Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Differentiating Ti and Te. The type of Gulenko.

  1. #1
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Differentiating Ti and Te. The type of Gulenko.

    I've noticed some recent discussions about the Te feature. At the same time, when I tried to analyze the source of the problems in Model G, and therefore read again several articles written by Gulenko, I realized that he could be a Te-Leading type, for which I make a brief note in this forum.

    This post contains 3 parts: 1) Jung's texts; 2) Comments on Model A description (I have once said that Model A provided wrong examples for Ti. Actually it's also somewhat problematic for Te. Bad namings also). 3) Comments on G's type.

    Part I: Jung's comments

    Jung made it very clear that the Ti function and the Te function may have the same content. The only criterion to distinguish them lies in the value orientation of the criterion of judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, Psychological Types
    Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education. So in judging whether a particular thinking is extraverted or not we must first ask: by what criterion does it judge—does it come from outside, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is the direction the thinking takes in drawing conclusions—whether it is principally directed outwards or not. It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects, since my thinking may be preoccupied with a concrete object either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought through it. Even when my thinking is preoccupied with concrete things and could be described as extraverted to that extent, the direction it will take still remains an essential characteristic and an open question—namely, whether or not in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, or generally accepted ideas. So far as the practical thinking of the business man, the technician, or the scientific investigator is concerned, its outer-directedness is obvious enough. But in the case of the philosopher it remains open to doubt when his thinking is directed to ideas. We then have to inquire whether these ideas are simply abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would represent higher collective concepts comprising a sum of objective facts, or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time. In the latter case, they fall into the category of objective data, and accordingly this thinking should be called extraverted.
    Hence, actually it's quite hard to differentiate Ti and Te. It's obvious that Jung himself is a Ti-Leading type (essentially, LII or Ti-Ne). However, when differentiating them, we need to find the judgemental criterion instead of the judgemental contents. A common misinterpretation of Jungian cognitive functions / Socionics IMEs is to identify them via the contents instead of the real cognitive aspect.

    Jung identify Charles Darwin as a typical Te-valuer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, Psychological Types
    Just as we might take Darwin as an example of the normal extraverted thinking type, the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant.
    The writings of Charles Darwin is also full with logical analysis. Also, the contents of his logical analysis is about "how the creatures evolved" and "why are there so many different spices". It's not about business problems ("how to use", efficiency, algorithms, money).

    Part II: Comments on Model A descriptions

    The fundamental definitions provided by Model A is correct. However, may be due to the fact that Aushra is Ti-Creative and Te-Demonstrative. Her examples are kind of messed up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aushra, Dual Nature of Man, Ti
    We call 'logical' those feelings that arise from the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of some objective criteria — for example, a sense of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation, which in certain situations help to activate or passivate the person who experiences them. Incoming information is recognized by such an individual as a sense of objects' proper or improper correlation and proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between the objects, or a sense of understanding or lack of understanding of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that result from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena — curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one's own power or powerlessness before different objects.
    Judging according to things like distance and volume are more Te instead of Ti since the criterion is valued towards the objective objects which are dynamic within the environment instead of the logic archetypes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aushra, Dual Nature of Man, Te
    Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work.


    When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to plan his and others' work, understand the logicalness and illogicalness of processes, and correct the work activities of other people in accordance with this understanding. And the ability to apply personally and convey to others the most rational ways of doing things.
    These are Te. But the realm of this definition is somewhat narrower than the real Te defined by Jung. SUch explanations and definitions are somewhat wrong and misleading although the mathematical definition such that Te = external dynamics of objects is correct. This example only corresponds to what Jung said as "So far as the practical thinking of the business man, the technician, or the scientific investigator is concerned" in the previous citation and other Te cases have been ignored.

    Part III: Comments on Gulenko's type

    When I tried to find some analysis of Gulenko's explanations for his ideas, I realized that his article seemed to contain almost no analysis. His analysis is quite different from the analysis I understood as an LII. Now I actually start to sereiously consider the possibility that he is actually Te-Leading and Ti-Ignoring. Now I suspect that he might be a LSE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, Forms of Thinking
    I came to understand this relationship in two ways. First, I noted that the most rapid and complete exchange of information occurs through Supervision rings, which are formed by these dichotomies. Second, finding Socionics analogies to other models of comprehending reality (worldviews) I found that information exchange in each of the four Supervision rings embodied fundamental forms of intellectual activity found across the history of established thought.

    If my conclusions are valid, then the mental activity of Supervision rings constitutes that which cognitive psychology typically refers to as styles (or forms) of cognition. A strict deductive proof of this theory is not my aim. Instead I will simply present the results obtained. Coming from the practice of consultation, teaching, and training work, inductive generalizations have more weight for me than the mathematical calculations so dear to the hearts of some Socionists.
    He is analyzing and supporting his claim via things he "noted", which could be understand as his experimental results (which can be often seen in the writings of Charles Darwin, or it could also be regarded as what Jung referred to as "simply abstractions from objective experience") and things he "found across the history", which are logic reasons borrowed from external sources (which could be regarded as what Jung referred to as "derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere"). Both should be attributed to Te according to the paragraph I cited from Jung.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, Forms of Thinking
    In general terms, this dichotomy refers to orientation towards either space (Static) or time (Dynamic). The categories of space and time are vital a priori concepts studied in detail by Immanuel Kant in "Critique of Pure Reason", contrasting them as extent and duration.
    He cited Immanuel Kant. However, he offered no Ti analysis on the concepts provided by Jung to support his claims. It seems that he merely accumulated the concept from Kant. It reminds me of a paragraph Jung wrote to criticize Te:
    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, Psychological Types
    When extraverted thinking is subordinated to objective data as a result of over-determination by the object, it engrosses itself entirely in the individual experience and accumulates a mass of undigested empirical material. The oppressive weight of individual experiences having little or no connection with one another produces a dissociation of thought which usually requires psychological compensation.
    This citation from Jung not only supports the idea to define introversion/extraversion as relationship/object, but also reminds me of Gulenko's writing. His articles seem to be a accumulation of mass undigested objects and the relationships among the factual knowledge (objects) are not considered carefully.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, Forms of Thinking
    Analysis, as defined by most sources, is the division of a whole into clearly delimited parts. Analytical work is meant to delineate boundaries. Whereas synthesis is akin to associativity, i.e. the association of two or more concepts by fuzzy, rapid connections whereby one occurrence immediately evokes others to mind. Resulting in a coherent synthetic image with blurred internal boundaries.

    The epitomization of Dynamic cognition formed the explanatory basis for the nature of mental processes in the theory of associationism. Aristotle first advanced the idea that spontaneous mental images can converge so closely together that the similarity or contrast of multiple associations emerges on the basis of contiguity. Later John Locke argued that ideas of any degree of complexity emerge from the process of associating simple sensations. In this case he contrasted the association of ideas against purely semantic connections, which in his opinion were secondary.

    Indeed, eidetic mnemonic techniques showed that with aid of visual association, it is possible to connect anything in the mind. Here are some of the eidetic memory techniques originating in antiquity.

    Roman orator Cicero used the 'method of loci' to memorize his speeches by heart. He mentally laid out information in the corners of a room, mentally returning to one corner or another to extract as required. Medieval Dominican monks studying rhetoric used the same method. They took a road familiar to them to the last detail and mentally walked down it, successively laying out along the road statements which would be presented before the audience. While speaking, they would mentally walk the route, 'raising' key concepts they had previously laid there.
    Again, he borrowed logical elements from "most sources", Aritistotle, John Locke and Roman orator Cicero without in-depth Ti analysis. Jung analyzed a number of sources which include both texts written by famous authors, dreams, and religious sources but you can see how Jung analyzed these sources with his Ti-Leading. The case seems different for Gulenko. Logical arguments via "eidetic mnemonic technique" is similar to the Charles Darwin logic, relying on experiments.

    For a comparison, this is how Jung integrate Nietzsche's intellectual outcome in his own theory:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, Psychological Types
    Here Nietzsche takes up a standpoint differing significantly from Schiller’s. What one might have guessed with Schiller, that his letters on aesthetic education were also an attempt to deal with his own problems, becomes a complete certainty in this work of Nietzsche’s: it is a “profoundly personal” book. Whereas Schiller begins to paint light and shade almost timorously and in pallid hues, apprehending the conflict in his own psyche as “naïve” versus “sentimental,” and excluding everything that belongs to the background and abysmal depths of human nature, Nietzsche has a profounder grasp and spans an opposition which, in one aspect, is no whit inferior to the dazzling beauty of Schiller’s vision, while its other aspect reveals infinitely darker tones that certainly enhance the effect of the light but allow still blacker depths to be divined.
    You can see his Ti-Leading. He is not simply borrowing logic from current intellectual atmosphere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, On Waves of Aging and Renewal
    In psychology, Freud has uncovered two existing trends: the earning towards life and towards death. Right types are more prone to suicide than left types. They simply lack the psychological energy to survive in difficult conditions and withstand the "scorching" conditions of this life. Left sociotypes tend to be more optimistic. They do not lose hope even when they have found themselves in a dead end.
    Here he borrowed the logic from Frued without actually analyzing how Frued's work implies his theory in process/result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, On Waves of Aging and Renewal
    Communicative transactions are complementary between types on the same side of socioprogess. This means that one's communication will be received adequately: to a question an answer will be provided, any idea that has been proposed will be either be developed further or receive a critique. When two types from different sides of socioprogress interact, there is a tendency to answer a question with a question, or to respond to one assertion with another assertion that has little relevance to the first one. Types from different rings of socioprogress seemingly develop the same idea in different ways. Thus, in exchanges of left and right types many orthogonal translations arise in their communication.
    Again, it seems that he is basing his logic upon something that are "simply abstractions" (Jung's terminology) from his "objective" experiences instead of universal logical laws of the logical reasoning projected from our collective unconscious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, System of DCNH Subtypes
    Why are people of same socionics type so different? This question has long perplexed every sober-minded practitioner of socionics. How can two people of the same psychological system, that has an identical structure, demonstrate such different examples of behavior when encountered with same life situations?

    Conduct a simple experiment. Gather 3-4 people of a single socionics type, it is unimportant which type and which socionics specialist has determined their types. Give them any accessible task (e.g. a jointly solved intellectual puzzle or a situation that they need to play out) and then observe their behavior. You will see that in spite of them having identical types, some of them will be more active, others more passive, some will be more resourceful, others more conservative, and so on. The most interesting thing is that the greater the number of representatives of the same type you gather - the greater the number of differences you'll observe between them. This shows that it is possible to increase the depth and specialization of typology even further.
    When arguing on the reason to create a subtype system, Gulenko again based his arguments on experiment, which orient towars objective objects instead of the collective unconscious. For a comparison, when Jung explained the reason why he create the theory of psychological types, Jung wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, Psychological Types
    In my practical medical work with nervous patients I have long been struck by the fact that besides the many individual differences in human psychology there are also typical differences. Two types especially become clear to me; I have termed them the introverted and the extraverted types.
    Jung's logic is quite different from Gulenko here.

    The logic of Gulenko could be simplified to: Experiment: same type, still some differences -> objective facts -> hence subtype system needed.

    The logic of Jung in his "introduction" to the book PTypes is: differences among patients -> analysis show: individual differences and typical differences -> according to my analysis, especially I/E. Of course, since this is only the "introduction" chapter, Jung revealed his whole Ti analysis in the following chapters.

    I think it's not hard to see the difference between Jung and Gulenko.

    For me, as a LII, I find Gulenko's argument unconvincing at all. What if such differences are individual? What if such differences are out of the scope of Jungian typology (for instance the differences of IQ and cultrure background). I need to see more arguments for a need of a Jungian subtype system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, System of DCNH Subtypes
    This state of affairs must not seem surprising. Other areas of human perception have been build analogously. When looking at a painted surface, for example, within its primary colors of paint you will, as a rule, see different other hues. And in the sound of any musical instrument, you can grasp a characteristic overtone – the timbre. The situation is comparable to holding a printed text in your hands, which does not change over the course of time, yet a different imprint is created with every use. Similarly, within the psyche of a person - the carrier of a given socionics type - there always exists an admixture of other types. This admixture of other types is what I call a subtype, or a variation of the type.
    Again, he borrowed a number of logic from "current intellectual atmosphere" and simple abstractions from objective experiences". From my perspective as a LII, I find his argument to be totally unconvincing. The existence of typing systems of drawings, music and books don't mean that a Jungian subtype system is necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, System of DCNH Subtypes
    There is an additional important preliminary question, which it is not possible to totally bypass: how many subtypes is it necessary to distinguish? The answer is that the quantity of subtypes must not be smaller than the average size of the group with which you're dealing. In small groups – at the lower end of the collective hierarchy – it suffices to distinguish between four to eight subtypes. However, if we happen to deal with the whole society, with the entire system of tightly interacting small groups, representing the highest level of communicative organization, then distinguishing the shades and nuances of all 16 sociotypes becomes unavoidable.
    When answering the question that how many subtypes are needed for Socionics, Gulenko values the objective environments instead of the logic analysis that how many subaspects are really needed.


    In the writings of Gulenko, we can see that a categorical system he likes to use is to classify Socionic aspects into "intellectual level", "psychological level", "social level" and "physical level". Such categorization also seems unconvincing for me as a LII. Such categorization could be simply derived from "current intellectual atmosphere" such that it's not hard to derive "intellectual level" fron "intelligence science", derive "psychological level" from "psychology", to derive "social level" from "sociology" and to derive "physical level" from "psysics".

    However, a Ti problem is that whether such categorization is logical consistent or not according to our collective unconscious. IMO, it's not entirely consistent. In this system of his classification, there are intersections between each pair of his categories. Their boundaries are not clearly delineated. He actually ignored this Ti aspect.

    Also, in his DCNH system, he said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko
    Strengthening of linear-energetic functions Te and Fe , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms the dominant subtype (D).
    Strengthening of mobile-flexible functions Se and Ne leads to creative subtype (C).
    Strengthening of balanced-stable functions Ti and Fi gives us normalizing subtype (N).
    Strengthening of receptive-adaptive functions Si and Ni produces the harmonizing subtype (H).
    As a Ti-Leading type, I personally want to ask why must Si and Ni be strengthened together. He again ignored this Ti aspect.

    There are also some obvious Ti flaws in his Model G. For isntance according to this reddit post written by his fan:

    Quote Originally Posted by Model G functional signs according to =https://www.reddit.com/r/JungianTypology/comments/hhuycs/function_dichotomies_in_model_g/
    =Kinetic/Potential
    These functions alternate in Model G, so that kinetic functions lead into potential ones and potential to kinetic. Within a type, the kinetic functions correspond to the whether the type is static or dynamic e.g. the static functions in static types are kinetic functions. In the ILE (a static type), the kinetic functions are Ne, Se, Ti, Fi; the potential functions are Te, Fe, Si, Ni.
    Energy within Model G is transferred between kinetic and potential functions. Potential functions speak, kinetic functions act. In the course of everyday activity, talking about something leads to doing it, and then what is done is spoken about (potential > kinetic > potential). Kinetic functions consume more energy than they store, while potential functions accumulate information to later be transferred to kinetic energy.

    Accelerating/Decelerating
    Accelerating functions correspond to quadral values. In the ILE, the accelerating functions are Ne, Fe, Ti, Si; the decelerating functions are Te, Se, Fi, Ni.
    Actions taken by accelerating functions raise general energy levels. Decelerating functions deplete energy and overall mental resources, sometimes leading to distress.
    Kinetic functions "consume more energy than they store". Doesn't this imply that kinetic functions deplete energy? However, then Gulenko defined another functional sign accelerating/decelerating such that "Decelerating functions deplete energy".

    According to the functional sign theory of Model G, for the type ILE, Ne and Ti are both Kinetic functions which "consume more energy than they store" and Accelerating functions which "raise general energy levels". I find such theory severely in need of more clarifications in order to avoid Ti conflicts.

    Hence, now I tend to type Gulenko as Te-Leading and Ti-Ignoring actually. Between LSE and LIE, I currently vote for LSE since his VI doesn't seem Ne-demonstrative for me. Also, his writing seems to be asking, process and negativist in terms of Reinin signs. This also supports the typing of LSE instead of LIE.

    One can also attribute his typing bias via Fi-valuing

    This supports Jung's original definition of Ti/Te.

    According to WIkisocion:

    Quote Originally Posted by https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Gulenko,_Viktor
    Gulenko's self-typing is LII (extended typing: LII-Ne sp/so e5). By personal accounts his wife's type is EIE, and he has a son and daughter of types LSI and EIE, respectively.
    He is severly biased toward the EIE-LSI dyad. According to Wikisocion, he typed his beloved persons (wife, son, and daughter) as either EIE or LSI.
    Last edited by CR400AF; 05-05-2023 at 01:59 AM.

  2. #2
    Shadow
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Where God decides I should be
    Posts
    1,892
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Very interesting article, thanks for sharing it
    Souls know their way back home

  3. #3
    A turn in the phrase Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    Where the wild things R
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm going to take a step in one direction:

    Gulenko is Ti dominant using Ne. He dragnets the data and makes analogical statements. That is Ne not Ni. He pulls in disparate parts and frames that into a network of relationships that makes sense to him. It's a web of connected ideas. That's Ne Ti.

    Jung was an Ni dominant with archetypes. Not Ne.
    Last edited by Distance; 05-05-2023 at 02:40 AM.



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multiplies

    The good news in knowing you are wrong is you're right


    Watch out for the quicksand, an hour glass isn't worth watching when the cook is done

    A little better makes better more
    ♦♦







  4. #4
    Shadow
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Where God decides I should be
    Posts
    1,892
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Beside reconditioning Gulenko's type , this makes me reconsider my self typing as Ti valued , because my real life is literally very dependent on external systems / datas / observation and experience more than my subjective personal logic , or maybe I'm Te demonstrative
    Souls know their way back home

  5. #5
    thistle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    563
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Emily View Post
    Beside reconditioning Gulenko's type , this makes me reconsider my self typing as Ti valued , because my real life is literally very dependent on external systems / datas / observation and experience more than my subjective personal logic , or maybe I'm Te demonstrative
    We haven't really interacted here yet so my opinion doesn't hold much weight. But based on posts of yours I've read, you seem to share findings more than you share or reveal your "reasoning things out". About Gulenko, when I read his articles he seems to assume a person's prior/existing knowledge of socionics...so sometimes it feels (to me) like he is skimming over things like they are a given.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko likes to create new theories (Ti), takes seriously badly based theories (Reinin traits) - what he does has low objective checking (Te). Te types are expected to be more critical to theory from objectivity point.
    I prefer do not use doubtful theory, for example. Restrict the theory ideas. While Gulenko does the opposite - he does not care much about logical objectivity (Te) and more likes to play in his speculations (Ti).

    His texts have clear language and good structure - J and Ti can to be. To doubt in secondary function as Te.

    There should be interviews with him. Those are better to decide about the type than his texts and lectures about types.

    I'm not totally sure in Gulenko's type. But it's not base Te.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,418
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I feel like the difference is like someone who reads the whole book vs. someone who skims the most relevant chapters.

  8. #8
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @godslave I was about to make a reply to your post when it disappeared. I thought your reply was valuable, so I'll talk about my thoughts based on my general memory of it.

    1) I pointed out that distinguishing Ti from Te is actually a very difficult thing to do. So I'm not saying that because Gulenko cites the work of others, he is a Te-Leading type. The reason I started thinking seriously about this possibility is because of the way he constructs logic; he always seems to accumulate a great deal of factual knowledge from the intellectual atomsphere, and borrows the logic of these other people into his own system. I did not identify the Ti-style analytical process in his arguments. As you say, quoting others' arguments is a common phenomenon in academic research, and any type of researcher is doing it. Jung as a typical representative of a Ti type is no exception. Therefore, I fully agree that we cannot assert that a person is Te just because he cites the logic of others. Nor is it because of this that I consider Gulenko to be a Te type.

    Similarly, I think that one should never judge a person as a Te type just because he studies how to make money. What we need to focus on is the value orientation of his thinking and analysis, whether it is a Ti value or a Te value, and never the content of his thinking. I am a Ti type, but I also think about how to invest and manage money, and a Te type scientist can also think about how to come up with a scientific theory. That's why I don't think it's appropriate to call Te "algorithmic logic".

    2) I think your point about Gulenko being a dynamic type is a very good one, which is an important feature that I missed.

    3) You should understand that my point about Model A is that it is compatible with Jung's system. At the same time, I think that Model G and other so-called Jungian Typological Models are incompatible with Jung. There is no doubt that Model A and Model Yu have different structures, but they have the same definition of function. However, I think so because it seems to me that Model A correctly understands and inherits the most central ideas of Jung and builds on them. The most central set of these concepts is the understanding of the concepts of introversion and extraversion. As Aushra points out, this set of concepts has been grossly misunderstood. I think Aushra's definition of this concept really reflects the meaning Jung intended, although they are expressed in a completely different way. In contrast, it seems to me that Gulenko and many other founders of the model did not really understand these core concepts. Another important concept is the one about psychic energy (libido), which Jung devoted an article to discuss, and it is the relationship between psychic energy and value that he expresses. This understanding is inherited in Model A, while Model G has a completely different understanding of psycho-energy from Jung's. I totally agree that Aushra, the founder of Socionics, has a very deep understanding of Jung.

    But I don't think anyone can be completely free from mistakes, and Aushra is certainly no exception. Her description of Ti and Te appears to me to be off. This deviation is not a deliberate departure from Jung, but a logical inconsistency between both her description and her own definition. According to her own definition, Ti is external statics of relationships, whereas in her description she includes properties such as weight, which change over time and are determined by objects rather than relationships, in the description of Ti. Her core definition of Ti is consistent with Jung's, but logically conflicts with the example she gives.

    Jung's model is also far from perfect. In fact, Jung also proposed the existence of auxiliary functions. Based on the existence of auxiliary functions, we can quickly calculate the existence of 16 types. In my opinion, although Model A is very different from Model Yu, the two are comparable since they inherit Jung in the core concept.

    4) I have a high opinion of Jung because in my opinion his theoretical system has a high logical self-consistency and a great depth. At the same time, I have to admit that in practice this theory explains very well the cognitive characteristics of myself and of the people I know best.

    But in any case, I think that when talking about Jungian Typologies, it is difficult to bypass the inevitable comparison with Jung. This is because all these typologies use Jungian terminological systems. If we do not make comparisons, it is easy to create confusion in thinking and logic. For example, there is a type of car called SUV, which is an acronym for Sports Utility Vehicle. But when we classify cars, we refer to the classification of SUVs and use its definition. I totally think one can create other classification systems for cars, but confusion in terminology would create a lot of confusion. For example, the Peugeot 308 is a car with very good performance and its excellent chassis system makes it sporty and fun to drive in mountain roads. Therefore, to a driver, he might think that the Peugeot 308 is a "sport utility vehicle". The Renault Megane RS is a sportier car, sacrificing even more comfort in general driving and riding on normal roads in order to achieve better sporting performance. Therefore, for a driver, he could consider the Renault Megane RS as a car suitable for driving on a race track rather than on a regular highway, so he might consider the Renault Megane RS as belonging to a category of cars called "off-road vehicles".

    If there is such a class of drivers, I fully respect their idea of how to classify cars. That kind of logic makes sense. But to avoid confusion, I think they should create their own terminology for the classification system, rather than borrowing from other classification systems while creating a system that is completely different in its core concepts. Of course, I do not think this driver's logic is wrong, and his logic for this classification does not show unacceptable logical inconsistencies, so I fully respect his system. If someone proposes to change the name of "SUV" to "HGCC" as an acronym for High Ground Clerance Car, I think his proposal is very logical and constructive. But when one proposes that the Peugeot 308 is a Small SUV when discussing ISO 3833-1977 automobile typology, the way the terminology is used is fraught with confusion.

    I fully respect non-Jungian typologies but IMO it's better for those systems which have departed from Jung's essential concepts and hence have became completely imcompatible with Jung's original texts to use an original terminology instead of the Jungian terms like introverted thinking and extraverted intuition.

    Personally, I consider Model A as a Jungian typology which is compatible with Jung's original texts while I consider MBTI, Model G and OPS as well as attachment styles, E9, and Dark Triad to be non-Jungian typologies. Some non-Jungian typologies are full of logical inconsistencies while some may be well reasoned.
    Last edited by CR400AF; 05-06-2023 at 07:19 AM.

  9. #9
    Thalia, Gelos and Crom ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,762
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default



    @CR400AF Sorry for deleting my post ! It is a bad habit of mine. I often feel like what I think is not relevant and regret having posting it. Anyways, here is the post exactly like it was.


    Dr.G's SHS has a behavioristic orientation. When you look at his definitions of functions, you find that he calls theme "functional
    States".However, his approach is to describe them according to their external manifestations in the subject behavior. For each function there is a corresponding "state of psyche" or thinking mode which comes with a set of typical non-verbal informations observable in the subject behavior. For example, in his book he describes Te and Ti as the following :

    Business(Pragmatic) Logic (P) — extraverted logic; the function of the psyche, manifesting itself in mobile,perseverance
    and endurance

    "The fact is that ina P-state, a person cannot sit idle; he is constantly in some kind of gainful activity. It is impossible to rest near a person in the P-state."

    Structural Logic (L) —introverted logic; the function of the psyche, manifests itselfin calm, cold-blooded and pedantic behavior

    "Itis expressed in making objective, disinterested judgments on any issue of life. A person in the state of L is prone to isolation within the group, to action according to written and unwritten norms and rules that exist in its framework."
    Dr.G. often uses the present continuous tense in his writing, that tendency is typical of dynamic types. I would also mention that he uses his students and experiment with them (improvisation classes) so that he can either prove a point in the theory and/or extrapolate on some other from his observations which points to inductive/right type.
    Ona side note, I also want to mention that referencing others work to substantiate claims is the basis of any research or work in academic circles. I don't know if it makes sense to use that academics procedure as a significant argument of differentiation between Te and Ti in the case of our subject. Here is what Jung said about Introverted thinking (type) and gathering facts :

    As Illustrative examples they [Facts e.n.] have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. - Carl Jung -Psychological Types Chapter X pages 481

    Last But not least, I often talk about "holy scriptures" when I refer to Dr.G. 's work because when I read him I don't have that satisfying feeling of doubt dissipation, in other words I always take what I read on a "trust me bro" basis. It doesn't "click" in my mind as perfect sense. One could say that we all choose our Gurus anyway and even Carl Jung might be one but still, Jung feels more like a true phenomenologist in comparison to Dr.G. In fact, it is difficult to be aware of the organic nature of the psyche within the socionics framework (esp in Model A which "feels" more static that Model G) whereas in Jung's work the psyche is full of life. In conclusion, you can see that it's easy to find correlations if your natural biases demand it. So, does Dr.G ignore "'L "? No, I don't think so. Does he ignore Jung's "Introverted Thinking" (see below) as weird as it might seem ? Well, that is up to interpretation....


    It Is worth mentioning that to Jung "Ti" and particularly "the Introverted thinking type" of which he believed Immanuel Kant Was a representative, is almost thought as an Uber thinking functions if the subjective thinking was in a way more profound and of higher nobility than the extroverted thinking. I would say that it depicts a natural bias toward the philosopher way of creating and structuring concepts and ideas from within (where universality is to be found) and thus forging principles integrated into a system of thoughts.

    For This kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what,apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea,that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality,but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality ;its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea ; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present inthe external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. It's Task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

    Carl Jung - Psychological Types Chapter Xpages 481

    There Is also, however and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect an entirely
    different kind of thinking,to which the term "thinking" can hardly be denied: itis a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. I reach this otherkind of thinking in the following way. When my thoughts are engaged with a concrete object or general idea in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back again to my object,this intellectual process is not the only psychic proceeding taking place in me at the moment I will disregard all those possible sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought,merely emphasizing the fact that this very thinking process which proceeds from objective data and strives again towards the object stands also in a constant relation to the subject This Relation is a conditio sine qua non, without which no thinking process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, towards objective data, nevertheless it is my subjective process, and it can neither escape the subjective admixture nor yet dispense with it. Although I Try my utmost to give a completely objective direction to my train of thought, even then I cannot exclude the parallel subjective process with its all-embracing participation, without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to objectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject.Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process,that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. Thinking arises from this other orientation that is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character.

    Carl Jung -Psychological Types Chapter X pages 430- 431
    Jung Said that he was an empiricist (not like a philosopher) but he also thought he was an Introverted thinking type (like the philosopher).



    Imho,socionics and Jung's psychological types are not compatible, they are two distincts different frameworks. In fact, there are significant points of mutual exclusion between them. The expansion to 16 types,the reframing of functions (adjustment to the new model), the ideas of Information metabolism, cybernetics, socion, quadra and the ring of supervision and benefit have nothing to do with Jung's Conceptualization of psychological Types whatsoever. One can't "run" Model Jung Within the socionics framework, it doesn't work.

    It Makes no sense to compare ad nauseam Jung's psychological functions definitions with socionics terminology because socionics definitions are meant to be different. They were specifically (re)designed to fit the Model A which again, is structurally different from Model J. I'll Dare to say that it is rather naive to presume that the people behind socionics in the 60's and 70's were not aware or misunderstood Jung's Definitions of psychological functions, in fact they probably knew Jung's work inside out.

    We Must not forget that Socionics theory is inspired by Jung's work (and MBTI) from which a departure in term evolutions of ideas took place. And again, since both Ausra Augustinavichiute and Carl Jung models of Psyche are different, Socionics and Jung's Psychotypology aren't therefore neither comparable not compatible.

    I've noticed in self-typed LIIs a certain bias or affinity for one Jungian Based typology which serves as the main axiom to which other systems are compared. There is this notion of integration of concepts borrowed from similar systems into the prefered one like spare parts and assembled in an enhanced system. The manifestation of Ti here lies in the selection criteria which is based on the subject's own understanding (Ti criterion). I've seen it in Ben Varselan for instance. He is a Keirsey-an therefore all the data gathered from his studies of different typologies should pass through his selection criteria in order to be integrated harmoniously in his Keirsey temperament based system (Model V).

    .
    Anyways,sorry for the long post and note that I don't know what I'm talking about !
    Last edited by godslave; 05-06-2023 at 11:37 AM. Reason: grammar !
    Lack is the Muse of all Poets

  10. #10
    Renna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Posts
    469
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don’t have a opinion about their type but Jung and Gulenko V.I different . Jung had a softer look than Gulenko.

  11. #11
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,340
    Mentioned
    354 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    For This kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what,apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea,that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality,but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality ;its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea ; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present inthe external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. It's Task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

    Carl Jung - Psychological Types Chapter Xpages 481
    !

    These LXI types make me almost always ponder about their plausible delusions and reasons behind it.


    Putin, Alive, Guy McPherson, Rupert Sheldrake among others.

    I suspect this is Eysenck's psychoticism dimension but it is too wide and according to Wikipedia it diverges way too much and sounds even opposite.

    We Must not forget that Socionics theory is inspired by Jung's work (and MBTI) from which a departure in term evolutions of ideas took place. And again, since both Ausra Augustinavichiute and Carl Jung models of Psyche are different, Socionics and Jung's Psychotypology aren't therefore neither comparable not compatible.
    I think they Jung used the most convenient type to type per case examples. Gulenko would put an ACCENTUATION card on the table (in many cases) and thanks to internet there is even a lot of empirical material to dive in deeper. As such there never was a solid organization as Jung has pointed out.

    BTW. So many LIIs (and EIIs) are quite stressed to talk about philosophy, actually. It does not serve them. Of course Kant has a great deal of "sciency" information about the reality and life (something Ne/Si that I can not explain). As such what you hear from LXI is that they are quite visual people in Donald Hoffman sort of way. Chess as I see seems to be quite Ti-ish endeavor.
    Last edited by The Reality Denialist; 05-06-2023 at 12:06 PM.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  12. #12
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,209
    Mentioned
    308 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    Imho,socionics and Jung's psychological types are not compatible, they are two distincts different frameworks. In fact, there are significant points of mutual exclusion between them. The expansion to 16 types,the reframing of functions (adjustment to the new model), the ideas of Information metabolism, cybernetics, socion, quadra and the ring of supervision and benefit have nothing to do with Jung's Conceptualization of psychological Types whatsoever. One can't "run" Model Jung Within the socionics framework, it doesn't work.

    It Makes no sense to compare ad nauseam Jung's psychological functions definitions with socionics terminology because socionics definitions are meant to be different. They were specifically (re)designed to fit the Model A which again, is structurally different from Model J. I'll Dare to say that it is rather naive to presume that the people behind socionics in the 60's and 70's were not aware or misunderstood Jung's Definitions of psychological functions, in fact they probably knew Jung's work inside out.

    We Must not forget that Socionics theory is inspired by Jung's work (and MBTI) from which a departure in term evolutions of ideas took place. And again, since both Ausra Augustinavichiute and Carl Jung models of Psyche are different, Socionics and Jung's Psychotypology aren't therefore neither comparable not compatible.


    It's a mystery to me how you come to these conclusions, when it is litterally spelled out in the systems themselves that Jung and Socionics are the same.

    I don't really know how to spell this out even more, but I'll try...

    "expansion to 16 types"

    The 8 jungian base types are kept the same but differentiated according to auxilary/creative functions. 8x2=16, as we know, and as Jung already suggested is possible. As you know, half of the 16 types share base functions (kindred types). Obviously this is not a problem at all between Socionics and Jung.

    "reframing of function"

    I don't see any reframing, only difference is that Socionics has more simple descriptions, and doesn't go into detail, also some inaccuracies. And why on earth would you need any "reframing of functions", when the types are the same (see my point above).

    "quadra"

    It's a free world. You can group the types any way you want, as long as you see some point in doing it. There are hundreds of ways of grouping them. Jung preferred to talk about EJ, EP, IJ and IPs. And he gave descriptions for these groups. By using 16 types you can talk about quadras and supervision rings.

    "have nothing to do with Jung's Conceptualization of psychological Types whatsoever"

    This is not true. They have everyting to do with Jung's conceptualizations. It's just that the systems are modular, and because Socionics has expanded into 16 types there are more things you can do. Some people prefer to talk about men and women, others like to be more specific and talk about brunettes, blondes etc. etc.

    It's just a matter how much detail you want to work out. Not only can you "run model Jung within a Socionics framwork", we are actually doing it all the time. Socionics is exactly the same thing as Jung, only with some detail added, and with a different brand name.

    Do you really think that the base-suggestive compensation is something different than what Jung already talked about in great detail for all the 8 types. Jung knew how people can compensate this problem in relationships, but he didn't recommend duality, because his focus is more on the individual development, and duality can in fact be problematic when it comes to individuation.

    EDIT: By the way, I don't agree with CR400AF's typing of Gulenko. That's a different matter, it is hard to type people online, using Jungian descriptions or not.
    Last edited by Tallmo; 05-06-2023 at 03:56 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)

  13. #13
    A turn in the phrase Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    Where the wild things R
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In the thoughts in between the two, Ti and Te:

    Te is looking at the mechanical fit, if it fits into other blocks of known proven data. They say it is this, because the thought already exists as a Te chunk of datum, and add that in the system of Te. Addition of proof adds up ad infinitum.

    It is adding additional logic to a system, not critiquing that logic. It will get critiqued if it doesn't fit in the overall picture, though. It looks like induction. Nothing is separated.

    Ti is deductive and it ends ups being the end or conclusion as a truth.

    All INTPs wear red hats, because i've seen that, and if i see someone not wearing a red hat, he is not an INTP. If he is not an INTP, he has to be the 15 others. It is personal logic and has nothing to with Te objective proven facts. That's added into a static system. Facts are created.

    Te: All INTPs wear red hats because my gathering the data show that, but nothing could be proven that other types might wear red hats too. It is open for additional logic, not universally true. Facts are gathered.



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multiplies

    The good news in knowing you are wrong is you're right


    Watch out for the quicksand, an hour glass isn't worth watching when the cook is done

    A little better makes better more
    ♦♦







  14. #14
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renna View Post
    I don’t have a opinion about their type but Jung and Gulenko V.I different . Jung had a softer look than Gulenko.
    An interesting notice. I also noticed that he seems to be colder than Jung. His eyes are also more "focused" than Jung.

    Another interesting thing is that when he was giving lectures he seems to be trying to motivate the atmosphere of the class with his gestures and emotion. I'm not sure because this is culture-related. He is doing this much better than xLIs, who have Fe-PoLR, I personally know in my real life. However since the culture background is very different I'm not very sure.

    Combing his look, his lectures and his bias toward the types of his wife and children, I think at least it's an educated guess to say that he might be Fe-Role and Fi-suggestive.

    In addition, he seems to be very addicted to using Socionics to understand the processes of human society, and even to use Socionics to make predictions about history. In my opinion, such thinking is completely absurd and illogical. However, if one considers him a Ni-PoLR and anxious about perceiving and predicting processes, it seems that this could be an explanation for his obsession with using Socionics, the theoretical knowledge he considers himself to be best at, to understand and predict processes.

    From my analysis, I think it is illogical to use Socionics for process analysis and prediction. There is no doubt that there is a distinction of values between different quadra in Socionics, which makes it seem that there is some correlation between different types of people in terms of personality and historical figures that play different roles in historical development. But in my opinion, this does not mean that the relationship between the two is causal. You have to go through a more careful and rigorous logical analysis to arrive at the existence of a causal relationship, which seems to be what Gulenko lacks. He seems to have noticed a certain similarity between the Quadra of Socionics and the facts of historical development, on the basis of which he accumulated and drew on this factual knowledge, and arbitrarily and illogically interpreted it as causal, and then he tried to use Socionics to explain and predict the process. In my opinion, his Socion Clock theory is in serious lack of logical-consistency.

  15. #15
    Renna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Posts
    469
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by To B or to B View Post
    In the thoughts in between the two, Ti and Te:

    Te is looking at the mechanical fit, if it fits into other blocks of known proven data. They say it is this, because the thought already exists as a Te chunk of datum, and add that in the system of Te. Addition of proof adds up ad infinitum.

    It is adding additional logic to a system, not critiquing that logic. It will get critiqued if it doesn't fit in the overall picture, though. It looks like induction. Nothing is separated.

    Ti is deductive and it ends ups being the end or conclusion as a truth.

    All INTPs wear red hats, because i've seen that, and if i see someone not wearing a red hat, he is not an INTP. If he is not an INTP, he has to be the 15 others. It is personal logic and has nothing to with Te objective proven facts. That's added into a static system. Facts are created.

    Te: All INTPs wear red hats because my gathering the data show that, but nothing could be proven that other types might wear red hats too. It is open for additional logic, not universally true. Facts are gathered.
    lol the Ti example seem a little stupid but I got what you mean. Ti focus on using logic to deduct a correct answer base from the data it has . Te dynamically update it’s data and change it’s answer following the change of data

  16. #16
    Thalia, Gelos and Crom ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,762
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post


    It's a mystery to me how you come to these conclusions, when it is literally spelled out in the systems themselves that Jung and Socionics are the same.

    I don't really know how to spell this out even more, but I'll try...
    “Morons, they dare anything, that's even how you recognize them.” - Crooks in Clover

    The quote above solves a great deal of the mystery as far as I'm concerned ! .

    Socionics is a theory of interpersonal interaction based on patterns of information selection and processing. Socionics has 16 types and 16 kinds of intertype relations. Furthermore, it divides information itself into 8 varieties.

    source.
    Disclaimer : I am obviously both a Jung and socionics aficionado !

    As a reminder, in Carl Jung's discoveries and fundamental ideas in the understanding of the human psyche, there is the central theme of self-discovery and process of individuation. It's about the psychic world of the individual. Whereas socionics adds a sociological dimension and the influences of ITR from without the psyche. Socionics is about information metabolism, interpersonal interactions translated in the flow of information between TIMs in the socion (the main circuit if you will) and how information is treated and transmitted by and through each TIM. They are not the same thing imho. Jung focuses of the individual and socionics opens on the outside and integrates the individual itself as an object within the socion hence the sociological part of socionics.

    At this point one could ask : Where is the process of individuation in socionics ? Why isn't Model A referencing the Jungian structure of the psyche (consciousness, personal and collective unconscious, archetypes, self) instead of organizing it in blocks with pseudo-Freudian terminology ? Does it suffice to learn socionics without any knowledge of Jung's Work to be aware of Jung's fundamental concepts ? If Jung and socionics are the same then the answer should be "yes", if they are not then the answer should be "no". It's as simple as that.

    "expansion to 16 types"

    The 8 jungian base types are kept the same but differentiated according to auxiliary/creative functions. 8x2=16, as we know, and as Jung already suggested is possible. As you know, half of the 16 types share base functions (kindred types). Obviously this is not a problem at all between Socionics and Jung.
    Yes, I'm aware of that. Mea culpa because there is something I forgot to mention (but I had it mind !) about the extension to 16 types. What is important is not so much the number of types but more the reason why they came to be in socionics and it's not by way of a simple multiplication (see below). As a reminder, Jung conceived the auxiliary function as of less importance and relatively unconscious. We can add that between two and four functions there is a world of difference and between four and eight functions there is a universe. We must keep in mind that from Jung's point of view, a Psychological Type is an incarnation of its main function most and foremost, and again the auxiliary being of less importance.

    "reframing of function"

    I don't see any reframing, only difference is that Socionics has more simple descriptions, and doesn't go into detail, also some inaccuracies. And why on earth would you need any "reframing of functions", when the types are the same (see my point above)
    The term "reframing" was not appropriate, sorry ! I didn't mean to say that functions fundamentally changed but their conception and structure have been reworked to fit Model A (more on that below). Let"s remind ourselves some definitions.

    This is how Jung defined a Function :

    Function : By psychological function I understand a certain form of psychic activity that remains theoretically the same under varying circumstances. From the energic standpoint a function is a phenomenal form of libido (q.v.) which theoretically remains constant, in much the same way as physical force can be considered as the form or momentary manifestation of physical energy. I distinguish four basic functions in all, two rational and two irrational, thinking and feeling, sensation and intuition. I can give no a priori reason for selecting just these four as basic functions ; I can only point to the fact that this conception has shaped itself out of many years' experience. I differentiate these functions from one another, because they are neither mutually relatable nor mutually reducible. The principle of thinking, for instance, is absolutely different from the principle of feeling, and so forth. I make a capital distinction between this concept of function and phantasy-activity, or reverie, because, to my mind, phantasying is a peculiar form of activity which can manifest itself in all the four functions. In my view, both will and attention are entirely secondary psychic phenomena.

    Carl Jung - Psychological Types Chapter XI Definitions page 547
    In contrast this is how Socionics defines a "function" (as you can see there is a much more to cover !) :

    The information elements (also IM elements, elements of information metabolism, or, confusingly, "functions") are eight mental categories that play a key role in interpersonal interaction. They are denoted using the same symbols and names as the information aspects. The difference between them is that information elements are subjective properties of the psyche, whereas information aspects are objective properties of reality independent from psyche.

    Wikisocion - Information elements.

    The eight information aspects form a category that is unique to socionics. Augusta, influenced by Antoni Kempinski's theory of information metabolism, concluded that the information that enters the psyche can be divided into different kinds, just as Jung divided psychic functions into different kinds.
    Information aspects represent an attempt to divide information into 8 different kinds. While this concept has not been thoroughly developed in socionics, this kind of division may be of interest to information theory and other theoretical fields such as memetics.

    Wikisocion - Information Aspects


    Functions are the eight components of Model A that describe how each information element is manifested in each type. They determine overall patterns in a person's behavior, which in turn have a strong influence on the person's interactions with other people. Functions are distinct from information aspects and information elements.
    Functions have not yet been identified as functional biological components of the brain. No one knows for sure how these overarching patterns of behavior and interaction manifest themselves on a neurological level. Is a function physically located in one place, or is it a kind of neural network, or a pattern of brain activity? Answering these questions is a major problem in making socionics more scientific.
    According to Model A, there are eight functions present in each type, one for each information element. In this respect socionics differs from canonical MBTI and Jung's Typology, in which only four elements are present in each type. Given the assumptions that everyone perceives the same information elements, and that there is a one-to-one correspondence between information elements and functions, this number is essentially determined by the relationship structure (see Mathematics of socionics)

    wikisocion - Functions
    Jung's Psychological functions are reconceptualized in Socionics ; they are divided in two distinct information categories: Information elements (Subjective properties of the Psyche) and information aspect (Properties of reality independent from Psyche). what Socionics calls "functions" are the eight components of Model A (these components don't exist in Jung's model)
    [Note that at this point one can notice the schism from the Jungian Model and the new paradigm.]

    Now, there is more ! We must not forget the Elemental dichotomies !

    Static/Dynamic - Extroverted/Introverted (Body/Field) - External / Internal - Rational /Irrational

    And now to my point, I said that the function have been re-designed or reframed or reworked for a reason. In socionics the eight functions model came from Aushra insight. When she declared that all eight functions exist concomitantly in both the psyche and the objective reality then she obviously needed a new model because Jung didn't conceive the psyche that way (as if his conceptualization of the psychological Type was only a half of a whole) therefore she also needed to make some structural adjustment and come up with new ways of differentiating the elements that constitute the model... and use some math.

    To summarize : Let there be eight information elements (~functions), eight information aspects and eight positions in the psyche that serve as functions, a conscious ring and an unconscious one (again cybernetics meets Jung) 16 types and voilà .
    where did it came from ? Jung ? No ! It came from aushra's insight and Antoni Kepinski'. (Btw, since Kepinski published his work on Information Metabolism in 1970, I wonder what Aushra and her club already developed from Jung's material in the late 60's. Maybe they were working on a cybernetic model of Psyche ? )

    One could argue that John Beebe has his eight functions model but how did he frame it ? Within the Jungian paradigm. His additional functions are essentially archetypes and their theoretical existence is not justified mathematically but as an expansion on MBTI according to Jung's model and the functional role of archetypes in the psyche. Very different approaches isn't it ?


    "quadra"

    It's a free world. You can group the types any way you want, as long as you see some point in doing it. There are hundreds of ways of grouping them. Jung preferred to talk about EJ, EP, IJ and IPs. And he gave descriptions for these groups. By using 16 types you can talk about quadras and supervision rings.
    Yes, indeed. However, you can talk about supervision rings only in socionics not in other 16 types based typology like MBTI or OP etc..

    "have nothing to do with Jung's Conceptualization of psychological Types whatsoever"

    This is not true. They have everyting to do with Jung's conceptualizations. It's just that the systems are modular, and because Socionics has expanded into 16 types there are more things you can do. Some people prefer to talk about men and women, others like to be more specific and talk about brunettes, blondes etc. etc.
    I admit that I exaggerated when I said that ! Fair enough !

    It's just a matter how much detail you want to work out. Not only can you "run model Jung within a Socionics framwork", we are actually doing it all the time. Socionics is exactly the same thing as Jung, only with some detail added, and with a different brand name.
    Imho it's a bit of a stretch. I made my point somewhere above but let's just say that they are similar but different ahah !

    Do you really think that the base-suggestive compensation is something different than what Jung already talked about in great detail for all the 8 types. Jung knew how people can compensate this problem in relationships, but he didn't recommend duality, because his focus is more on the individual development, and duality can in fact be problematic when it comes to individuation.
    Yes, I agree with that.

    EDIT: By the way, I don't agree with CR400AF's typing of Gulenko. That's a different matter, it is hard to type people online, using Jungian descriptions or not.
    It's true that it's hard to type people online ! I thought his typing was bold and well substantiated, as for its correctness well...

    Anyway, sorry for this long post ! It's all over the place !

  17. #17
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting. The difference between our understanding might be type related to some extent. I try to describe my reasoning in details.

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    As a reminder, in Carl Jung's discoveries and fundamental ideas in the understanding of the human psyche, there is the central theme of self-discovery and process of individuation. It's about the psychic world of the individual. Whereas socionics adds a sociological dimension and the influences of ITR from without the psyche. Socionics is about information metabolism, interpersonal interactions translated in the flow of information between TIMs in the socion (the main circuit if you will) and how information is treated and transmitted by and through each TIM. They are not the same thing imho. Jung focuses of the individual and socionics opens on the outside and integrates the individual itself as an object within the socion hence the sociological part of socionics.
    I agree that Socionics ignored the individuation part of Jungian Typology. However, I regard it as a similar situation that the analysis taught to math students and the calculus taught to engineering students are different. Some in-depth contents such as the theory of real numbers are removed from the calculus textbook designed for engineering students. However, it doesn't mean that calculus and analysis are incompatible knowledge.

    Why isn't Model A referencing the Jungian structure of the psyche (consciousness, personal and collective unconscious, archetypes, self) instead of organizing it in blocks with pseudo-Freudian terminology ?
    Archetype is the contents of the collective unconscious. Such concepts are often found impossible for many people to understand. I personally think perhaps Socionics is trying to avoid such concepts and instead choose a more extraverted perspective. Another reason might be that Socionics is founded by an ILE, which is of Jung's mirror type. What I believe is that the object/relationship approach to introversion/extraversion is logically equivalent to Jung's projection/introjection approach which is defined upon the concept of collective unconscious.

    Does it suffice to learn socionics without any knowledge of Jung's Work to be aware of Jung's fundamental concepts ? If Jung and socionics are the same then the answer should be "yes", if they are not then the answer should be "no". It's as simple as that.
    IMO if one strictly follow the core definition in Socionics (s)he should be aware of the same functions as Jung noticed. However, if (s)he is influenced too much by later developments of Socionics such as Model G and the information pollution from Model Beebe, MBTI, and OPS, (s)he might never got the same thing as Jung defined.

    In fact, this discussion of yours is so good that it reminds me of another of my observations. Now allow me to digress for a moment.

    In my opinion, instead of discussing the differences between Jung, Socionics and MBTI, I would rather discuss the differences between beginners and advanced learners. In terms of perception and understanding of typology, the similarities between beginners who read Jung's original work and beginners who read Socionics are much greater than the similarities between Socionics beginners and Socionics advanced learners.

    We can draw an analogy with the courses taught in modern universities. When we study a subject, such as mathematical analysis or modern physics, there are often many different versions of the textbook to choose from. As textbooks for the same course, these books are often very similar in their selection of content, but the authors add their own academic ideas and structure the textbooks according to their own understanding of the subject. In fact, for the best students, they gain a depth of understanding regardless of which textbook they are studying. A Russian student and a French student may be studying very different material, but they will both think, analyze, and understand the concepts, formulas, and theorems involved in the course in depth, and they can discuss, exchange, or debate their understanding.

    In contrast, the difference between a good student and a poor student is much greater. Even at the same university, listening to the same professor and using the same version of the textbook. The good student is able to learn the essence of the class, while the poor student reads and memorizes the text of the textbook literally and recites the answers to last year's exam questions before taking the exam so that he or she can pass with a passing score. As a result, it is difficult to communicate between poor students and good students. When the best students start to talk about deep thinking about a concept, the poor students are likely to find themselves completely incomprehensible.

    Back to the topic of discussion. Whether it is Jung's book, Socionics or MBTI, they are all the same discipline, and they are all answers to the question "How to classify people into types according to the ideas of introversion, extraversion, and cognitive function? My study of Jungian typology was motivated by the search for an answer to this question, so in my opinion, all the theories that try to answer this question are comparable to each other, and I evaluate them mainly on the basis of their logical self-consistency. In my opinion, Jung and Socionics are excellent answers to this question. Jung's answer is the most logically rigorous and self-consistent, and the most profound in its inquiry. Model A, on the other hand, renders the most core definition equally logically self-consistent. Model Beebe, MBTI, and OPS are, in my opinion, so full of logical errors and so fundamentally contradictory that I can only give them a failing grade. I think this is why the idea exists that Jung and Socionics can be compared.

    As a reminder, Jung conceived the auxiliary function as of less importance and relatively unconscious. We can add that between two and four functions there is a world of difference and between four and eight functions there is a universe. We must keep in mind that from Jung's point of view, a Psychological Type is an incarnation of its main function most and foremost, and again the auxiliary being of less importance.
    The refinement of any theory requires a long process. In fact, Jung also points out at the end of Chapter X that each type has two possible auxiliary functions. Therefore, in my opinion, the 16 types of Socionics are entirely an expansion within Jung's own logical framework, rather than a rambling one. I see this as a logical development of Jung's typology. Establishing these 16 types does not violate the logic proposed by Jung himself.

    Of course, this does not mean that I think one can develop Jung's typology arbitrarily. For my own part, I would analyze whether the individual expansions can establish a reliable logical connection with the theoretical categories defined in Jung's original text. Therefore, I generally endorse only 16 types. Subtype systems often do not seem to me to explain the relationship between them and Jungian typology. In the case of Gulenko's DCNH system, for example, I see it as another typology and not as part of a Jungian typology.

    As Jung pointed out in his letter to von Fange, learning Jungian typology requires a focus on "fundamental and indubitable principles" rather than on the literal content. These "foundations" are like a system of axioms. Of course, Jungian typology is not as rigorous as mathematics, it is logical for human beings, but it is difficult to define it directly with the formal logic of mathematics. In my opinion, the 16 types of Socionics are like discovering something new in this axiomatic system of Jung. DCNH, on the other hand, cannot be logically connected to Jung's axiomatic system, and thus I can only consider it subordinate to a non-Jungian "axiomatic system of personality".

    This is my understanding of the issue, and I think it may explain why we have different views. Perhaps it's a bit too "LII-ish".

    The term "reframing" was not appropriate, sorry ! I didn't mean to say that functions fundamentally changed but their conception and structure have been reworked to fit Model A (more on that below). Let"s remind ourselves some definitions.

    Jung's Psychological functions are reconceptualized in Socionics ; they are divided in two distinct information categories: Information elements (Subjective properties of the Psyche) and information aspect (Properties of reality independent from Psyche). what Socionics calls "functions" are the eight components of Model A (these components don't exist in Jung's model)
    I don't find any contradiction between this Socionic approach and what I identify as the "fundamental axioms of Jungian typology". They seem to be two languages on the same thing IMO. Although Jung didn't make such seperation, when Jung use the term "thinking function" and "inferior function", the meaning of the two "function"s also have a similar difference.

    Static/Dynamic - Extroverted/Introverted (Body/Field) - External / Internal - Rational /Irrational
    Although Jung used a different approach, it seems that all these dichotomies could be identified in Jung's text. For instance when Jung was describing Se he actually described the static feature of Se. As for external/internal, in his Tavistock lectures, he kind of mentioned that among irrational functions intuition is after sensing, and feeling is after thinking as for rational functions. I don't remember the word choice but it's kind of isomorphic to the external/internal dichotomy in Model A.

    One could argue that John Beebe has his eight functions model but how did he frame it ? Within the Jungian paradigm. His additional functions are essentially archetypes and their theoretical existence is not justified mathematically but as an expansion on MBTI according to Jung's model and the functional role of archetypes in the psyche. Very different approaches isn't it ?
    Please forgive me for going off topic again. In my opinion, Model Beebe is a typically very misleading model. A very critical point is because it uses some of the archetypes Jung found to name model functions. But the thing is, Jung himself didn't name it that way, did he? Jung uses words like "dominant function", "auxiliary function", "inferior function" and "inferior function also has an auxiliary function". Although Jung also mentioned the relationship between the inferior function and the anima, the two concepts are different in the Jungian literature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, Conerning Rebirth
    There are still other factors which may take possession of the individual, one of the most important being the so-called “inferior function.” This is not the place to enter into a detailed discussion of this problem; I should only like to point out that the inferior function is practically identical with the dark side of the human personality. The darkness which clings to every personality is the door into the unconscious and the gateway of dreams, from which those two twilight figures, the shadow and the anima, step into our nightly visions or, remaining invisible, take possession of our ego-consciousness
    Now I try to express this idea of mine clearly. Of course, when I analyze this problem I do it in a straightforward logical way. But in order that more people can see it clearly, I tried to present it in a more formal and mathematical manner.

    Jung's definition in the above passage can be roughly presented in a few logical expressions. We have a binary relation called "as a door to". First, according to Jung's definition, the binary relation "as a door to (inferior function, X)" is true, where X is a set. Then, we have another relation "" to determine whether an element belongs to a set, and according to Jung's definition, we have "anima/animus ∈ X". This is the relationship between inferior function and anima/animus in Jungian typology.

    This is clearly inconsistent with Jung's own theory, which is that the inferior function = anima/animus in Model Beebe. These two models are not isomorphic.

    In fact, in Jung's system, we can also see roughly the following ideas: archetypes are the content of the collective unconscious, while the introverted function tends to project from the collective unconscious to the object world in terms of the value orientation of the cognitive function. Thus, the concept of archetypes has a very special meaning in Jungian typology, and Jung uses it in his interpretation of the operating principles of the introverted function. And in Model Beebe archetypes are made a direct connection with the function of the model.

    This aspect causes great confusion. On the other hand, it is not logically justifiable. For example, Jung found a large number of archetypes, but Model Beebe has only 8 functions. The number of elements in the set of archetypes is much larger than the number of Model Beebe's functions. Since the number of elements of the two sets is not equal, it is logically impossible to establish a bijection relationship. However, Model Beebe names the functions as archetypes, making it easy for the reader to assume a bijective and equivalent relationship between archetypes and functions, which is obviously very confusing. For example, Jung points out an archetype called Earth Mother, which function does it correspond to? Jung also points out the existence of archetypes such as Ascent and Descent, which functions do they correspond to?

    I think Model Beebe not only has a lot of contradictions in itself, but even worse, because he misuses the name of the archetype, which leads many beginners to believe that a theory using the name of the archetype is "more Jungian". It will lead many beginners to form the wrong mindset of associating the prototype with the function. In that case, a new model has emerged that not only names the 8 functions of the model as archetypes, but also uses other words used by Jung such as "alchemy", "fish", and "snake " to name the 8 cognitive functions, is this model therefore "more true to Jung" than Model Beebe?

    Model Beebe is clearly in conflict with Jung's original work. This is not only in the indiscriminate use of the concept of prototype. In addition, its definition of the 8 cognitive functions is also in conflict with these "foundational principles" of Jung's original work.

    It's true that it's hard to type people online ! I thought his typing was bold and well substantiated, as for its correctness well...
    I agree. I am not very interested in Model G since I find it very easy to notice that it has some logical problems. Recently I got some time and I find that more and more people are discussion Model G ideas. So I decided to read some of his articles carefully tying to figure out his logic. When I read it carefully, I noticed that his analysis seem to be very extraverted from my perspective. I agree that it's very hard to type online. For instance, Freud is a Fi type who appears as a Te type in his books due to being neurotic.

    I also find that the typing of LSE might explain Gulenko's bias (an infantile, primitive and problematic Fi-Suggestive) and his obsession with developping the Socion clock theory to predict the social processes of the history (trying to resolve the Ni-PoLR anxiety with his ego functions). But all of these are primitive. Since I don't know him imperson, such typings are just only a preliminary attempt. I am just trying to propose a new possibility. It is, of course, far from certain. I don't have a good ability to type people I am not familiar with in real life, and I am just started to learn VI.

  18. #18
    Thalia, Gelos and Crom ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,762
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post
     
    Interesting. The difference between our understanding might be type related to some extent. I try to describe my reasoning in details.



    I agree that Socionics ignored the individuation part of Jungian Typology. However, I regard it as a similar situation that the analysis taught to math students and the calculus taught to engineering students are different. Some in-depth contents such as the theory of real numbers are removed from the calculus textbook designed for engineering students. However, it doesn't mean that calculus and analysis are incompatible knowledge.



    Archetype is the contents of the collective unconscious. Such concepts are often found impossible for many people to understand. I personally think perhaps Socionics is trying to avoid such concepts and instead choose a more extraverted perspective. Another reason might be that Socionics is founded by an ILE, which is of Jung's mirror type. What I believe is that the object/relationship approach to introversion/extraversion is logically equivalent to Jung's projection/introjection approach which is defined upon the concept of collective unconscious.



    IMO if one strictly follow the core definition in Socionics (s)he should be aware of the same functions as Jung noticed. However, if (s)he is influenced too much by later developments of Socionics such as Model G and the information pollution from Model Beebe, MBTI, and OPS, (s)he might never got the same thing as Jung defined.

    In fact, this discussion of yours is so good that it reminds me of another of my observations. Now allow me to digress for a moment.

    In my opinion, instead of discussing the differences between Jung, Socionics and MBTI, I would rather discuss the differences between beginners and advanced learners. In terms of perception and understanding of typology, the similarities between beginners who read Jung's original work and beginners who read Socionics are much greater than the similarities between Socionics beginners and Socionics advanced learners.

    We can draw an analogy with the courses taught in modern universities. When we study a subject, such as mathematical analysis or modern physics, there are often many different versions of the textbook to choose from. As textbooks for the same course, these books are often very similar in their selection of content, but the authors add their own academic ideas and structure the textbooks according to their own understanding of the subject. In fact, for the best students, they gain a depth of understanding regardless of which textbook they are studying. A Russian student and a French student may be studying very different material, but they will both think, analyze, and understand the concepts, formulas, and theorems involved in the course in depth, and they can discuss, exchange, or debate their understanding.

    In contrast, the difference between a good student and a poor student is much greater. Even at the same university, listening to the same professor and using the same version of the textbook. The good student is able to learn the essence of the class, while the poor student reads and memorizes the text of the textbook literally and recites the answers to last year's exam questions before taking the exam so that he or she can pass with a passing score. As a result, it is difficult to communicate between poor students and good students. When the best students start to talk about deep thinking about a concept, the poor students are likely to find themselves completely incomprehensible.

    Back to the topic of discussion. Whether it is Jung's book, Socionics or MBTI, they are all the same discipline, and they are all answers to the question "How to classify people into types according to the ideas of introversion, extraversion, and cognitive function? My study of Jungian typology was motivated by the search for an answer to this question, so in my opinion, all the theories that try to answer this question are comparable to each other, and I evaluate them mainly on the basis of their logical self-consistency. In my opinion, Jung and Socionics are excellent answers to this question. Jung's answer is the most logically rigorous and self-consistent, and the most profound in its inquiry. Model A, on the other hand, renders the most core definition equally logically self-consistent. Model Beebe, MBTI, and OPS are, in my opinion, so full of logical errors and so fundamentally contradictory that I can only give them a failing grade. I think this is why the idea exists that Jung and Socionics can be compared.



    The refinement of any theory requires a long process. In fact, Jung also points out at the end of Chapter X that each type has two possible auxiliary functions. Therefore, in my opinion, the 16 types of Socionics are entirely an expansion within Jung's own logical framework, rather than a rambling one. I see this as a logical development of Jung's typology. Establishing these 16 types does not violate the logic proposed by Jung himself.

    Of course, this does not mean that I think one can develop Jung's typology arbitrarily. For my own part, I would analyze whether the individual expansions can establish a reliable logical connection with the theoretical categories defined in Jung's original text. Therefore, I generally endorse only 16 types. Subtype systems often do not seem to me to explain the relationship between them and Jungian typology. In the case of Gulenko's DCNH system, for example, I see it as another typology and not as part of a Jungian typology.

    As Jung pointed out in his letter to von Fange, learning Jungian typology requires a focus on "fundamental and indubitable principles" rather than on the literal content. These "foundations" are like a system of axioms. Of course, Jungian typology is not as rigorous as mathematics, it is logical for human beings, but it is difficult to define it directly with the formal logic of mathematics. In my opinion, the 16 types of Socionics are like discovering something new in this axiomatic system of Jung. DCNH, on the other hand, cannot be logically connected to Jung's axiomatic system, and thus I can only consider it subordinate to a non-Jungian "axiomatic system of personality".

    This is my understanding of the issue, and I think it may explain why we have different views. Perhaps it's a bit too "LII-ish".

    The term "reframing" was not appropriate, sorry ! I didn't mean to say that functions fundamentally changed but their conception and structure have been reworked to fit Model A (more on that below). Let"s remind ourselves some definitions.



    I don't find any contradiction between this Socionic approach and what I identify as the "fundamental axioms of Jungian typology". They seem to be two languages on the same thing IMO. Although Jung didn't make such separation, when Jung use the term "thinking function" and "inferior function", the meaning of the two "function"s also have a similar difference.



    Although Jung used a different approach, it seems that all these dichotomies could be identified in Jung's text. For instance when Jung was describing Se he actually described the static feature of Se. As for external/internal, in his Tavistock lectures, he kind of mentioned that among irrational functions intuition is after sensing, and feeling is after thinking as for rational functions. I don't remember the word choice but it's kind of isomorphic to the external/internal dichotomy in Model A.



    Please forgive me for going off topic again. In my opinion, Model Beebe is a typically very misleading model. A very critical point is because it uses some of the archetypes Jung found to name model functions. But the thing is, Jung himself didn't name it that way, did he? Jung uses words like "dominant function", "auxiliary function", "inferior function" and "inferior function also has an auxiliary function". Although Jung also mentioned the relationship between the inferior function and the anima, the two concepts are different in the Jungian literature.



    Now I try to express this idea of mine clearly. Of course, when I analyze this problem I do it in a straightforward logical way. But in order that more people can see it clearly, I tried to present it in a more formal and mathematical manner.

    Jung's definition in the above passage can be roughly presented in a few logical expressions. We have a binary relation called "as a door to". First, according to Jung's definition, the binary relation "as a door to (inferior function, X)" is true, where X is a set. Then, we have another relation "" to determine whether an element belongs to a set, and according to Jung's definition, we have "anima/animus ∈ X". This is the relationship between inferior function and anima/animus in Jungian typology.

    This is clearly inconsistent with Jung's own theory, which is that the inferior function = anima/animus in Model Beebe. These two models are not isomorphic.

    In fact, in Jung's system, we can also see roughly the following ideas: archetypes are the content of the collective unconscious, while the introverted function tends to project from the collective unconscious to the object world in terms of the value orientation of the cognitive function. Thus, the concept of archetypes has a very special meaning in Jungian typology, and Jung uses it in his interpretation of the operating principles of the introverted function. And in Model Beebe archetypes are made a direct connection with the function of the model.

    This aspect causes great confusion. On the other hand, it is not logically justifiable. For example, Jung found a large number of archetypes, but Model Beebe has only 8 functions. The number of elements in the set of archetypes is much larger than the number of Model Beebe's functions. Since the number of elements of the two sets is not equal, it is logically impossible to establish a bijection relationship. However, Model Beebe names the functions as archetypes, making it easy for the reader to assume a bijective and equivalent relationship between archetypes and functions, which is obviously very confusing. For example, Jung points out an archetype called Earth Mother, which function does it correspond to? Jung also points out the existence of archetypes such as Ascent and Descent, which functions do they correspond to?

    I think Model Beebe not only has a lot of contradictions in itself, but even worse, because he misuses the name of the archetype, which leads many beginners to believe that a theory using the name of the archetype is "more Jungian". It will lead many beginners to form the wrong mindset of associating the prototype with the function. In that case, a new model has emerged that not only names the 8 functions of the model as archetypes, but also uses other words used by Jung such as "alchemy", "fish", and "snake " to name the 8 cognitive functions, is this model therefore "more true to Jung" than Model Beebe?

    Model Beebe is clearly in conflict with Jung's original work. This is not only in the indiscriminate use of the concept of prototype. In addition, its definition of the 8 cognitive functions is also in conflict with these "foundational principles" of Jung's original work.



    I agree. I am not very interested in Model G since I find it very easy to notice that it has some logical problems. Recently I got some time and I find that more and more people are discussion Model G ideas. So I decided to read some of his articles carefully tying to figure out his logic. When I read it carefully, I noticed that his analysis seem to be very extraverted from my perspective. I agree that it's very hard to type online. For instance, Freud is a Fi type who appears as a Te type in his books due to being neurotic.

    I also find that the typing of LSE might explain Gulenko's bias (an infantile, primitive and problematic Fi-Suggestive) and his obsession with developing the Socion clock theory to predict the social processes of the history (trying to resolve the Ni-PoLR anxiety with his ego functions). But all of these are primitive. Since I don't know him imperson, such typings are just only a preliminary attempt. I am just trying to propose a new possibility. It is, of course, far from certain. I don't have a good ability to type people I am not familiar with in real life, and I am just started to learn VI.

    Thank you for your time, your brilliant analysis and your kind words ! It's very insightful and easy to read. I have almost nothing to add.

    Archetype is the contents of the collective unconscious. Such concepts are often found impossible for many people to understand. I personally think perhaps Socionics is trying to avoid such concepts and instead choose a more extraverted perspective. Another reason might be that Socionics is founded by an ILE, which is of Jung's mirror type. What I believe is that the object/relationship approach to introversion/extraversion is logically equivalent to Jung's projection/introjection approach which is defined upon the concept of collective unconscious.
    Yes, I'm aware that archetype are to found within the collective unconscious (with a relative connection with the personal unconscious), it is true that the dynamics of the Jungian Psyche are considerably complex.

    I find your connection fascinating and quite original. It touches on the very nature of our representation of reality. As you know, our perception of reality is just a biased representation of it. It is only partially brought to consciousness. There is a part of it which is unconsciously occulted and even recreated from a small peripheral data pertaining to reality and/or our memory. Almost as if we all had in us some kind of matrix that we constantly project on reality without even being aware of it. I believe that, like you seem to imply it, that the libido itself is not neutral or purin term of energy, I suspect that it is impregnated with something of us always projected onto the object. That something might be infinitesimal and yet significant enough to leave its influence upon the object and of course in return the subject's representation.

    Please forgive me for going off topic again. In my opinion, Model Beebe is a typically very misleading model. A very critical point is because it uses some of the archetypes Jung found to name model functions. But the thing is, Jung himself didn't name it that way, did he? Jung uses words like "dominant function", "auxiliary function", "inferior function" and "inferior function also has an auxiliary function". Although Jung also mentioned the relationship between the inferior function and the anima, the two concepts are different in the Jungian literature.
    Yes I agree. I didn't mention it in my post but I had the the same thoughts (and critics) about his renaming of functions with archetypical connotations. It's just the MBTI model extended with a mirrored image configuration of the functions. His model doesn't make a lot sense since it doesn't align with Jung's structure of the psyche and its dynamics. I find that quite ironic coming from a Jungian Psychologist.
    When you compare his model with Socionic (just for sake of it), it doesn't make sense at all. I've never read him (I'm relatively aware of his work nonetheless) but I watched some of his interviews (some of them from the early 90's I believe) and I start to doubt about his.. motivations let's put it that way. In fact, I have some mixed feeling about him for some reasons.

    Your exposition and analysis about the issues of Beebe's model is remarquable !


    The refinement of any theory requires a long process. In fact, Jung also points out at the end of Chapter X that each type has two possible auxiliary functions. Therefore, in my opinion, the 16 types of Socionics are entirely an expansion within Jung's own logical framework, rather than a rambling one. I see this as a logical development of Jung's typology. Establishing these 16 types does not violate the logic proposed by Jung himself.
    Yes, of course the number of types like I said is not what I was concerned about. I've said before just like you do that Socionics took as a basis Jung's PT and developed it. I said that it was just the fundament or something similar. My point was about the "how", the approach of socionics, the integration of cybernetics and Kepinski's ideas etc.. How that chimera came to be was very unexpected and I wonder what Carl Jung would have thought about it. Yes, socionics works and it is fascinating, yes at the end of the chain the types are better differentiated, but it feels to me that it lacks that organic and dynamic feel so to speak. One more thing, Jung thought that types change and most typology don't align with that opinion. Again, that feel of a static devoid of life digital representation of an analog "organic" phenomenon. But yes, Fair enough !

    Of course, this does not mean that I think one can develop Jung's typology arbitrarily. For my own part, I would analyze whether the individual expansions can establish a reliable logical connection with the theoretical categories defined in Jung's original text. Therefore, I generally endorse only 16 types. Subtype systems often do not seem to me to explain the relationship between them and Jungian typology. In the case of Gulenko's DCNH system, for example, I see it as another typology and not as part of a Jungian typology.


    I agree. The problem with DCNH is that you can justify almost any typing with it. I think that we make an understatement when we talk about a subtype system when it comes to DCNH, to me it's like an additional temperament. I like to use Model G because it's ergonomic (for the lack of a better) and easy to use. The problem is that I don't feel like I did a great job when I use it, it's like playing a video game in easy mode, there is no real challenge. At the end of the day, the most important thing in individual the the content not the process. You can't discover an individual universe just by knowing his Sociotype, just like you can't know the content of a book just by looking at it.

    As Jung pointed out in his letter to von Fange, learning Jungian typology requires a focus on "fundamental and indubitable principles" rather than on the literal content. These "foundations" are like a system of axioms. Of course, Jungian typology is not as rigorous as mathematics, it is logical for human beings, but it is difficult to define it directly with the formal logic of mathematics. In my opinion, the 16 types of Socionics are like discovering something new in this axiomatic system of Jung. DCNH, on the other hand, cannot be logically connected to Jung's axiomatic system, and thus I can only consider it subordinate to a non-Jungian "axiomatic system of personality".

    This is my understanding of the issue, and I think it may explain why we have different views. Perhaps it's a bit too "LII-ish".
    Yes, I see your point and I talk about that fundamental axiom in another post (or thread ?). It's interesting to note that you still perceived that thin line of logical connection when I lost sight of it and concideder socionics as a "departure".

    That part was not too LII-ish for me on the contrary ! On the other hand, you definitely almost lost me with the math stuff...
    Lack is the Muse of all Poets

  19. #19
    globohomo aixelsyd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    TIM
    SLI 5w6
    Posts
    1,182
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The writings of Charles Darwin is also full with logical analysis. Also, the contents of his logical analysis is about "how the creatures evolved" and "why are there so many different spices". It's not about business problems ("how to use", efficiency, algorithms, money).
    Darwin's analysis is subordinated to external evidence of the fossil record. Thus, his analysis is external in origin. The analysis is to make sense of the compiled evidence.

    In contrast, Kant's ethics is derived from an abstract principle (the categorical imperative) that is universal rather than concrete.

    Both types of logic utilize analysis and Te is not simply preoccupied with work, money, and efficiency. Te also relates to the accumulation of information from external sources. Ti is purely analysis.
    Te types are just as prone towards analysis, but rarely is the analysis separate from external sources.

    The difference can better be seen in ethical types depending on whether they value Te or Ti. Notice how Fi egos will essentially be more likely to paraphrase external sources while struggling with their own analysis just as Fe egos may focus on their own analysis without taking into much account of credible external sources. Of course, that is a generalization, but it also fits with my own anecdotal evidence.

    e.g.

    I regularly tutor a student who I believe is IEE and is utter shit at analysis. She basically just regurgitates information from the textbook and any other sources used and basically has me check the accuracy of her work, sends me the textbook, and assumes I have the expertise to check all of that in a 30 min session.

    For the Fe egos, there are plenty of examples on the forum of analysis lacking connection or consideration of verifiable external sources.

    But just because one's writing includes well-thought out logical analysis, it is not an indication of Ti ego.

    I myself am capable of logical analysis but not without some concrete information to base it on. Such information can extend to information about a system whether it is abstract or not. But the importance is that said system and its parts have been created and well defined so that it can be studied and knowledge can be delineated from said system because, after all, how would there be knowledge if no existing system to be studied? I mean, even socionics has Te ego in the latter two quadras. Re: progression of the socion.

  20. #20
    A turn in the phrase Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    Where the wild things R
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sometimes it's easier to see it like Fe.

    Fe is feeling what everyone is feeling, Te is thinking what everyone is thinking. They both interface the objective world and are factual.

    When someone feels bad, Fe people feel that too. It doesn't matter if it is logical or not. It is an accepted fact. I only know Joe to be sad and to make Joe glad i need to perform this way.

    Fi people say, well why? it is illogical to make Joe feel glad to perform and conform to this custom, the custom is arbitrary and in fact that custom causes trouble when you think upon it in terms of the fabric of society. It rips and tears if you examine it closely. *Subjective Fi logic.* It might be true or it might be false.

    Fe gathers in the facts on feeling and will add more facts to that, to satisfy extraverted feeling. That is logical to Fe people.



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multiplies

    The good news in knowing you are wrong is you're right


    Watch out for the quicksand, an hour glass isn't worth watching when the cook is done

    A little better makes better more
    ♦♦







  21. #21
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    I believe that, like you seem to imply it, that the libido itself is not neutral or purin term of energy, I suspect that it is impregnated with something of us always projected onto the object. That something might be infinitesimal and yet significant enough to leave its influence upon the object and of course in return the subject's representation.
    I agree, althought I haven't thought too much on this yet. IMO libido is one of the key concept in Jungian typology. I also find it very hard to describe and IMO a easier concept to elaborate it is valuing, as defined in Model A. Jung also made a lot effort to explain his concept of libido. As far as I'm concerned, Gulenko might have a different understanding of the concept "energy" than Jung. However, I have to acknowledge that my understanding of Jung's concept of libido is still very limited so I tend to use the concept of valuing in Model A.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, Psychological Types, Chapter XI
    [778] 37. LIBIDO. By libido I mean psychic energy. Psychic energy is the intensity of a psychic process, its psychological value. This does not imply an assignment of value, whether moral, aesthetic, or intellectual; the psychological value is already implicit in its determining power, which expresses itself in definite psychic effects. Neither do I understand libido as a psychic force, a misconception that has led many critics astray. I do not hypostatize the concept of energy, but use it to denote intensities or values. The question as to whether or not a specific psychic force exists has nothing to do with the concept of libido. I often use “libido” promiscuously with “energy.” The justification for calling psychic energy libido is fully gone into in the works cited in the footnote.
    In Chapter XI, Jung use "psychological value" to explain his concept of libido. However, he clarified that it's not an assignment of value, which differentiated this concept from the concept of Feeling function. He also differentiate this concept from the concept of "psychic force". IMO, Gulenko's concept of energy is more similar to "psychic force" instead of "psychological value". And what people often refer to as "energy" is more or less "psychic force". I think that's perhaps why you notice that "the libido itself is not neutral or purin term of energy".

    Jung said that he doesn't hypostatize the concept of energy and whether psychic force exists has nothing to do with libido.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=113
    And in order to start using knowledge, you need energy.
    This idea of Gulenko somewhat reminds me of "psychic force" or the daily term of "energy".

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulenko, https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=6
    On the physical level, extroverts are distinguished by their ability to spend energy in activities that require no deep thought.
    ...
    An introvert does not have such energy reserves as an extrovert, so they behave more restrained and conservative with their efforts. They would rather under-do than over-do. They draw energy from the outside. They require a push from more energetic people.
    These descriptions by Gulenko is not also arbitrary and biased IMO but also revealed an interpretation of energy that is different from Jung. It seems that he understands energy as some psychic force which push us to interact with the world. Hence he got the idea that introverts have low energy level. Such understanding might also be borrowed from Eysenck's Non-Jungian concepts of introversion and extraversion.

    ------------------------

    Jung wrote an article titled "Über die Energetik der Seele" in 1928 trying to further clarify his concept of psychic energy. This article, which is in the 8th volume of the collected work, seems very interesting to me but I confess that I only have a primitive understanding for this article. This article is so informative that I haven't spent enough time to analyze and understand it in as much detail as I did reading PTypes Chapter X. Nevertheless, I found some things to think about in this article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, vol. 8
    [1] The concept of libido which I have advanced has met with many misunderstandings and, in some quarters, complete repudiation; it may therefore not be amiss if I examine once more the bases of this concept.

    [2] It is a generally recognized truth that physical events can be looked at in two ways: from the mechanistic and from the energic standpoint. The mechanistic view is purely causal; it conceives an event as the effect of a cause, in the sense that unchanging substances change their relations to one another according to fixed laws.

    [3] The energic point of view on the other hand is in essence final; the event is traced back from effect to cause on the assumption that some kind of energy underlies the changes in phenomena, that it maintains itself as a constant throughout these changes and finally leads to entropy, a condition of general equilibrium. The flow of energy has a definite direction (goal) in that it follows the gradient of potential in a way that cannot be reversed. The idea of energy is not that of a substance moved in space; it is a concept abstracted from relations of movement. The concept, therefore, is founded not on the substances themselves but on their relations, whereas the moving substance itself is the basis of the mechanistic view.

    [4] Both points of view are indispensable for understanding physical events and consequently enjoy general recognition. Meanwhile, their continued existence side by side has gradually given rise to a third conception which is mechanistic as well as energic—although, logically speaking, the advance from cause to effect, the progressive action of the cause, cannot at the same time be the retrogressive selection of a means to an end. It is not possible to conceive that one and the same combination of events could be simultaneously causal and final, for the one determination excludes the other. There are in fact two different points of view, the one reversing the other; for the principle of finality is the logical reverse of the principle of causality. Finality is not only logically possible, it is also an indispensable explanatory principle, since no explanation of nature can be mechanistic only. If indeed our concepts were exclusively those of moving bodies in space, there would be only causal explanation; but we have also to deal conceptually with relations of movement, which require the energic standpoint. If this were not so, there would have been no need to invent the concept of energy.
    This 4 paragraphs are extremely interesting as they somewhat resembles both object/relation and process/result. However, Jung haven't really differentiated them. In general, Jung identified two ways of understanding physical motion, one mechanical and one energetic, and analogized them to the psychological understanding. In Jung's view, in the mechanistic understanding, the movement of an object causes a change in the relationship. Let me try to give an example: when we ride a bicycle, it is our shoes that hit the pedals of the bicycle, causing a change in the relationship between the bicycle chain and the gears. This example is in general, but of course in fact he involves more profound processes, such as the transfer of force from the pedals to the chain.

    In contrast, Jungian humans perceive energy in energetics as an abstraction of the relationship and see energy as an invariant factor. Let's try to continue with the example of the bicycle, which has an invariant energy principle when we ride it, a principle that responds to the relationship between us and the various points of force on the bicycle that cause the movement. But this constant energy principle leads to a change in us and the bicycle: the energy of our body decreases, while the bicycle gains kinetic energy. In this perspective, it seems that the human and the bicycle change, the energy of the human body decreases and the energy of the bicycle rises, while the principle of energy is constant. Of course, this example is still very limited and in reality there are more worth discussing such as the energy relationship between the bicycle wheel and the road that also occurs. But I think what Jung was trying to illustrate may be how he viewed the concept of energy. He saw the concept of energy as an abstraction of a relationship. A core feature of this perspective is that it trys to view the relationship as the constant while view the rider and the bicycle to be changing.

    Gulenko, on the other hand, seems to understand energy as a process of change, always emphasizing the increase and decrease of energy, its acquisition and use. As far as I understand model G, it seems that he understands energy as a changing property that people possess to relate to the outside world. He seems to see functional states as invariant objects and causes. As far as I understand, it is the action of a functional state leads to the changes in terms of energy (or perhaps "psychic force") in Model G. I think Gulenko's understanding and use of energy is very complex and difficult to analyze clearly, but various analyses show that what he calls energy is not the same concept as what Jung called libido or psychic energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, vol. 8
    [26] The term “psychic energy” has long been in use. We find it, for example, as early as Schiller,26 and the energic point of view was also used by von Grot27 and Theodor Lipps.28 Lipps distinguishes psychic energy from physical energy, while Stern29 leaves the question of their connection open. We have to thank Lipps for the distinction between psychic energy and psychic force. For Lipps, psychic force is the possibility of processes arising in the psyche at all and of attaining a certain degree of efficiency. Psychic energy, on the other hand, is defined by Lipps as the “inherent capacity of these processes to actualize this force in themselves.”30 Elsewhere Lipps speaks of “psychic quantities.” The distinction between force and energy is a conceptual necessity, for energy is really a concept and, as such, does not exist objectively in the phenomena themselves but only in the specific data of experience. In other words, energy is always experienced specifically as motion and force when actual, and as a state or condition when potential. Psychic energy appears, when actual, in the specific, dynamic phenomena of the psyche, such as instinct, wishing, willing, affect, attention, capacity for work, etc., which make up the psychic forces. When potential, energy shows itself in specific achievements, possibilities, aptitudes, attitudes, etc., which are its various states.

    [27] The differentiation of specific energies, such as pleasure energy, sensation energy, contrary energy, etc., proposed by Lipps, seems to me theoretically inadmissible as the specific forms of energy are the above-mentioned forces and states. Energy is a quantitative concept which includes them all. It is only these forces and states that are determined qualitatively, for they are concepts that express qualities brought into action through energy. The concept of quantity should never be qualitative at the same time, otherwise it would never enable us to expound the relations between forces, which is after all its real function.
    Jung discussed why the concept of energy should be differentiated from the concept of psychic force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung, vol. 8
    [39] Practical experience teaches us as a general rule that a psychic activity can find a substitute only on the basis of equivalence. A pathological interest, for example, an intense attachment to a symptom, can be replaced only by an equally intense attachment to another interest, which is why a release of libido from the symptom never takes place without this substitute. If the substitute is of less energic value, we know at once that a part of the energy is to be sought elsewhere—if not in the conscious mind, then in unconscious fantasy formations or in a disturbance of the “parties supérieures” of the psychological functions (to borrow an apt expression of Janet’s).
    What I understand is that it seems Jung is regarding one's psyche as a system. The Jungian concept of energy is something stays within the psyche system. On the other hand, the energy concept in Model G is something that's keep transferring between a person and the outside world. Hence G believed that extroverts spend energy and introverts get energy from the outside world.

    [52] What has been said above refers to a pure concept of energy. The concept of energy, like its correlate, the concept of time, is on the one hand an immediate, a priori, intuitive idea,44 and on the other a concrete, applied, or empirical concept abstracted from experience, like all scientific explanatory concepts.45 The applied concept of energy always deals with the behaviour of forces, with substances in motion; for energy is accessible to experience in no other way than through the observation of moving bodies. Hence, in practice, we speak of electrical energy and the like, as if energy were a definite force. This merging of the applied or empirical concept with the intuitive idea of the event gives rise to those constant confusions of “energy” with “force.” Similarly, the psychological concept of energy is not a pure concept, but a concrete and applied concept that appears to us in the form of sexual, vital, mental, moral “energy,” and so on. In other words, it appears in the form of a drive, the unmistakably dynamic nature of which justifies us in making a conceptual parallel with physical forces.

    [53] The application of the pure concept to the stuff of experience necessarily brings about a concretization or visualization of the concept, so that it looks as if a substance had been posited. This is the case, for instance, with the physicist’s concept of ether, which, although a concept, is treated exactly as if it were a substance. This confusion is unavoidable, since we are incapable of imagining a quantum unless it be a quantum of something. This something is the substance. Therefore every applied concept is unavoidably hypostatized, even against our will, though we must never forget that what we are dealing with is still a concept.

    [54] I have suggested calling the energy concept used in analytical psychology by the name “libido.” The choice of this term may not be ideal in some respects, yet it seemed to me that this concept merited the name libido if only for reasons of historical justice. Freud was the first to follow out these really dynamic, psychological relationships and to present them coherently, making use of the convenient term “libido,” albeit with a specifically sexual connotation in keeping with his general starting-point, which was sexuality. Together with “libido” Freud used the expressions “drive” or “instinct” (e.g., “ego-instincts”)46 and “psychic energy.” Since Freud confines himself almost exclusively to sexuality and its manifold ramifications in the psyche, the sexual definition of energy as a specific driving force is quite sufficient for his purpose. In a general psychological theory, however, it is impossible to use purely sexual energy, that is, one specific drive, as an explanatory concept, since psychic energy transformation is not merely a matter of sexual dynamics. Sexual dynamics is only one particular instance in the total field of the psyche. This is not to deny its existence, but merely to put it in its proper place.
    Here Jung explained his use of the word "libido". It seems that he uses this word because the "energy" is often understood together with the concept "force", which should rather be differentiated.

    I haven't done a very deep reading, thinking and analysis of this article by Jung. These are only some of my cursory thoughts which might turns out to be fully wrong. As far as I understand, the transformation of energy in the Jungian terms is somewhat more macroscopic and it might be related to our processes of development and individuation.

  22. #22
    CR400AF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Location
    Earth
    TIM
    LII 5w6-1w9-2w1
    Posts
    341
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by To B or to B View Post
    Sometimes it's easier to see it like Fe.

    Fe is feeling what everyone is feeling, Te is thinking what everyone is thinking.
    As far as I understand, this is not Fe. Both extraverted functions and introverted functions have subjective factors. Jung discussed the subjective factors in his Tavistock lectures. The relationship/emotion example is better IMO.

    Fi people say, well why? it is illogical to make Joe feel glad to perform and conform to this custom, the custom is arbitrary and in fact that custom causes trouble when you think upon it in terms of the fabric of society. It rips and tears if you examine it closely. *Subjective Fi logic.* It might be true or it might be false.
    According to this would all Fi people become anarchists?

  23. #23
    A turn in the phrase Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    Where the wild things R
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CR400AF View Post
    As far as I understand, this is not Fe. Both extraverted functions and introverted functions have subjective factors. Jung discussed the subjective factors in his Tavistock lectures. The relationship/emotion example is better IMO.



    According to this would all Fi people become anarchists?
    Extraverted feeling types follow the emotional signature of the crowd, not the Te side. It's affective empathy based. In a group setting they don't like emotional disruptions, and work around those things in people. Fi types, will also do that because it's logical, but think it some cases it parses out to conformity where it shouldn't and process things in terms of Fi. They don't follow that affective empathy input. The calculus is the other way, just look at how Fi dominants think here on the forum about choices and what long-term effect that has. Just like Ti makes its own truth about what extraverted Te things brings to the table. They follow it, but don't believe it, perhaps, if it steps out on logical consistency in a personal Ti way calculus.

    You being a Ti dominant might not relate to it, because you guys tend to break the flow yourself. Fe is something that is not your favorite thing.

    That's the illustrator of the way people use these functions, different sides of the same coin.



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multiplies

    The good news in knowing you are wrong is you're right


    Watch out for the quicksand, an hour glass isn't worth watching when the cook is done

    A little better makes better more
    ♦♦







  24. #24
    if it isn't Mr. Nice Guy Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,149
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @CR400AF Your article is interesting, and I have a few comments to add, though as a forewarning I must say I don't know how much energy I will be able to invest into this topic.

    I like the Jungian references in the first part of the article. I wish you had gone more into Jungian defintitions of Ti well, as it seems you focused more on Te it seems. I always really liked Jung's definitions of Ti vs Te, but I also don't think he is necessarily the end all be all granddaddy of Jungian typology (ironically, since it carries his name and he came up with it). It seems you based your analysis on Jung and drew your conclusions on whether or not others' definitions aligned with Jung's. Which is fair enough, but not everyone might agree with that approach.

    Gulenko is notorious among his students for giving unsatisfactory explanations to things. SHS students I have spoken to say it is because he is a left spinning (Reinin result) type, LII. LSE would actually go into more detail in an analysis according to this Reinin trait since they are a right-spinning (process) type. This doesn't contradict Jung btw, since it isn't whether things are explained or analyzed that defines whether someone is using Te or Ti (according to the Jung quote you posted). Gulenko's understanding of the types are based on images, perceived as a whole or gestalt. This is opposed to the rest of socionics that seems to rely on building on "image" based on the functions one is using most. Gulenko is bad at explaining his type images, however, and they are better understood as something intuitive to grasp rather than based on strict logical defintions, anyways.

    The functions one uses the most are not necessarily considered one's strongest functions in SHS. This is the reason that many typings given by Gulenko or an advanced student of his are often met with resistance. People identify with functions, and in model A, the functions one uses most are considered one's ego block.

    I don't really understand the backlash against the high amount of beta rational typings. There is no reason to assume all types are more or less equally distributed, or even to presume any kind of distribution without data in the first place. I have always found model A to be lacking when it comes to ITR - typings based on SHS methods have lead to ITS that makes more sense, in my experience. Sure, there may be an issue with saying that our society's values are beta rational, but the individual typings work fairly well.

    So, at the end of the day, who is right? Who is the authority who's judgements we should evaluate others'? I wish I knew to be honest. ITR is an important part of socionics however, and in my experience orienting myself towards EIEs (after getting typed LSI by Gulenko) has worked well, both romantically, friendship wise etc (there is also the fact that it suddenly made sense why so many people I got along with as friends were EIE). This wasn't so much the case with using model A, where I typed myself more as a gamma NT, and I never really found relations with gamma SFs deeply satisfying. This is my experience, but since the main raison d'être of socionics is ITR, I like that this typing (which wasn't an obvious one to many model A people) lead to orienting myself towards different types. Hence, I prefer it as an approach to socionics, but I also don't think anything has to be universal. I also like Archetype Center's methods and typings, though I haven't gotten typed by them. They actually believe Gulenko is LIE, if I'm not mistaken, haha.
    Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs

  25. #25
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,340
    Mentioned
    354 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wavebury View Post
    @CR400AF Your article is interesting, and I have a few comments to add, though as a forewarning I must say I don't know how much energy I will be able to invest into this topic.

    I like the Jungian references in the first part of the article. I wish you had gone more into Jungian defintitions of Ti well, as it seems you focused more on Te it seems. I always really liked Jung's definitions of Ti vs Te, but I also don't think he is necessarily the end all be all granddaddy of Jungian typology (ironically, since it carries his name and he came up with it). It seems you based your analysis on Jung and drew your conclusions on whether or not others' definitions aligned with Jung's. Which is fair enough, but not everyone might agree with that approach.

    Gulenko is notorious among his students for giving unsatisfactory explanations to things. SHS students I have spoken to say it is because he is a left spinning (Reinin result) type, LII. LSE would actually go into more detail in an analysis according to this Reinin trait since they are a right-spinning (process) type. This doesn't contradict Jung btw, since it isn't whether things are explained or analyzed that defines whether someone is using Te or Ti (according to the Jung quote you posted). Gulenko's understanding of the types are based on images, perceived as a whole or gestalt. This is opposed to the rest of socionics that seems to rely on building on "image" based on the functions one is using most. Gulenko is bad at explaining his type images, however, and they are better understood as something intuitive to grasp rather than based on strict logical defintions, anyways.

    The functions one uses the most are not necessarily considered one's strongest functions in SHS. This is the reason that many typings given by Gulenko or an advanced student of his are often met with resistance. People identify with functions, and in model A, the functions one uses most are considered one's ego block.

    I don't really understand the backlash against the high amount of beta rational typings. There is no reason to assume all types are more or less equally distributed, or even to presume any kind of distribution without data in the first place. I have always found model A to be lacking when it comes to ITR - typings based on SHS methods have lead to ITS that makes more sense, in my experience. Sure, there may be an issue with saying that our society's values are beta rational, but the individual typings work fairly well.

    So, at the end of the day, who is right? Who is the authority who's judgements we should evaluate others'? I wish I knew to be honest. ITR is an important part of socionics however, and in my experience orienting myself towards EIEs (after getting typed LSI by Gulenko) has worked well, both romantically, friendship wise etc (there is also the fact that it suddenly made sense why so many people I got along with as friends were EIE). This wasn't so much the case with using model A, where I typed myself more as a gamma NT, and I never really found relations with gamma SFs deeply satisfying. This is my experience, but since the main raison d'être of socionics is ITR, I like that this typing (which wasn't an obvious one to many model A people) lead to orienting myself towards different types. Hence, I prefer it as an approach to socionics, but I also don't think anything has to be universal. I also like Archetype Center's methods and typings, though I haven't gotten typed by them. They actually believe Gulenko is LIE, if I'm not mistaken, haha.
    There is phenomena that when you begin to add variables you can not really prove something very clearly.


    The hot thing nowadays is so called AI. No one knows how it works behind its insane amount of variables. It gives very good results in some cases. AFAIK looks like model G is sort of analogous to this. Jung's stuff is also quite hazy but he also trained himself to do it with large amount of patients.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  26. #26
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,209
    Mentioned
    308 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by godslave View Post
    “Morons, they dare anything, that's even how you recognize them.” - Crooks in Clover

    The quote above solves a great deal of the mystery as far as I'm concerned ! .



    Disclaimer : I am obviously both a Jung and socionics aficionado !

    As a reminder, in Carl Jung's discoveries and fundamental ideas in the understanding of the human psyche, there is the central theme of self-discovery and process of individuation. It's about the psychic world of the individual. Whereas socionics adds a sociological dimension and the influences of ITR from without the psyche. Socionics is about information metabolism, interpersonal interactions translated in the flow of information between TIMs in the socion (the main circuit if you will) and how information is treated and transmitted by and through each TIM. They are not the same thing imho. Jung focuses of the individual and socionics opens on the outside and integrates the individual itself as an object within the socion hence the sociological part of socionics.

    At this point one could ask : Where is the process of individuation in socionics ? Why isn't Model A referencing the Jungian structure of the psyche (consciousness, personal and collective unconscious, archetypes, self) instead of organizing it in blocks with pseudo-Freudian terminology ? Does it suffice to learn socionics without any knowledge of Jung's Work to be aware of Jung's fundamental concepts ? If Jung and socionics are the same then the answer should be "yes", if they are not then the answer should be "no". It's as simple as that.



    Yes, I'm aware of that. Mea culpa because there is something I forgot to mention (but I had it mind !) about the extension to 16 types. What is important is not so much the number of types but more the reason why they came to be in socionics and it's not by way of a simple multiplication (see below). As a reminder, Jung conceived the auxiliary function as of less importance and relatively unconscious. We can add that between two and four functions there is a world of difference and between four and eight functions there is a universe. We must keep in mind that from Jung's point of view, a Psychological Type is an incarnation of its main function most and foremost, and again the auxiliary being of less importance.



    The term "reframing" was not appropriate, sorry ! I didn't mean to say that functions fundamentally changed but their conception and structure have been reworked to fit Model A (more on that below). Let"s remind ourselves some definitions.

    This is how Jung defined a Function :


    In contrast this is how Socionics defines a "function" (as you can see there is a much more to cover !) :



    Jung's Psychological functions are reconceptualized in Socionics ; they are divided in two distinct information categories: Information elements (Subjective properties of the Psyche) and information aspect (Properties of reality independent from Psyche). what Socionics calls "functions" are the eight components of Model A (these components don't exist in Jung's model)
    [Note that at this point one can notice the schism from the Jungian Model and the new paradigm.]

    Now, there is more ! We must not forget the Elemental dichotomies !

    Static/Dynamic - Extroverted/Introverted (Body/Field) - External / Internal - Rational /Irrational

    And now to my point, I said that the function have been re-designed or reframed or reworked for a reason. In socionics the eight functions model came from Aushra insight. When she declared that all eight functions exist concomitantly in both the psyche and the objective reality then she obviously needed a new model because Jung didn't conceive the psyche that way (as if his conceptualization of the psychological Type was only a half of a whole) therefore she also needed to make some structural adjustment and come up with new ways of differentiating the elements that constitute the model... and use some math.

    To summarize : Let there be eight information elements (~functions), eight information aspects and eight positions in the psyche that serve as functions, a conscious ring and an unconscious one (again cybernetics meets Jung) 16 types and voilà .
    where did it came from ? Jung ? No ! It came from aushra's insight and Antoni Kepinski'. (Btw, since Kepinski published his work on Information Metabolism in 1970, I wonder what Aushra and her club already developed from Jung's material in the late 60's. Maybe they were working on a cybernetic model of Psyche ? )

    One could argue that John Beebe has his eight functions model but how did he frame it ? Within the Jungian paradigm. His additional functions are essentially archetypes and their theoretical existence is not justified mathematically but as an expansion on MBTI according to Jung's model and the functional role of archetypes in the psyche. Very different approaches isn't it ?




    Yes, indeed. However, you can talk about supervision rings only in socionics not in other 16 types based typology like MBTI or OP etc..



    I admit that I exaggerated when I said that ! Fair enough !


    Imho it's a bit of a stretch. I made my point somewhere above but let's just say that they are similar but different ahah !


    Yes, I agree with that.



    It's true that it's hard to type people online ! I thought his typing was bold and well substantiated, as for its correctness well...

    Anyway, sorry for this long post ! It's all over the place !
    I think our debate might be a good example how Te and Ti talk past each other. (are you IEE by the way?)

    I get that there are factual differences if you really look at how things are defined and formulated. Also that there are things that are left out, as you mentioned. But this is imo like two people drawing a map of the same terrain. The maps might look slightly different, but you can still use both interchangably when you are standing in the terrain, in fact it's better to do that. If one tree is missing on the map, I can look at the other and I might find it.

    I don't really care about the branding and who's saying what.

    I base myself in the reality of the types. You can define things differently on the surface but still talk about the same thing. Those kind of differences are not important. The structure and accuracy of the ITR locks Socionics into the age-old phenomenon of the basic cognitive types. Small inaccuracies in definitions and understanding of functions don't matter much then.

    When I said that Socionics and Jung are the same thing, I was not referring to Jungs general model of the psyche. That's obviously a different thing: Archetypes, individuation etc. I was just referring to Jung's psychological types. Individuation actually happens in the type also, but Socionics doesn't mention it, however, you can get that piece of information from Jung.

    As a reminder, Jung conceived the auxiliary function as of less importance and relatively unconscious. We can add that between two and four functions there is a world of difference and between four and eight functions there is a universe. We must keep in mind that from Jung's point of view, a Psychological Type is an incarnation of its main function most and foremost, and again the auxiliary being of less importance.
    I agree. Is this controversial from a Socionics perspective? The main function is the most conscious and adapted, one can't deny that. The creative is much less adapted to reality, and has less conscious control.

    Yes, Socionics formulates lots of things that Jung didn't do. I am really indifferent to that, because we are still talking about the same basic types, the same phenomenon.

    There are lots of things in Socionics that I ignore. It's modular and you can go on forever making new connections.

    Socionics has imo some mistakes and I don't care what it says about the functions anmore. The descriptions work for beginners to get the types right, that's important. They are close enough. For the details I use Jung.

    Socionics has also a tremendous value as an introduction to the types. Whithout it you would have to be a genious to read Jung. Now it is actually possible to understand what Jung is writing.

    To summarize : Let there be eight information elements (~functions), eight information aspects and eight positions in the psyche that serve as functions, a conscious ring and an unconscious one (again cybernetics meets Jung) 16 types and voilà .
    where did it came from ? Jung ? No
    The basic model came from Jung though. He talks about base+ auxiliary function, plus the inferior (suggestive) + it's auxiliary (mobilizing). Socionics built on this, and added stuff.

    Jung also hints at the ignoring functions, and describes it better than Socionics. (Here I wouldn't say that Jung has a "different" ignoring function. It's the same, but Jung is more accurate, so I more or less ignore what Socionics is saying concerning this detail.)

    I obviously agree with you about the factual differences on a surface level. But I don't think I put as much value on them as you seem to be doing. I am looking at the basic phenomenon in real life and the structural identity of the systems. (same 8 types that can be split into 16 if one prefers to do so). Also some factual stuff, like Jung's descriptions of the functions and ITR descriptions. With that in mind a lot of things can simply be checked from reality. I don't really differentiate between Socionics and Jung in my practical life.
    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)

  27. #27
    Thalia, Gelos and Crom ! godslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Southern France
    TIM
    694 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,762
    Mentioned
    135 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I think our debate might be a good example how Te and Ti talk past each other. (are you IEE by the way?)





    Thank you for your time. I don't know if we are talking past each other but as far as I'm concerned, I'm really enjoying what the discussion between you, @CR400AF and I has generated so far in terms of ideas, insights and on a personal, renewed interest in Jung's work and philosophy.

    As for my own type, SEI, EII, EIE, IEI (of course !) and IEE have been suggested...

    I get that there are factual differences if you really look at how things are defined and formulated. Also that there are things that are left out, as you mentioned. But this is imo like two people drawing a map of the same terrain. The maps might look slightly different, but you can still use both interchangeably when you are standing in the terrain, in fact it's better to do that. If one tree is missing on the map, I can look at the other and I might find it.


    I don't really care about the branding and who's saying what.


    I base myself in the reality of the types. You can define things differently on the surface but still talk about the same thing. Those kind of differences are not important. The structure and accuracy of the ITR locks Socionics into the age-old phenomenon of the basic cognitive types. Small inaccuracies in definitions and understanding of functions don't matter much then.


    When I said that Socionics and Jung are the same thing, I was not referring to Jungs general model of the psyche. That's obviously a different thing: Archetypes, individuation etc. I was just referring to Jung's psychological types. Individuation actually happens in the type also, but Socionics doesn't mention it, however, you can get that piece of information from Jung.
    Fair enough.

    Yes, Socionics formulates lots of things that Jung didn't do. I am really indifferent to that, because we are still talking about the same basic types, the same phenomenon.

    There are lots of things in Socionics that I ignore. It's modular and you can go on forever making new connections.


    Socionics has imo some mistakes and I don't care what it says about the functions anymore. The descriptions work for beginners to get the types right, that's important. They are close enough. For the details I use Jung.
    That's interesting. We can say that socionics is likewise indifferent to a lot of things Jung formulates. Socionics introduced the influence of the socion on the psyche of the individual. To what degree does this variable affects the individual within the Jungian paradigm is a mystery to me. To put it simply, in socionics the individual is not at the center anymore but just a link in a chain (socion). The rapport between the subject and the object (the individual and his psyche) dear to Jung is no longer at the center in socionics in which each TIM's ITR builds a constellation of rapport and thus rendering each subject (TIM) an object within the system (socion).


    There might be a bias at play in our preference in term of seeing similarities vs seeing differences. I think I have the tendency to see differences before seeing similarities and maybe it's the other way around with you . It might be a question of perspective. As a very bad analogy, to me Jung and socionics are as similar as Geocentrism and Heliocentrism (respectively) not in terms of objective reality and truth but in terms of perspective, as if those two models were equally true from a certain point of view.





    Socionics has also a tremendous value as an introduction to the types. Without it you would have to be a genious to read Jung. Now it is actually possible to understand what Jung is writing.
    Jung was highly "philosophically educated". Even though his references to great philosophers, myths and concepts are well contextualized and explained, one must have a certain education to be able to fully grasp them in all their nuances. One most certainly has to dedicate a great amount of time reading Jung's work (all the collective work in chronological order as well as his correspondances) in order to get an idea of his philosophy. It's like a journey, one has to live in his mind and see the word from his perspective for a while. It's a good method to have at least a decent overview of any literary work of considerable magnitude. I have barely scratched the surface of his work so far, I just read stuff I was interesting in. I'm not a genius obviously (very far from it !), but I can understand Jung to some degree. It is true that he has the tendency to complexify his thinking almost to the point of unintelligibility. He is not however out of reach, anyone with enough interest, motivation and dedication can understand his thinking at least to some degree. One can always find some help with all our modern tools like internet and Youtube if need be.

    I was a bit familiar with Jung before my encounter with socionics. I had already read some of his books in French ( Modern man in search of his soul, Two essays on analytical psychology and his autobiography (Ma vie)) as well as stuff here and there about his analytical psychology. It was a side reading when I was studying Freud.

    The basic model came from Jung though. He talks about base+ auxiliary function, plus the inferior (suggestive) + it's auxiliary (mobilizing). Socionics built on this, and added stuff.


    Jung also hints at the ignoring functions, and describes it better than Socionics. (Here I wouldn't say that Jung has a "different" ignoring function. It's the same, but Jung is more accurate, so I more or less ignore what Socionics is saying concerning this detail.)


    I obviously agree with you about the factual differences on a surface level. But I don't think I put as much value on them as you seem to be doing. I am looking at the basic phenomenon in real life and the structural identity of the systems. (same 8 types that can be split into 16 if one prefers to do so). Also some factual stuff, like Jung's descriptions of the functions and ITR descriptions. With that in mind a lot of things can simply be checked from reality. I don't really differentiate between Socionics and Jung in my practical life.
    Fair enough !

    Sorry again for the rambling.

  28. #28
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Feb 2024
    TIM
    SLI-C
    Posts
    420
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Gulenko be like: it is not me that is Beta ST, it is everyone else that is.

  29. #29
    sp854 Muira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2023
    Location
    in ur mom
    TIM
    SCS: SLE sp8w7
    Posts
    1,832
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Entirely correct, I've double checked it myself

  30. #30
    anotherperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Location
    U.S.
    TIM
    SLI
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    easy: body/field

    Te is the logic of ONE thing. so like, the logic of a computer for example (browsing, coding, softwares, etc)

    Ti is the logic between things. So taking the computer example, networks of computers,, servers, internet, e-mail etc)

  31. #31
    A turn in the phrase Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    Where the wild things R
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol. I forgot about my contribution to this thread..

    Ole Expansion looks T here.

    I've got many faces.



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multiplies

    The good news in knowing you are wrong is you're right


    Watch out for the quicksand, an hour glass isn't worth watching when the cook is done

    A little better makes better more
    ♦♦







  32. #32
    sp854 Muira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2023
    Location
    in ur mom
    TIM
    SCS: SLE sp8w7
    Posts
    1,832
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expansion View Post
    lol. I forgot about my contribution to this thread..

    Ole Expansion looks T here.

    I've got many faces.
    As socio types grow and reach self-actualization, breaking from the fears of our polar function, etc, they gain experience which increases the general accuracy of their judgements. Logical types aren't always right, an ethical type with good experience would make any logical type with poor experience (typically young ones) look foolish. However their creative function still behaves as a creative function, etc.

    So truly everyone has a logical/ethical side, just as long as they are mature in thought and self-aware enough to break away from the "chain of thought," that being the fixations and issues that come from having certain experiences, etc.

  33. #33
    A turn in the phrase Distance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2023
    Location
    Where the wild things R
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,135
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muira View Post
    As socio types grow and reach self-actualization, breaking from the fears of our polar function, etc, they gain experience which increases the general accuracy of their judgements. Logical types aren't always right, an ethical type with good experience would make any logical type with poor experience (typically young ones) look foolish. However their creative function still behaves as a creative function, etc.

    So truly everyone has a logical/ethical side, just as long as they are mature in thought and self-aware enough to break away from the "chain of thought," that being the fixations and issues that come from having certain experiences, etc.
    Yeah. I forgot about anndelise.

    Some fancy footwork work by her in link link.



    Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multiplies

    The good news in knowing you are wrong is you're right


    Watch out for the quicksand, an hour glass isn't worth watching when the cook is done

    A little better makes better more
    ♦♦







  34. #34
    sp854 Muira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2023
    Location
    in ur mom
    TIM
    SCS: SLE sp8w7
    Posts
    1,832
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expansion View Post
    Yeah. I forgot about anndelise.

    Some fancy footwork work by her in link link.
    Still analyzing it, rereading all of aushura's materials as well.

    Give me time

  35. #35
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Feb 2024
    TIM
    SLI-C
    Posts
    420
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muira View Post
    As socio types grow and reach self-actualization, breaking from the fears of our polar function, etc, they gain experience which increases the general accuracy of their judgements. Logical types aren't always right, an ethical type with good experience would make any logical type with poor experience (typically young ones) look foolish. However their creative function still behaves as a creative function, etc.

    So truly everyone has a logical/ethical side, just as long as they are mature in thought and self-aware enough to break away from the "chain of thought," that being the fixations and issues that come from having certain experiences, etc.
    I recently discovered I wasn't completely Identical to some dead guy myself.

  36. #36
    sp854 Muira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2023
    Location
    in ur mom
    TIM
    SCS: SLE sp8w7
    Posts
    1,832
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChaosConductor6669 View Post
    I recently discovered I wasn't completely Identical to some dead guy myself.
    Tell me about it

Posting Permissions

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