Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Jung's discussions on Introversion (about Si and MBTI vs Socionics)

  1. #1
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    156
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Jung's discussions on Introversion (about Si and MBTI vs Socionics)

    So I find a few new posts on MBTI vs Socionics, redefining Si etc. What I think is that the key to this problem is to understand introversion. In my opinion, Aushra understood it correctly. So here is some quotes from Jung's Psychological Types, Chapter 10.3.1 "General Description of the Types -> The Introverted Type -> The General Attitude of Consciousness".

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    the introverted is distinguished from the extraverted type by the fact that, unlike the latter, who is prevailingly orientated by the object and objective data, he is governed by subjective factors
    Here Jung states that extraverted functions orients towards objects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Although it is anticipating somewhat, I consider that point of view which inclines, with Weininger, to describe this attitude as philautic, or with other writers, as autoerotic, egocentric, subjective, or egoistic, to be both misleading in principle and definitely depreciatory.
    Here Jung is against describing introvesion as subjective, egocentric and egoistic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    But what is the subject? The subject is man—we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject,
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    As the subjective factor, then, I understand that psychological action or reaction which, when merged with the effect of the object, makes a new psychic fact. Now, in so far as the subjective factor, since oldest times and among all peoples, remains in a very large measure identical with itself—since elementary perceptions and cognitions are almost universally the same—it is a reality that is just as firmly established as the outer object.
    Here Jung talks about the subjective factor and emphasizes that it remains largely unchanged for all people since oldest times. So introverted elements are actually not that personal. As far as I'm concerned this is where common MBTI stereotypes fail to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    The introverted attitude is normally governed by the psychological structure, theoretically determined by heredity
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    it is rather the psychological structure of the subject that precedes any development of the ego. The really fundamental subject, the Self, is far more comprehensive than the ego, because the former also embraces the unconscious, while the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness
    Here Jung states that introverted elements are governed by the psychological structure which precedes the dev of the ego. He talks about the Self, which contains the unconcious. One of Jung's most significant discovery is the collective unconciousness. In my opinion this is highly related to introverted elements. Actually, Jung also talked about archetypes, primordial images and collective unconciousness in this section and he confirmed that the psychological structure is indeed that collective unconciousness:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    The psychological structure is the same. Semon has termed it 'mneme',[2] whereas I call it the 'collective unconscious'.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Since earliest times, the inborn manner of acting has been called instinct, and for this manner of psychic apprehension of the object I have proposed the term archetype.
    Archetype: the inborn manner of psychic apprehension of objects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things.
    -------------------------------------------------------

    So, Jung's Si is not about personal sensations. Isn't Se also personal? The key is that introverted elements are processing information from the perspective of collective unconsciousness while the extraverted elements focusing on the objects themselves.

    In my opinion, Aushra understands Jung's ideas correctly and she redefines Jung's ideas in a more extraverted manner. This is understandable as she is an ILE while Jung is LII. Jung's definitions and descriptions are somewhat introversion-centric. Also, she studied economics in a country with superb mathematical education and she worked with many people who studied math or physics. So in my opinion, the Socionics definition contains two parts. The first one is a mathematical definition which is a 3-dimensional vector space spanned by basis {external/internal, object/field, dynamic/static}. The second one is accurate examples such as comfort (Si), force (Se), logic (Ti) etc. But the ultimate meaning of the definitions is that they help us to understand Jung.

    Another good quote from Jung in the section "Introverted Feeling":

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    In order to communicate with others it has to find an external form which is not only fitted to absorb the subjective feeling in a satisfying expression, but which must also convey it to one's fellowman in such a way that a parallel process takes place in him. Thanks to the relatively great internal (as well as external) similarity of the human being, this effect can actually be achieved
    Jung described how Fi information conveys among different people. I think this sentence is very useful to understand introverted elements.

    In my opinion, Socionics definitions are exactly the same as Jung since Aushra successfully captures what Jung tries to convey for introverted functions. However, she redefined it in an extraverted manner. She defines that introverted elements are about "fields", "relationships". This is exactly the same as Jung's "psychological structure", "collective uncounsciousness".

  2. #2
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    3,219
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Great post! I agree with what you say and I will comment later when I have more time. I think your post is a very high quality contribition to the forum discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post
    So I find a few new posts on MBTI vs Socionics, redefining Si etc. What I think is that the key to this problem is to understand introversion. In my opinion, Aushra understood it correctly. So here is some quotes from Jung's Psychological Types, Chapter 10.3.1 "General Description of the Types -> The Introverted Type -> The General Attitude of Consciousness".



    Here Jung states that extraverted functions orients towards objects.



    Here Jung is against describing introvesion as subjective, egocentric and egoistic.





    Here Jung talks about the subjective factor and emphasizes that it remains largely unchanged for all people since oldest times. So introverted elements are actually not that personal. As far as I'm concerned this is where common MBTI stereotypes fail to understand.





    Here Jung states that introverted elements are governed by the psychological structure which precedes the dev of the ego. He talks about the Self, which contains the unconcious. One of Jung's most significant discovery is the collective unconciousness. In my opinion this is highly related to introverted elements. Actually, Jung also talked about archetypes, primordial images and collective unconciousness in this section and he confirmed that the psychological structure is indeed that collective unconciousness:





    Archetype: the inborn manner of psychic apprehension of objects.



    -------------------------------------------------------

    So, Jung's Si is not about personal sensations. Isn't Se also personal? The key is that introverted elements are processing information from the perspective of collective unconsciousness while the extraverted elements focusing on the objects themselves.

    In my opinion, Aushra understands Jung's ideas correctly and she redefines Jung's ideas in a more extraverted manner. This is understandable as she is an ILE while Jung is LII. Jung's definitions and descriptions are somewhat introversion-centric. Also, she studied economics in a country with superb mathematical education and she worked with many people who studied math or physics. So in my opinion, the Socionics definition contains two parts. The first one is a mathematical definition which is a 3-dimensional vector space spanned by basis {external/internal, object/field, dynamic/static}. The second one is accurate examples such as comfort (Si), force (Se), logic (Ti) etc. But the ultimate meaning of the definitions is that they help us to understand Jung.

    Another good quote from Jung in the section "Introverted Feeling":



    Jung described how Fi information conveys among different people. I think this sentence is very useful to understand introverted elements.

    In my opinion, Socionics definitions are exactly the same as Jung since Aushra successfully captures what Jung tries to convey for introverted functions. However, she redefined it in an extraverted manner. She defines that introverted elements are about "fields", "relationships". This is exactly the same as Jung's "psychological structure", "collective uncounsciousness".
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)

  3. #3
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    3,309
    Mentioned
    275 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post
    In my opinion, Aushra understands Jung's ideas correctly and she redefines Jung's ideas in a more extraverted manner.
    I think this is right.

    Here Jung talks about the subjective factor and emphasizes that it remains largely unchanged for all people since oldest times. So introverted elements are actually not that personal. As far as I'm concerned this is where common MBTI stereotypes fail to understand.
    I think this is often not understood even on this forum.

    I agree with @Tallmo; this is a good contribution. Thanks.

Posting Permissions

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