Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Jung vs. Socionics

  1. #1
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    589
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung vs. Socionics

    For those of you that’ve read Jung, what are your thoughts on his function/type descriptions and their differences from those of Socionics? (Those who haven’t but would like to, read mainly Chapter 10 of Psychological Types. gen.lib.rus.ec should have a digital version.)

    It could be that there are just simply fewer translated Socionics resources available in English to account for the variations ( @Sol , any thoughts?), but I have a few thoughts swimming in my head, which I haven’t quite worked out into a clear/unified understanding yet.

    Firstly, Jung’s descriptions disproportionately emphasize the neurotic aspects of each function. This is probably consequent of his life work’s being generally about neurotic people. So this seems to have colored his descriptions in such a way that you’d get a pretty different understanding of functions.

    Secondly, he seems to generalize excessively from the examples of one or two people he seems to have in mind. Though he lays out a framework for base types to have an auxiliary type, he doesn’t go too deeply into this, and I think it’s clear that in his description e.g. of a base-Ti type he was only thinking of an LII, not an LSI; his main theme on Ti seems to be the pursuit of an idea, which I’m not sure LSIs would relate to very much (LSIs, please weigh in). Similarly I’m guessing that he had ESEs in mind when writing his Fe description. So maybe his functions aren’t quite refined.

    I’m starting to get tired, but the final point I can think of currently is that Jung regards the equivalent of Socionics’ super-id block pretty negatively. There’s not really any idea that people appreciate these functions in others; only that they use them unconsciously and primitively. I wouldn’t get the impression, from Jung’s descriptions, that people would at all appreciate these functions in others, or even consciously value them in an abstract sense at all.

    And the obvious difference of course is that Socionics is pretty much all ITR, while Jung, like the MBTI, talks more about individual personality and all that.

    Edit: in the same vein Socionics F is exclusively about relating to others. Almost no real feeling to it. Jung takes a more personal understanding. Might elaborate more if people are interested. Too tired to think anymore right now.
    Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 07-16-2019 at 01:21 PM.

  2. #2
    a two horned unicorn renegade Heretic 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Logical supermacy torturing So(u)ls
    TIM
    ILE-C-I
    Posts
    4,664
    Mentioned
    198 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ni: IEI, EIE (that being said LII's have reacted with similar bafflement like Jung to my own "Ni" language. Therefore it is quite possible that it could include process orientation of Ne)
    Ne: IEE, LIE
    Fi: EII?
    Fe: ESE
    Ti: LII, ILE
    Te: LSE. ILI
    Si: SEI?
    Se: SEE?
    Last edited by Heretic 007; 07-16-2019 at 08:25 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Groucho Marx
    I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.


    Due to Fi PoLR do not send PM's, please. 50/50 likelihood to get a reply if I'm going to even read your messages. Let's keep things public.

  3. #3
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Firstly, Jung’s descriptions disproportionately emphasize the neurotic aspects of each function"

    Yeah, that and there are a whole bunch of differences in how he describes each one individually. I wrote about the Fi one here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...72#post1333172

    Jung also was looking at behavior and didn't have the concept of information metabolism. Not to mention that his writing style is a bit opaque to begin with.

    For Si:

    He says it's the "subjective portion of perception", which is very vaguely true but his example (a painter choosing to represent what he sees in a certain way) is not clear at all. He doesn't mention comfort, pleasure, health, or homeostasis, all of which are themes of socionics Si.

    Then he goes off into Ni land with it...

    But it
    makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to
    it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned
    with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images,
    with primal possibilities of ideas. The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective
    perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for
    whom the [p. 500] subjective factor has some meaning. To another, a reproduced subjective
    impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object; it
    seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. Subjective sensation apprehends the background
    of the physical world rather than its surface. 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. Such a
    consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and
    momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which
    was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the
    present moment is improbable.
    This idea of Si "apprehend[ing] the background of the physical world rather than its surface" is exactly opposite to socionics, because in socionics Si is external and therefore deals with what is apparent and immediate, despite being introverted. This is a subtle distinction that Jung can be forgiven for missing. But it seems he turned it into a kind of Ni. MBTI is actually closer to Jung on this point.

  4. #4
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    For those of you that’ve read Jung, what are your thoughts on his function/type descriptions and their differences from those of Socionics? (Those who haven’t but would like to, read mainly Chapter 10 of Psychological Types. gen.lib.rus.ec should have a digital version.)
    I remember posting it on wikisocion a long time ago: http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...ological_Types

    Firstly, Jung’s descriptions disproportionately emphasize the neurotic aspects of each function. This is probably consequent of his life work’s being generally about neurotic people. So this seems to have colored his descriptions in such a way that you’d get a pretty different understanding of functions.
    He makes the point that the descriptions should be treated as Galtonesque portraits—idealized extremes not to be applied literally, but meant to focalize their essential distinctions.

    Secondly, he seems to generalize excessively from the examples of one or two people he seems to have in mind. Though he lays out a framework for base types to have an auxiliary type, he doesn’t go too deeply into this, and I think it’s clear that in his description e.g. of a base-Ti type he was only thinking of an LII, not an LSI; his main theme on Ti seems to be the pursuit of an idea, which I’m not sure LSIs would relate to very much (LSIs, please weigh in). Similarly I’m guessing that he had ESEs in mind when writing his Fe description. So maybe his functions aren’t quite refined.
    Some are better than others. Aushra's IE descriptions can be criticized just the same, as we're all contextually bound by the limitations of our own type & firsthand experience.

    Jung regards the equivalent of Socionics’ super-id block pretty negatively. There’s not really any idea that people appreciate these functions in others; only that they use them unconsciously and primitively. I wouldn’t get the impression, from Jung’s descriptions, that people would at all appreciate these functions in others, or even consciously value them in an abstract sense at all.
    No, he touches on duality and the imperative to bring these functions out of shadow consciousness (else one fall victim to compensatory neuroses).

  5. #5
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    This idea of Si "apprehend[ing] the background of the physical world rather than its surface" is exactly opposite to socionics, because in socionics Si is external and therefore deals with what is apparent and immediate, despite being introverted. This is a subtle distinction that Jung can be forgiven for missing. But it seems he turned it into a kind of Ni. MBTI is actually closer to Jung on this point.
    He's talking about its subjective nature. Si (EFD: Explicit Field Dynamics) is perceptually tangential the external world, relatively unconcerned with apprehending it objectively.

  6. #6
    Haikus thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,113
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    He's talking about its subjective nature. Si (EFD: Explicit Field Dynamics) is perceptually tangential the external world, relatively unconcerned with apprehending it objectively.
    Subjectivity has several associated meanings. It could mean 1) your relationship with something as opposed to how it is in itself or 2) something is fuzzy or up for debate and you could change your mind on it.

    #1 is Si, #2 isn't. People may find different temperatures comfortable or uncomfortable but there is no debate as to whether something is making you uncomfortable. It's a fact of your experience.

    #1 is about introversion (in particular FiSi), #2 is closest to internal.

  7. #7
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,151
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung versus Socionics is a bit like comparing the observations of Galileo to Bohr's model of the atom; in both comparisons, the latter is a derivative of the former and neither is correct..........

    a.k.a. I/O

  8. #8
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    589
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mfckrz View Post
    No, he touches on duality and the imperative to bring these functions out of shadow consciousness (else one fall victim to compensatory neuroses).
    Thanks, you’re right. My bad; my brain must’ve given out.

  9. #9
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,317
    Mentioned
    228 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    For those of you that’ve read Jung, what are your thoughts on his function/type descriptions and their differences from those of Socionics? (Those who haven’t but would like to, read mainly Chapter 10 of Psychological Types. gen.lib.rus.ec should have a digital version.)

    It could be that there are just simply fewer translated Socionics resources available in English to account for the variations ( @Sol , any thoughts?), but I have a few thoughts swimming in my head, which I haven’t quite worked out into a clear/unified understanding yet.

    Firstly, Jung’s descriptions disproportionately emphasize the neurotic aspects of each function. This is probably consequent of his life work’s being generally about neurotic people. So this seems to have colored his descriptions in such a way that you’d get a pretty different understanding of functions.

    Secondly, he seems to generalize excessively from the examples of one or two people he seems to have in mind. Though he lays out a framework for base types to have an auxiliary type, he doesn’t go too deeply into this, and I think it’s clear that in his description e.g. of a base-Ti type he was only thinking of an LII, not an LSI; his main theme on Ti seems to be the pursuit of an idea, which I’m not sure LSIs would relate to very much (LSIs, please weigh in). Similarly I’m guessing that he had ESEs in mind when writing his Fe description. So maybe his functions aren’t quite refined.

    I’m starting to get tired, but the final point I can think of currently is that Jung regards the equivalent of Socionics’ super-id block pretty negatively. There’s not really any idea that people appreciate these functions in others; only that they use them unconsciously and primitively. I wouldn’t get the impression, from Jung’s descriptions, that people would at all appreciate these functions in others, or even consciously value them in an abstract sense at all.

    And the obvious difference of course is that Socionics is pretty much all ITR, while Jung, like the MBTI, talks more about individual personality and all that.

    Edit: in the same vein Socionics F is exclusively about relating to others. Almost no real feeling to it. Jung takes a more personal understanding. Might elaborate more if people are interested. Too tired to think anymore right now.
    Fake socionics.

  10. #10
    mfckrz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    292
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Subjectivity has several associated meanings. It could mean 1) your relationship with something as opposed to how it is in itself or 2) something is fuzzy or up for debate and you could change your mind on it.

    #1 is Si, #2 isn't. People may find different temperatures comfortable or uncomfortable but there is no debate as to whether something is making you uncomfortable. It's a fact of your experience.
    Yes, I adhere to definition #1 re: 'subjectivity'. And I think the Socionics & Jungian construals of Si are largely correspondent.

    #2 is closest to internal.
    I agree Internal is fuzzier (or implicit). Not sure about the "you could change your mind" part. Whereas Tx+Sx are demonstrable—i.e. facts of observation, experience, or explicative inference.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, I adhere to definition #1 re: 'subjectivity'. And I think the Socionics & Jungian construals of Si are largely correspondent.
    Jung used a unique, non-traditional definition of subjectivity. He defines the "subjective realm" (i.e. the "realm" of subjective information, which would be pertinent to introverted functions in his system) as such
    When I speak of interpreting a dream or fantasyon the subjective level, I mean that the persons or situations appearing in itrefer to subjective factors entirely belonging to the subject’s own psyche.As we know, the psychic image of an object is never exactly like the object—at most there is a near resemblance. It is the product of sense perceptionand apperception (q.v.), and these are processes that are inherent in thepsyche and are merely stimulated by the object. Although the evidence ofour senses is found to coincide very largely with the qualities of the object,our apperception is conditioned by unpredictable subjective influenceswhich render a correct knowledge of the object extraordinarily difficult.Moreover, such a complex psychic factor as a man’s character offers onlya few points d’appui for pure sense perception. Knowledge of humancharacter requires empathy (q.v.), reflection, intuition (q.v.). As a result ofthese complications, our final judgment is always of very doubtful value,so that the image we form of a human object is, to a very large extent,subjectively conditioned. In practical psychology, therefore, we would dowell to make a rigorous distinction between the image or imago of a manand his real existence. Because of its extremely subjective origin, the imago is frequently more an image of a subjective functional complex thanof the object itself. In the analytical treatment of unconscious products it isessential that the imago should not be assumed to be identical with theobject; it is better to regard it as an image of the subjective relation to theobject. That is what is meant by interpretation on the subjective level.
    He says it's the "subjective portion of perception", which is very vaguely true but his example (a painter choosing to represent what he sees in a certain way) is not clear at all. He doesn't mention comfort, pleasure, health, or homeostasis, all of which are themes of socionics Si.
    It seems to be more of something similar to an intuitive function, probably Ni. He describes it as leading to a perception of physical phenomena as though one had seen something that no one else did, that it mixes physical perception with archetypal imagery, and implies that that mix does not blur one perception of reality but rather is percieved as separate from it (unless in extreme psychotic cases). So it's a kind of mental imagery. So Ni.

  12. #12
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,130
    Mentioned
    150 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung and Socionics refer to the same thing. But Jung is a phenomenologist who isolates the content of the function and describes it in great detail. Jung is also very advanced as a phenomenologist.

    If you isolate a specific kind of consciousness it is gonna sound very strange when described, because it is literally not of this world. You have to keep this in mind when reading. Jung gives us a very introverted and "psychic" view of functions, like describing "psychic matter".

    I don't agree with those who say that Jung is describing Ni under Introverted Sensation. It is clearly Si, if you know what Si is.

    Socionics merely gives examples of Si, and nothing wrong with that, but Jung dives right into the experience of Si. If we look at the world it has objects, shapes, colors etc. but then there is an additional thing, the fact that objects seem to have a "character" or "quality" about them. Jung describes this in various ways, I'd like to say that the objects seem "impregnated" with something. This is the subjective, "archaic" factor that Si is. For a SEI or SLI this is just "how things are", but in order to get to the core of Si one has to separate the impression from the objective world and look at it in isolation. I notice this when working with extroverted people for example or when I am forced to push through my own sensations to deal with the raw object.

    Si is impressions. Even though they feel as belonging to the object, Jung shows that they are part of the subject. It is an archaic coloring from the unconscious that gives "depth" to objects and the whole experienced world. This has nothing to do with intuition, but it is connected to the unconscious so there is a certain fascination to it. You could almost say numinosity.

    For SEI and SLI the challenge is to even become aware of this because when you're standing in the middle of Si, or "swimming" around in it, you have a hard time distancing yourself from it enough to see it.

    Jung has a good example of Si vs Ni

    Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case.
    One important thing: Si comes with unrelatedness to the object, so some of the things that Socionics link to Si could actually be explained by this, calmness, balance etc. Jung does a great job sorting these things out and focusing on Si.
    Last edited by Tallmo; 07-28-2019 at 06:55 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •