Animals and socionics
I'm pretty sure there's already a thread relating to this in the depths of the forum, but that was before dogs with word buttons became a (more common) thing.
Now that we're getting better at allowing animals to communicate in ways we are familiar with, does this change anything about how we might apply something like socionics to creatures different from ourselves?
Or do you think socionics is purely a human model?
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
There is nothing to use Jung types for other beings than people still.
Does anyone see their pet as having a sociotype..
Animals (mammals) do have temperaments. There is in gregarious species a certain hierarchy leaders, followers challengers. Some Animals like apes and others are capable of learning and adapt to new situations. In general Animals live in a world of interpretations , they react to what their senses and instincts interpret in the environment. Some Mammals are sentient beyond what is naturally encoded in their genes i.e. they can be emotionally attached to another being even of another species. Elephant can do art (yes, they can !) . With that said, what animals can't do (yet) is speaking and articulate symbolic language (words and Idea) but again Elephants can apparently "think" abstractly, be aware of their own mortality and performing sophisticated death rituals (yes, they can !). Now that we have a perhaps new perspective on elephants in particular and the animal condition in general I would say this : Socionics is designed for human being (psyche) and I think that it might be a good idea to try to come up with a custom Animal typologies (?) ! A system for each mammals, pets etc.. It would be a very complex task if ever possible because there are so many things to establish even before conceptualize such system...
I'm confident this frog is Ni dom.
EIE dog
The most EIE creature I've ever seen
Pavlov (experimented on dogs) used an interpretation for 4 temperaments by Galen's. He decribed those by intensity of neuro processes as excitation and reduction: strong/weak. As example, "choleric" would be: strong excitation + weak reduction.Originally Posted by godslave
Jung types are more complex categories.
Lesser developed minds should to have functions info as lesser devided and more mixed, as lesser detailed, to have lesser abbility to suppress function's info to operate in that moment by opposite function. Such mind will can to have lesser expressed types and so those as lesser seen.
Dogs may give informational signes to each other, but we don't name that as talking. The same would be with Jung types, - even if function disbalance would exist then it would be too small to notice or to have practical use.
It should be harder to understand types even for people kids, for same reasons.
Yes, I'm superficially aware about the Pavlov conditioning and the Dog experience.
Lesser developed minds should to have functions info as lesser devided and more mixed, as lesser detailed, to have lesser abbility to suppress function's info to operate in that moment by opposite function. Such mind will can to have lesser expressed types and so those as lesser seen.
Dogs may give informational signes to each other, but we don't name that as talking. The same would be with Jung types, - even if function disbalance would exist - it would be too small to notice or to have practical use.
It should be harder to understand types even for people kids, for same reasons.
Well, communication as in "exchange and transmission of informations" are at the fundamentals of biology at least from a genetic point of view. Even bacterias (of the same species) do communicate with each others. Animals are no different esp mammals. Some cetaceans like Orcas for instance, not only have sophisticated language but they also have different elaborated dialects and "accents".
Besides disbalance in behavior (related to disbalance of info what Jung type represent) should be small to doubtful to be noticed in simpler minds. The other problem is that behavior related to functional info of other species should be different too, expressed in different "language" which may be perceived by humans as anything besides what it is.
Resume
Even if Jung type would exist in mentioned dogs, - it's practically doubtful to perceive its existence and do it correctly.
What possibly - is with having good imagination to associate the seen behavior of non-humans with humans having some of types. Same as today behavior speculative methods with good imagination allow to assign any type to any human, so for dogs or fishes that would become only easier.
Sure, there is indeed a lot of projection of own subjectivity when we imaginatively interpret animals behaviors. For instance, I see a lot of people working in those Dog protection and refuge centers interpreting the behavior and emotions of dogs, "he' happy" "she's sad" "he's depressed" "she traumatized" etc.. Also, they sometimes give dogs (and pets in general) names based on their interpretation of their character or temperament. Now, obviously serious works on animals temperaments, communication and behavior (Ethology) are far more scientifically informed that what an amateur might interpret from the perspective of his or her subjective factors.
Speaking about speculative stuff, the whole sociological part of socionics is as we all know, highly speculative. For instance the Idea of Social Mission is a concept on which there will probably never be a consensus among psychologist even among Jungians. One could say that our social mission is the same as all the rest of the social animal kingdom even if social progress is inherently inscribed in the human experience. As for me, I think we're all born to be wild !
Have you heard of Koko the gorilla? Some claim she "mastered" sign language; others are doubtful. See: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44576449
Then there are the dogs, cats, and even birds and rodents who are being trained to use word buttons to communicate. There's currently an ongoing research study "to determine whether, and if so to what degree, non-humans are able to express themselves in language-like ways."
https://cclab.ucsd.edu/studies-for-pets/
https://www.theycantalk.org/research
As far as I've seen, few of the animals involved in these learning experiments seem capable (willing?) to string together more than 3 or 4 words per phrase, though, which makes complex idea transfer harder to achieve. (Koko was said to have put together up to 8 words at a time.) That said, some animals seem to refer to dreams, understand time (before, after, yesterday, tomorrow, etc.), and creatively combine already-learned words to express different concepts unprompted by their teachers ("Upstairs water" = bath, "stranger ouch" = "I have a thorn in my foot", "tug talk" = conversation, etc.). With the help of the always-on/button-activated cameras used in the aforementioned research, animals can be seen going to their buttons when the humans are nowhere near and pressing buttons in apparent attempts to either communicate or simply narrate their experiences.
Furthermore, in terms of temperament, I've seen a pattern where more nervous animals seem somewhat more likely to try to use buttons to communicate. And I do definitely think that animals in the same species can have different personalities and temperaments.
All that to say, while I suppose "language" might need to be defined a little more for these purposes, we have managed to get animals to communicate their own ideas and feelings to us humans using human-centric means, aka words. So I would file that under talking and using symbolic language.
I realize that trying to apply a (already hotly debated) model of human information processing to animals is fraught with perils, not to mention probably not worth the time and energy. But it's interesting to me as we pry open the doors more and more to what and how our fellow creatures are thinking and processing that we might find additional similarities to ourselves while also learning new ways of seeing things.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Good point ! I forgot to mention that I consider Hominidae (great apes) as a special case (they play in the Major League like us ahah !). I've always been amazed about what they can do and I know that even if they can't talk like us (because of physiological reasons) they surly can communicate with us. I mean 97 to 98 % genes in common with chimpanzees com'on ! Who cares about FOXP2 at this point ahahah !! Great post !
Edit : Yes dogs, cats and birds are amazing too !!
Lack is the Muse of all Poets
Some trained monkeys may do _primitive_ talking with a few words. Much worse than 2-3 yo people.
As I've pointed - even if Jung type may to be (while it's not obligate) - it's doubtful to be noticed in a behavior due to lesser expression and different compared to people forms of expression in a behavior.
It's same as you'd tried to understand a language of wild monkeys and then to compare it with one of human languages. It's different levels of complexity - alike "moo-moo" and Shakespear's book - Jung type would be close to zero balance compared to common among people (it needs stronger mind to be able separate info related to functions close as people do). Besides you'll need to make a research for concrete kind of animals (or even a group among same kind) how their behavior can be linked with some function (it's problematic task itself).
For people Jung types are alike psyche disorders. They could appear in expressed format not long ago. Mb when people have mixed with other homo branches too much, what could lead to arise of psyche anomalies. Language possibility in today complex form could appear in last 100k years - as a side effects of the problem to have something for better control of crazy relatives.Complex language has allowed to keep and transfer info with efficiency what gave more complex art, creativity, faster technical progress than ever before. And it's when Jung type could appear, in times of complex language. It's doubtful to happen earlier than last 100k years - the signes of technological and creativity boost were not before. There was step by step developing, but also was a boost in recent 100k years - near time people started mass migrations.
There was Porshnev hypothesis how complex people language has appeared. He thought it was a reaction against pathological behavior which became a problem when ancestors of homo sapience have met other homo (alike neanderthalensis and others) in last 100k. What I say is a variant of his idea application.
As Jung type can be thought as a _disorder_ so it most possibly absense for other kinds, even if those would have mind level comparable to people (while they are doubtful to have such).
In sum, there is no practical sense to think about Jung types for animals. Hard/doubtful to get such data and possible expected types are not well expressed.
Yes, animals have sociotypes. They have a "racial" sociotype, and then they also have an individual sociotype (not sure if every type of animal though). This is what made me realize that they have souls, and perhaps of the same quality as humans (which could suggest the possibility of inter-species reincarnation, which is what Hindus believe).
Now this makes me wonder what the "racial sociotype" is for a human..
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
waking this post up to weigh in from my part. i think i'm unbiased enough to have a relevant opinion.
@lavos there's no eternal truth to a species, species itself is a human construct; any evaluations someone makes to characterize a generalization of a set of species-members most only be relative. that is, there are no species-types--the point of the types and the quadra are that cultures can act biased in any of the 4 or 16 ways and these are all characteristic of the comprising members.
@OP of course all animals have types, and i like the stipulation that different individuals may have different levels of differentiation. i wouldn't be so quick to allege that nonhumans have more simple brains, tho, they're just tuned to process different types and patterns of info. based on jungian theory i suppose anyone who has an ego necessarily has an unconscious and therefore the attitudes of e and i imposed on their various information elements?
in cats i have seen some individuals who clearly display spatial intuition and conditional thinking, and who are precise with their body movements and their communications. have seen others who are not in control of their body, meow for emotive expression, and who are unable to learn and resolve environmental stressors. one cat was afraid of cars without ever interacting with them, and another only became afraid after getting run over once, and then she took months of rehabilitating until she would cross the street, and now she's no longer irrationally reactive, but just proactively keeps away from cars in motion.
in dogs i have seen clear thinker/feeler dichotomy, with some being more into the pursuit of their own agency and others being more into the pursuit of good vibes. and have seen dogs with more sensory concerns, dogs with play concerns, dogs with nervous trauma whose owners consistently exacerbate the symptoms and never give the dog tools for trauma deconstruction...
perhaps i wish society was more straightforward but whatever; i guess we're all destined to live in cycles of sickness and unease.
Read the Novella A Boy and His Dog by Harlan Ellison. You can find it streaming on youtube for free.
Socionics and animals belong ❤️. They're both LIE.
(My name is Yon Yonson,
I live in Wisconsin.
I work in a lumber yard there.
The people I meet as
I walk down the street,
They say "Hello!"
I say "Hello!"
They say "What's your name?"
I say: (My name is Yon Yonson...
All posts licensed under the GNU General Public License. Some rights reserved.
Frog from Chrono Trigger is LII.
More Magic.
(My name is Yon Yonson,
I live in Wisconsin.
I work in a lumber yard there.
The people I meet as
I walk down the street,
They say "Hello!"
I say "Hello!"
They say "What's your name?"
I say: (My name is Yon Yonson...
All posts licensed under the GNU General Public License. Some rights reserved.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
