What is Wrong with Socionics? (And Also Model A)

[jason_m]

This is a very basic thing in Jung's typology. When you develop something the opposite thing will push into the unconscious. It is related to general balance and dynamics of a system (in this case the psyche). Thinking and Feeling, Sensing and Intuition are opposites on some basic level. If you sense something you have to concentrate on the obvious, concrete, and that goes against the basic nature of intuition, etc.

This creates the basic compatibility patterns as the "lost" unconscious function can be provided by the partner and thus balance is restored.

This I notice, but in a slightly different way from Jung. For instance, when watching a ball game, I can: 1) attend to my own inner thoughts or 2) watch the game. The problem is: is attending my inner thoughts Ni or Ti or Ne? Is watching the game Se or Si?

Also, there are times when I am very analytical (i.e., logical function) and when I am very abstract (i.e., intuitive function). However, I find I cannot use both functions at the same time...

The point: there might be some slight differences to what Jung proposes and how one's psyche really works. i.e., in his model, feelings should be submerged when thinking or using analysis, but this is not what I find...

Conclusion: there might be some deviation from his model. (Big deal. Jung is not hard science. Life goes on...)

If you really want to learn, then read more. Try Psychological types.

I have owned that book for years. I remember trying to read it in high school (in the 1990s), and having very little grasp of it. I then reread it in the last few years and my conclusion was that Jung was presenting a tentative hypothesis about the way human personality works - similar to Jordan and Spitteler, and therefore the conclusions in the book should be seen as hypotheses as opposed to hard facts... (But that is just my opinion.)

EDIT: (Way off topic) but if there is a book I would recommend to the forum even more it is called: 'Does God Exist?' by Hans Kung. The man who writes it is a theist, but he provides really good arguments for both theists and atheists in the book. You also get snippets of both Freud's and Jung's theology in it. Freud is a clear atheist, and both Jung and Freud have something very interesting to say about the existence of God. And if one is going to read it, there is a lot of extraneous background information in each chapter. Just skim that and get right to the big arguments. That is the 'meat' of the book... The book is valuable to me because the author presents really clear arguments in the book that support both sides - as opposed to providing one-sided arguments. And although his conclusion is that there is a God, one could easily read the book and draw the opposite conclusion. This is all way off topic, but in my eyes, the book is an outstanding example of 'Ti' - abstract, clear, unbiased, logical thinking - but of course, not everyone is going to agree...

EDIT2: a great place for books in general - google search 'Books to Borrow' and 'Open Library'.

[Tallmo]

Is watching the game Se or Si?

I don't think watching the game requires any specialized function at all.

feelings should be submerged when thinking or using analysis, but this is not what I find...

Thinking types can have feelings, or primitive use of the feeling function. That's different. But differentiated, conscious use of the feeling function is another story.

Conclusion: there might be some deviation from his model. (Big deal. Jung is not hard science. Life goes on...)

People have all kinds of secondary developments, subtype etc. Jung knew this.

I have owned that book for years. I remember trying to read it in high school (in the 1990s), and having very little grasp of it. I then reread it in the last few years and my conclusion was that Jung was presenting a tentative hypothesis about the way human personality works - similar to Jordan and Spitteler, and therefore the conclusions in the book should be seen as hypotheses as opposed to hard facts... (But that is just my opinion.)

Jung simply noticed that there are psychological functions in the psyche that follow some patterns and can be used to formulate a typology. It's not a theory of personality, because personality is so much more complex, but a practical way to classify people.

[Singu]

I don't think watching the game requires any specialized function at all.

Thinking types can have feelings, or primitive use of the feeling function. That's different. But differentiated, conscious use of the feeling function is another story.

Jung simply noticed that there are psychological functions in the psyche that follow some patterns and can be used to formulate a typology. It's not a theory of personality, because personality is so much more complex, but a practical way to classify people.

Well see, the problem with Socionics and all the other Jungian-based systems is having this illusion that we are "utilizing" functions. Such as "We are 'using' Si to watch TV". But what all functions are doing is that they're referring back to observations. Functions are descriptive categorizations of observable external behaviors, not an exploration of explanatory logic hidden underneath the surface that ultimately drive behaviors.

You can't describe the programming source code by just observing the behavior of the software that appears on the screen. You can only describe the source code by well, looking at the source code. And even then, that requires the understanding of the overall logic of the source code, which ultimately can't be observed.

So what is the "source code" of the human mind? It's the logic that drives human thoughts and behavior.