Discussions on Gulenko's English Descriptions of Elements and Dichotomies
It's found that an English website of SHS is now opened so I viewed it fastly. I'd like to start a temporary post to discuss a bit about his English descriptions of the functions (corresponding to Model A's information elements).
----- discussions deleted.
Last edited by CR400AF; 09-14-2021 at 04:01 PM.
I think some of these descriptions are related to DCNH and not to just the function itself. I am not really sure what he means with "functional state".
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I regard "functional state" as functions. It seems that he tries to use the energy perspective such that when one is using a cognitive function (s)he is in the state. That how I understand this, so I just regard these descriptions as IME descriptions.Originally Posted by Tallmo
Should be used together with model G? As it is said (by Gulenko?) Ignoring might ring more true than the base (model G) while in reality it is left to wander its own course.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
Probably. I also noticed that in model G the demonstrative function is regarded as the creative. So that might lead to a shif of functional definitions. But I think no matter what the definitions should be in line with Jung.
But Fe is also how the person values something.
That paragraph could be both Fe or Fi. Fe is related to the values of the surroundings or society. That's why Fe types can be socially gifted, they are oriented towards these values, they seem socially adapted. Gulenko is maybe describing an exaggerated use of Fe, Jung also writes about this in Psychological types.
I ignore Gulenko's terminiology. "Subjective" doesn't mean the same thing here as in Jung's writings. Gulenko seems to use the word in the same sense as Jung uses Feeling.
I haven't read the Tavistock lectures.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
In Tavistock Lectures, Jung said that sensing, thinking, feeling and intution are ectopsychic functions (external). While there are four endopsychic functions (internal): memory, subjective components of conscious functions, emotion and invation. After Lecture I, several doctors asked Jung how to distinguish "feeling" and "emotion", Jung said that feeling is simply a rational judgemental function. He said:
Jung also said that
So he thinks that thinking types are more easily to be controlled by emotions. For feeling types who have differentiated feeling functions, they actually have control of their feelings. What Gulenko said is likely to mislead the readers to think that Fe users are more likely to be in "turbulent" states and that's the opposite of what Jung said. I know that Gulenko names the suggestive function as manipulative and this naming is also consistent with Jung but in this place it seems that he is suggesting something opposite.
Aushra hold the same view as Jung.
------------------
Yes this paragraph could be both Fe or Fi. Also his description of Fi gives me a similar feeling.
What I current understand is that F types are generally good at both Fe and Fi but they value differently. Fe values should be oriented to the environment and Fi values should be oriented to the "subjective factors".
What Gulenko said here, "an expression of perceived value for an object or a person", sounds like how one values an object (I love this object, this object is awful etc.) and seems to be a bit Fi-ish.
I'm not a F type and I couldn't claim that I'm sure about how Fe/Fi differs. I am not sure whether his descriptions are correct or not.
Last edited by CR400AF; 08-26-2021 at 04:58 PM.
Although I think generally it's not hard to differentiate Fe/Fi but I do find that their divisions are somewhat blur if solely rely on Jung's descriptions so I buy into the standard of dynamic/static. The difficulty is because that F elements are about values so it has be to related to "I" and hence it's much harder to differentiate the subjective factor from the objective ones.
As for the "values of something" I think actually Te is also possible:
1) The real value of some object. This is actually Te. It's actually a market value. It contains the current price of the materials, the price of labour works required to build the object, the price of transportation, marketing costs such as advertising etc. This "value" is actually a factual knowledge oriented to the objective environment.
2) How one felt attracted or repulsed by the object/person. I consider this to be Fi.
3) How one values the surronding atmosphere. I consider this to be Fe.
But to be sure that I find it harder to distinguish the "subjective factor" in F elements. So it seems that Fe and Fi are always together, there's no fully extraverted F since "value" itself could be considered as an archetype.
When dealing with the model, functions and elements, we have to try to distinguish them and I think Aushra's definitions are actually pretty good.
This is the interesting thing about Fe, that Jung mentions. Objects are evaluated according how they fit into the "right" formula, how they fit with general standards, or something like that. So for example, following fashion is related to Fe. Or when a girl marries a man, because he has the right background, looks, income (by commonly held standards) etc. (Jung's example).
So even though Fe tells the person how he feels about something, it is according to standards outside himself.
I hope I understood you correctly.
EDIT:
Fe in a nutshell:
Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function. (PT)
Last edited by Tallmo; 08-26-2021 at 06:44 PM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Gulenko's article on I/E dichotomy: Extroverts and introverts. Extroversion / introversion dichotomy in socionics (socioniks.net)
Psychologically, extroverts are more open people in informal communication. They understand themselves through other people. Direct self-reflection is a problem for them. Without receiving information from the outside, an extrovert feels inner emptiness. This information vacuum is more difficult to experience for them than the energy vacuum.
Introverts, when they communicate informally, automatically close off. Their inner world is protected from the intruders. They know themselves very well. They have difficulties with knowing other people. Having no external information causes an introvert to generate it themselves. It is much worse for them without external energy supply.
Yes this seems to be Fe related. But such values could also be Fi related. For instance if I'm discussing about something I prefer brand A to brand B. My friend captures my preferences because I'm more excited when talking about brand A. I think this is Fi.
If it's society oriented (fashion, common standards) then it is Fe though. So sometimes it's not easy to distinguish them solely with an expression.
I view these description more like the description of accentuation, since they are presented as plain, bare functions - not inside a model.
If Augusta is focusing on information aspects, Gulenko is showing energic states.
The "value" one sounds more like semantic issues, and when I think about F's value I think about ethical values.
And I don't buy his idea that the "if - then - else" thinking style is related to EIE & ILI and these two can be good at programming.
https://socioniks.net/article/?id=8
It's either the third layer of the type profile discussed in the article (the functional profile), or a fourth that he talks about in his book which is a temporary state one is in due circumstances (for example being in a state of Fe when in an excited crowd).
The fourth he says is not particularly relevant as it usually comes and goes through circumstance, you cannot establish a profile based on it. But I think in the OP's articles he actually means a temporary state one is in when focusing on a function.
I actually love these descriptions, I didn't know they existed.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote