation into differentiation, a kind of irretrievable finitude thrust upon us at birth and childhood

[Myst]

one function is dominant

auxiliary is just auxiliary in the colloqiual sense of the word--the first in service to the dominant

that any function could be made conscious is a cornerstone of Jung's psychoanalysis: "unless you make the unconscious conscious it will control your destiny and you will call it fate", etc. however that doesn't change the fact that one must always be the default go-to lens, which is dominant, and default go-to assistant which is aux. inferior is simply that which must be repressed in light of the dominant

Some of the results of the inferior function's processing can be made conscious, yes. But the process itself... not really. And even those results, if they do not come up on their own, it takes a long time with an indirect approach to get to some more of such. Very true though, the bolded. Incredibly well put actually.

[Bertrand]

I say its a cornerstone of Jung's analysis because that's a Jung quote. understandably one cannot become %100 conscious because that would simply explode everything

[Myst]

I say its a cornerstone of Jung's analysis because that's a Jung quote. understandably one cannot become %100 conscious because that would simply explode everything

I do realize you were quoting that bit, yes. It's not something emphasised in Socionics, though, sadly, it focusing way more on interpersonal dynamics instead.