Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Model A in the theory of Associative socionics

  1. #1
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,661
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Model A in the theory of Associative socionics

    Hello, everyone!
    I hope you will be interested to watch my video about model A and related topics like energy metabolism, Freuds model and TPE model. Please, ask questions and critics if you have any!

    https://youtu.be/bc92FkVqriA

    https://www.slideshare.net/Tangemann...tive-socionics
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  2. #2
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,504
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    So, Aushra did nothing significant with either Model A or the Functions. Aushra only combined Kepinski with Jung. Neither Aushra nor Aushra's lackeys have any say over the definitions for Jung's functions which is the driving engine of socionics.

    I get a kick out of this movement to try and give Aushra credit for giving Soiconics its substance.

    I note in one part you "commentary on jung's typology." Let me REMIND, this is Jung's typology/ J.U.N.G.

    Ne, Ni, Se, Fi, Fe, Te, Ti are all Jung's functions. Jung published his book and these function were well-researched, well-documented and well-published longer before Aushra came along. Aushra is a goddamn intellectual lightweight compared to Jung and Kepinski.

    This is Jung's definitions, Jung's fucntions and Jung's book on the functions controls.

    Jung's functions give socionics the substance it needs to make for a viable typology.
    Gulenko conducted tremendous amounts of time and research into early Model A socionics and concluded that Aushra got her ideas and definitions about the functions from Jung. Aushraites can keep changing the deifnitiosn until they are blue int he face. That's hwy they're fake socoinics.


    Socionics has its origins in Jung....its a branch of Jung. MBTI is the other branch.

    Jung, Not Aushra...is a core teneet of American Socionics. Aushra took Jung's functions and definitions and fit them into model A (which she got from Kepinski's ideas).

    Furthermore, I note you trying to downplay Jung yet again by saying his typology came from Freud.

    tthe functions have nothing to do with freud. Augusta got the names "ego, id, superego" from Freud.

    so hey, in a sense she combined Jung, Kepinski and Freud. She's quite the juggling act.

    YOU WILL REMEMBER that Socionics is nothing without Jung. Aushra simply studied Jung, studied his functions and said "Oh gee wouldn't it be cool if I combined Jung with Kepinski)"

    That's great, but you don't get to then turn around and PERIPHERALIZE Jung! American/USA Socionics 2020 is not going to let that happen! Not on my watch!! Not this guy!!!
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 04-06-2020 at 01:58 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
  •