Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Book in Focus Personality Type and Art Associative Psycho-Diagnostics By Olga Tangemann

  1. #1
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Aylesbury
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    1,686
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Post Book in Focus Personality Type and Art Associative Psycho-Diagnostics By Olga Tangemann

    I have been researching and studying the theory of 16 personality types for over 20 years. During these studies, I developed my own concept of a link between art preferences and the psychological make-up of people. This was the beginning of the idea of associative socionics, a model of the human psyche in the form of a butterfly and a new method for understanding personality types.

    Similar books by other authors describe artists and their work in relation to their personality types, but lack a systematic approach to interpreting art separately from the psychological type of artist producing it. This lack of a more general concept and method prevents people from identifying personality types based on their musical and artistic preferences.

    The reason for this is partly understandable. After all, some may claim that paintings and music do not possess a psyche, and hence have no personality. According to the new concept presented in this book, works of art bear the imprint of psychic energy, which can be understood and explained using the same basic criteria of the typology of 16 personality types. To understand people’s preferences in art, one should not invent new dichotomies or describe functions differently to complicate the theory and practice of typology any further.

    The uniqueness of this book is that the reader will benefit from distinguishing between the types of psychic energy present in works of art and gain insight about the stable psycho-physiological characteristics of the personality, without asking questions of a personal nature. This is the difference between this book and other books with similar titles.

    The author explains how to understand and interpret art, as well as people’s artistic preferences, using the criteria of typology. A beginner in socionics will also find in the book a description of the basic concepts of the founder of socionics, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė. Numerous illustrations by various artists and lists of favourite genres of music for all 16 types, as well as their profiles, are provided as learning materials. This makes the reading of the book both enjoyable and rewarding.

    Olga Tangemann studied at the Faculty of Foreign Languages at the Khabarovsk Pedagogical Institute, Russia, and the Faculty of Foreign Languages of the Pedagogical University of Saint Petersburg. She holds a Master’s degree in Forensic Psychology from the University of Leicester, UK, and worked as an Assistant Therapist at the Royal Free Neurological Rehabilitation Centre (NRC) at Edgware Community Hospital in London. She is the author of several articles on socionics and head of the school of associative socionics.

    https://www.cambridgescholars.com/ne...y-Type-and-Art

    Screenshot 2022-09-27 at 15.13.48.png
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  2. #2
    You better believe in conspiracies, Scrooge. Coeruleum Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Prison beneath the Moon's orbit
    TIM
    The unmarked person
    Posts
    4,970
    Mentioned
    95 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It looks like Cambridge focused your book, cool! I always found your theory interesting, because it makes intuitive sense (an oxymoron?) to me, but I think it might be unpopular because of dualism people have sadly. I think the idea of something like associative socionics or any kind of empiricism in psychology or cognitive science presupposes that mind is part of nature or nature is part of mind or both are part of something else, and this implies a kind of determinism many people are extremely uncomfortable with applying to human beings. That has been my impression from following various fields such as mainstream psychology, linguistics (especially linguistics,) sociology, and artificial intelligence. So sadly the most interesting sciences end up being the most neglected since it just seems to hit too close to home. Additionally, there is often a celebrity effect. In linguistics people are distracted by Daniel Everett who has made a lot of money and become very famous saying less than nothing and basically undoing all the progress that has been made, and in socionics it looks like there are certain celebrity figures that have a similar impact though I don't want to point fingers or name names here.



    For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
    — Richard Feynman, Rogers Commission Report, on the Challenger disaster.

Posting Permissions

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