Aushra's comments on Socionics and Jung

[CR400AF]

Recently, I claimed that Aushra understood Jung correctly. I also searched a bit to discover how Aushra herself thinks about this topic.

Поэтому чувствуем своей обязанностью пре* дупредить, что мы ничего не придумывали, а лишь углубляли и уточняли положения К. Г. Юнга, хотя при этом некоторые из них изменились до неузна* ваемости. Происходило это при изучении конкрет* ных способов мышления отдельных людей. При этом нами, во-первых, проверено, что шестнадцать способов восприятия мира и приспособления к не* му, указанных К. Г. Юнгом, на самом деле сущест* вуют. После этого, при изучении миропонимания и реакций на конкретные факты действительности каждым отдельно взятым типом ИМ, мы расшиф* ровали конкретное содержание всех так называе* мый «первых функций» (К. Г. Юнг). Кажется, уда* лось разобраться (не утверждаем, что полностью) в конкретном содержании каждой такой функции и отражаемом ею аспекте мира.

Machine translation:

Therefore, we feel it is our duty to warn that we did not invent anything, but only deepened and clarified the provisions of C. G. Jung, although some of them have changed beyond recognition. This happened when studying the specific ways of thinking of individuals. At the same time, we, firstly, verified that the sixteen ways of perceiving the world and adapting to it, indicated by C. G. Jung, actually exist. After that, when studying the world outlook and reactions to concrete facts of reality with each separate type of IM, we deciphered the specific content of all the so-called “first functions” (CG Jung). It seems that we managed to understand (we do not claim that completely) in the specific content of each such function and the aspect of the world reflected by it.

This is from a book called Socionics written by her. It seems that she think she didn't invent anything but all her works are actually deepening Jung's work. Also she used the word "decipher" to describe her work.

In an article Почему Юнга трудно читать?, she said that she was researching on Jung's model instead of doing research on a person.

There's another article called Комментарий к типологии Юнга и введение в информационный метаболизм. She gave some comments on Jung's work. I translated it with several translators but it still seems to be not fully readable but I think I got her basic ideas.

She said that there were several problems in Jung's work (Psychological Types),

1) "Юнг не полностью чувствовал и не полностью передал различие между экстравертированностью ведущего психического механизма и экстравертированностью психики". I think she means that Jung discussed extraversion/introversion of people and information elements together. She wanted to define extraversion/introversion for elements and she also notes that she thinks Jung's descriptions are better for extratims. I think it has no contradictions between Aushra and Jung. Aushra is an extrovert so she just views it from a different perspective.

2) "Автор типологии ошибся, когда пытался установить, что именно составляет конкретное содержание «психических функций», которые мы назвали элементами ИМ." She thinks that Jung was wrong when Jung describe what "functions" really are. I think probably she mostly relies on Psychological Types because actually Jung also notes that the relationship between the 4 functions and information in Tavistock Lectures. Also this actually just differs in perspectives.

3) "То ли ради упрощения сложной структуры излагаемой типологии, то ли потому, что Юнг недооценивал значения второй функции, он описал свойства и некоторые поведенческие моменты только восьми типов." She complained that Jung only described 8 types instead of 16 ones. That's quite fair.

4) "Предложенная Юнгом восьмиэлементная модель, которую мы назвали моделью К, в определённой мере оказалась временной и уже отслужившей рабочей гипотезой." She said that Jung's model (Model K) is temporary and it has been replaced by Model A. I think the Model K is probably what she got from Jung's works since Jung didn't named such a model and it's fair that after a lot of working she improved the model.

For her 5th comment I didn't understand even after machine translation. It seems that she is trying to say both rational and irrational elements could lead a block. That's also consistent with Jung.

So overall I'd say that Aushra read Jung carefully and I think she believed that she understood and deepened Jung's work correctly. That's also my opinion.

Also, Aushra (ILE) is Jung (LII)'s mirror type. So she kinds of "corrects" Jung. If they lived in the same age probability they will "mutual correct" each other since they are in the same quadra, they understand each other but they hold a quite different view.

[Exodus]

Augusta was being modest - the emphasis should be on "some of them have changed beyond recognition".

The article you mentioned even has a section called "Jung's erroneous hypotheses" which begins "Some of Jung's hypotheses and propositions are clearly outdated, and they can already be replaced by others." So clearly her research was not just a mere exercise in interpreting Jung, otherwise she wouldn't have made these changes.

She also limits herself here to the overall structure of the theories and doesn't even begin to talk about the many, many differences in the specific types and element/function descriptions, not because they're not important but because they would increase the size of the article by an order of magnitude.

[CR400AF]

Augusta was being modest - the emphasis should be on "some of them have changed beyond recognition".

I dont think she was being modest. It is said.that she's not a.modest person. Also, in the first article I quoted she even said that she now understand Jung's model better than Jung. It's very "not modest" to say such things.

The article you mentioned even has a section called "Jung's erroneous hypotheses" which begins "Some of Jung's hypotheses and propositions are clearly outdated, and they can already be replaced by others." So clearly her research was not just a mere exercise in interpreting Jung, otherwise she wouldn't have made these changes.

I have commemted on the errors pointed out by Aushra and actually none of them contradicts Jung. Of course she's not solely interpret Jung, she deepened Jung. For instance as she pointed out Jung only described 8 types. Also Jung doesnt propose the theory if IR and Reinin signs.

the many, many differences in the specific types and element/function descriptions, not because they're not important but because they would increase the size of the article by an order of magnitude.

That's the main problem. Many claim that MBTI follows Jung while Aushra changed the definitions of elements. Of course she, as an extrovert, changed the perspective but she didnt change the core idea proposed by Jung. Aushra's definitions on elements are exactly the same as Jung while MBTI actually misunderstood Jung.