Jung and Socionics

[Metamorph]

What do you think about the relationship between Jung and socionics? I think that Aušra's descriptions of the functions seem to bear no resemblance to Jung's. On the one hand, that's kind of a good thing, on the other hand, I've been really interested in looking into the non-typological aspects of Aušra's theory since those seem like the only interesting part in the first place. Jung's typology was always just part of his program to try to normalize things like spirit mediums, astrology, tarot reading, alchemy, etc. and basically just magic. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having paranormal beliefs, but Jung's are clearly a lot less interesting than, say, William James' work in parapsychology, since Jung was basically just like "that sounds mystical, I'm going to do it. Demons? Got tons of them! Betelgeuse Betelgeuse Betel..." while William James was actually a trained European intellectual. At least with Freud you can look at other people at the time who had similar ideas, Jung's typology looks like it's just a smokescreen for the things he really wanted to waste his time on, much like how people tend to disappointingly use this site. At the same time, MBTI is getting acceptance, but where in MBTI are Ni-doms mediums and spiritualists, and where are Te-doms only people who work on Jeopardy? The makers of MBTI and socionics seem not entirely intellectually honest and this seems like a problem since some of their ideas are really interesting. I think their ideas are actually quite easy to trace the source of when you look at it closely, but the authors themselves still seemed kind of dishonest.

[Squirrel]

I've been thinking for a while about the difference between Augusta's description of Se and Jung's description

(This is a deviation from the topic, apologies, but I see this as the right place to post this )

From Jung's definition of Se :

On the lower levels, this type is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them—that is his constant aim. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, his lively capacity for enjoyment makes him very good company; he is usually a jolly fellow, and sometimes a refined aesthete. In the former case the great problems of life hang on a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, it's all a question of good taste. Once an object has given him a sensation, nothing more remains to be said or done about it. It cannot be anything except concrete and real; conjectures that go beyond the concrete are admitted only on condition that they enhance sensation. The intensification does not necessarily have to be pleasurable, for this type need not be a common voluptuary; he is merely desirous of the strongest sensations, and these, by his very nature, he can receive only from outside.

From Augusta's definition of Se :

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will. He is a born organizer of anything. He has the ability to mobilize people to achieve a goal and is able to make use of and manage animate and inanimate objects. Is able to work with things (objects) and reproduce almost any objects based on available samples. This is a reflection of his ability to organize material. These people are known for their striving to materialize their will, energy, and power, and for their desire to impose their will on others.

Jung describes Se itself with an E7 or E9 version

Augusta describes Se combined with Te + an E8 version ( maybe an E3 too ?)

In socionics, a person who relates only to Jung's version will often be typed as Si ego

Although I personally think Augusta's definition is rather bad, I've met people who fit her definition just like I've met people who fit Jung's, it's really rare that I find people who combine both definitions.

Personally, I use Jung's definition, because I find it closer to Se itself

[Metamorph]

Personally, I use Jung's definition, because I find it closer to Se itself

Personally, I think both MBTI and socionics try to fix Jung's perceiving functions. Jung's perceiving functions were useless and he himself defined them as useless, but he was also 1. trying to rebel against ideas of social usefulness by making them 2. said people's types could change. I just think MBTI and socionics are disingenuous for doing so, because it's really clearly obvious what Jung's motivation was, and MBTI and socionics are just disagreeing with Jung, yet not admitting it. I disagree with Jung, but I also don't do that and then go off to make a typology based on his.

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

just 2 words "extraverted thinking" have so much meaning and implications on their own. u can describe the same thing in different ways. its not possible for the same thing to be a different thing. they are not different systems. they involve 16 types with function blocks lead by main function and creative/auxilliary function. just this has its own implications as well. u cant change it from system to system. u can use different ways to systematize the same thing but when u say Te lead with Ni auxialliry its the same thing always no matter what in each system. now everyone's an individual so u can have LIE Ni or LIE C and LIE who is more like SEE and LIE whos more like LII but they are still LIE no matter what and u can have someone whos close between 2 types but then they aer that and it doesnt change from system to system. the system is a system of words and descriptions, experssions not content

[Squirrel]

2. said people's types could change.

There is a theory called 4 sides of the mind, it says that each type has four aspects, do you know it?

I think it's a good explanation of this sentence

[CR400AF]

Personally, I think both MBTI and socionics try to fix Jung's perceiving functions. Jung's perceiving functions were useless and he himself defined them as useless, but he was also 1. trying to rebel against ideas of social usefulness by making them 2. said people's types could change. I just think MBTI and socionics are disingenuous for doing so, because it's really clearly obvious what Jung's motivation was, and MBTI and socionics are just disagreeing with Jung, yet not admitting it. I disagree with Jung, but I also don't do that and then go off to make a typology based on his.

Ausra's book is merely a supplementary material for Jung's definitions. On the other hand, MBTI is a misinterpretation of Jung's original theory. The definitions in Socionics is mostly the same as Jung.

[Metaphor]

Jung's perceiving functions were useless and he himself defined them as useless, but he was also 1. trying to rebel against ideas of social usefulness by making them 2. said people's types could change.is.

Irrational types are useless? Ah, I didn't know that before. Sarcasm aside, this is just what it called being irrational.

[Metaphor]

There is a theory called 4 sides of the mind, it says that each type has four aspects, do you know it?

I think it's a good explanation of this sentence

That's just another typology nonsense.