American Socionics (Cognition, not Behavior; Jung, not aushra; VI, not conjecture)

[Kill4Me]

I just want to take a moment to reassert the battle lines I STAKED OUT before anybody else on the board started talking about. The purpose of this thread is to keep that battle line pumped up in the daily articulation and discussion of socionics, as well as to give some history on it for newer members...From an older post on 7-21-2018:

In attributing type nine to Si/SEI, socionists began invading the domain of behavior and personality. They couldn't just stick to socionics as cognition even though that was the crux of the theory. Think about it. Avoidance is behaviorally-related rather than cognition-type related...because the crux is 'to avoid', to avoid disturbing situations. To avoid is a behavior, so, thus, does not infer any particular cognition and has no significance socionically. People will vastly different styles of cognition can engage in avoidance. Yet, this was the direction Si and moreso SEI ended up becoming taken in.

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...27#post1286027

Stackemup Typology (socionics-side) as the most recent school of thought in revolutionary American Socionics (stackemup typology, smilexian socionics, socionix), besides developing what the Russians were chasing after for decades, as in, valid VI templates for every socionics type and subtype, also began the shift back into socionics as cognition. Russian Socionists, mainly Aushra and her students, aside from refusing to give Jung his proper due as the pioneer, father and definer of all the functions used in Socionics, also began invading the domain of behavior in their formulation of socionic definitions.

I am the one who first identified that and also staked out a one-man battle line against it.

Any time you see somebody making that criticism, that socionics is not behavior but cognition (on the assumption that discussions inn socionics routinely invaded the domain of behavior), just note I was the first on the board and on the internet who routinely argued and staked that battle out. See date and content of above-referenced post of mine...I can produce a lot more if I was so inclined from even before that date. But nobody else claiming that position can produce a post prior to that date articulating that same battleline.

I may be rotten to the core, but I still get credit for being the first in time to frame that fight, to fight that battle, to prosecute that end like nobody beofre or since. It doesn't mean that there can't be other people who do a damn good job taking that fight up and make a career out of it, but remember, I am the General on that one.

Right guys, that's a key difference between American socionics and Russian Socionics. In Russian socionics (the aushra specturm*), they don't want to give Jung credit for being first in time to identify and define the functions. In American socionics, people who deserve the credit get the credit, so we give Jung credit for being first in time to identify and define the functions because he was the first in time to identify and define the functions.



*Gulenko after a study and in a published paper committed heresy among Russian Socionists by finally conceding that socionics traces back to Jung.

[QueenTiger666]

Proof?