Jung's subjects

[idiot]

I have been thinking about what Alive was saying about everyone on here being IEI, and I conclude that he is right, or at least he is on to something.

Jung formed a lot of his ideas about the functions from the people who he did therapy for. I believe this because of the constant references to mental disorders related to types:

"For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation." - Jung on the extraverted intuitive type

"Hysteria is, in my view, by far the most frequent neurosis with the extraverted type"

"Hysteria, with the characteristic infantile sexuality of its unconscious world of ideas, is the principal form of neurosis with this type." - Jung on the extraverted feeling type

The list goes on.

If he based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum

[Squirrel]

Even with so many differences between people who share the same type, there is supposed to be a “common basis” between all these people so that we can say that they actually belong to the same type

I'm not talking about a common basis that is easy to find in any person regardless of their type, such as that they all love coffee, for example , I'm talking about a common basis ( for example ) similar to DCNH : four different Subtypes of the same type, but they all use the same +- signs that this type uses.

[The Reality Denialist]

If he based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum

Jung had his reasoning. It was more about alignment to certain modalities. He originally thought that there were 2 types: extroverted feeling and introverted thinking. He started to expand this typing system after he studied (and travelled) other cultures.

[godslave]

The idea that Jung based his typology on mentally unhealthy people therefore his typology can not be considered valid and/or applicable universally sounds like a false syllogism. Psychological types aren't supposed to be unhealthy by default. We are talking about human psychology here. Do I have to remind people that Freud was a neurologist and he wrote the vast majority of his papers as such. Would it be reasonable to say that anatomy is bogus because most of anatomical knowledge comes from the dissection of dead people ? Should I make a list of all the discoveries in medicine that derives only from the observation of sick people and the development of their sickness ? Should I make a list of all discoveries made by serendipity ?

When Jung talked about certain types tendencies to develop certain type of mental health pathologies he always introduce it as something possible under certain conditions. Most of these conditions are related to an imbalance of the compensatory phenomena happening within the psyche. There is a reason why we talk about mental disequilibrium. Also we must not forget that in Freudian Paradigm as well as in the Jungian Paradigm (Jung was a Freudian we must not forget that !!) all human being have neurosis, it's inherent to the constitution of the psyche and therefore inherent to the human condition.

That said, socionics is not Jung Psychology and it's not Jungian Psychotypology. Socionics is partly inspired by Jung Psychological Types, it uses similar nomenclature and it models the psyche and classifies it into sixteen configurations called Types of Information Metabolism. No more no less. These TIMs do not represents the complexity of the Human psyche it just a simplified representation of its structure as a basis for the development of the socionics theory. These TIMs are charts and therefore not subject to diseases, they are therefore "healthy" devoid of any neurosis.

Jung formed a lot of his ideas about the functions from the people who he did therapy for. I believe this because of the constant references to mental disorders related to types:

"For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation." - Jung on the extraverted intuitive type

"Hysteria is, in my view, by far the most frequent neurosis with the extraverted type"

"Hysteria, with the characteristic infantile sexuality of its unconscious world of ideas, is the principal form of neurosis with this type." - Jung on the extraverted feeling type

The list goes on.

If he based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person.

That list should logically include at least Jung's observations about the mental disorder related to "the Introverted Intuitive Type" since IEI is one of the two Ni lead types your reasoning is about.

That said, I have some difficulties to follow your reasoning. First you tried to establish a causal link with what you believe to be a possibility namely that Jung studied only one "type of person".

Then you declared that this type of person (without naming it specifically) is the same as the one who is interested in the kind of theories like socionics . But then you hit us with :

The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time.Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes [??] for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

The problem is that you are breaking the chain of reasoning and making some kind of "intuitive leap" because you haven't established the causal link(s) between these ideas.

Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum

Therefore , I find this conclusion suspiciously categorical !

As a reminder, you haven't introduced neither the "Introverted Intuition Type" nor the "IEI" and we don't even know the particular mental health disorder exclusive to "the Introverted Intuition Type" and the "IEI" that is supposed to makes this type interesting in theories like socionics ? One could ask why the IEI in particular and not the ILI since the "Introverted Intuition Type" appellation can be applied to both ?

Furthermore, your reasoning (which is a recurrent one we often see in typology community) implies that all the forumites (and potentially all typology aficionados in general) have the same mental disorder exclusive to IEI...

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Even with so many differences between people who share the same type, there is supposed to be a “common basis” between all these people so that we can say that they actually belong to the same type

It's perfectionism and strategic planning. Doesn't matter if it's an actor who practices his role, or a student who memorizes medical terminology, or an athlete who performs the same exercise to get better, or a photographer who takes thousands of pictures till he gets the perfect one. I truly think Ni is perfectionism within a field of interest. I will answer OP's post in a week or so. I don't like to write longer messages on my phone

[Squirrel]

It's perfectionism and strategic planning. Doesn't matter if it's an actor who practices his role, or a student who memorizes medical terminology, or an athlete who performs the same exercise to get better, or a photographer who takes thousands of pictures till he gets the perfect one. I truly think Ni is perfectionism within a field of interest. I will answer OP's post in a week or so. I don't like to write longer messages on my phone

Although I can understand where does your argument about perfectionism come from, since I know an IEI who is overly perfectionist, it's a trait that can easily be found in some other types as well, especially with some Enneagram Subtypes, so having it in a person wouldn't necessarily make them IEI.
If strategic planning is a natural trait in the individual, then perhaps - although it also needs T function to be more effective-, but it's also a skill that can be learned and practiced, so, if it's a natural skill then okay, but if it is acquired, it's not an evidence.

[Karu]

If he based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum

I can't say that I see your point. I've been an on and off lurker.


Socionics in this context can be a relationships tool or just maybe valid commentary. This is an important first distinction and not that hard to grasp.


If your attraction to it is derived from your investment in people and your understanding of their and your own emotions in a dramatic way and networking ‘building time-tested society’ correlated to other IEI attributes, then that's ok.


But what if you just see it as interesting conjecture, to be expanded and commented on and not otherwise because you're not invested in people in the normie and institutionalized way Beta NFs tend to represent, then it's less likely to be your type.


I can speak of Ne from the Alpha perspective. Basically: societal functioning is bleh. The emphasis on Fe+Ni relationships with their rituals, echelons and endurance, on certain lanes, self-punishment with the mundane, etc. Now in the real world, that assembly line is everywhere. Henceforth as an Alpha you might just abandon certain environments because they kill the light in your eyes. In doing so one is rejecting a central quadra that manages to impose itself because it's a territorial and management based one. And if you can't do relationships, work, feelings, the way central quadra expects because you find it both a drag and insane, you naturally fall back on your inclinations. This is when theory scavenging online can actually be preferable to dating Chad or listening to your friend go on and on about her Beta break up. Simple as. Like seriously: what is a Ne and Ti valuer supposed to do with their time and a computer when practically everything out there is Beta-Gamma coded?


Proponents of an absolutist counterview should prove first that absolutely everyone here approaches Socionicsin the poetic and dramatic Fe+Ni self-understanding and understanding of others (I suffer this very much when an EIE thinks she can draw ‘human’ emotions in the way she perceives all humans functions and I just… nod sympathetically) when it could be just an instrument to kill time, get a factual understanding of why society is so weird, etc. Like literally Gulenko is honing his ideas about pychotypes perpetually why assume he does that because he wants a hierarchical society with an ST patriarch as head of the family and he's all about external glitz?

[squishycans]

It's a little unsettling to see people always bickering about the theory when most of you seem to be heavily introverted and probably just need to meet and communicate with more diverse personalities. You also need to have developed a stable and reflective sense of self. This is part a projection, but as I'm older, I've come to agree with most of the prominent LIE/ILEs about most things when I sometimes greatly disagreed with them. They seem to have a better and faster grasp on Socionics, being intuitive extroverts that meet lots of diverse people, a desire to think about their interactions, and being that weird extroverted intuitive type they probably are aware of how different they are from most people. They check all the requirement boxes and don't seem to have the issues that you all seem too...

Socionics is hugely misunderstood and underrated here.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I have been thinking about what Alive was saying about everyone on here being IEI, and I conclude that he is right, or at least he is on to something.

Jung formed a lot of his ideas about the functions from the people who he did therapy for. I believe this because of the constant references to mental disorders related to types:

If he based his theories on the people he met in his life, even if he met more people than the average person, that means that he based his theories on a certain type of person. The type of person who might go to him for therapy or talks, or who might believe the esoteric ideas he was spouting at the time. Thus it's possible that he did not categorize all humans into types, but just made subtypes for a specific type of person. This overarching type of person is the same type that is heavily interested in theories of this kind, and whom Alive says is an IEI.

Therefore, Alive is right. We are all IEIs with subtypes. With that, I'm off this forum

This is a very good point you have observed and I am glad that someone understands me. Typing everyone here IEI wasn't something that happened on a whim but it was more of a gradual realization after years of observations. I think the 16 types exist, but they are way more broad than people think and don't tell you much about an individual. I think socionics has the wrong definition for some functions like Ne, Te and Si (which Jung gives an esoteric meaning) who just happen to be the weak functions of IEI's. I think the "psychological types" shouldn't be called "personality" types as people have a myriad of personalities that far exceed 16. When people watch things like youtube, they shouldn't look at what the person does to type them but rather ask themselves "which type is broadcasting themselves to the world in the first place". the reality is likely that the 8 functions are way too simplistic to account for all these variations and most people do not even remotely understand them anyway. I also think that subtypes (or temperaments whatever you wanna call them) are far more important when it comes to how people will get along and the ITR play out more when people have a similar subtype. I work for a big company in a technical field and realized that most people there can be considered realistic and analytical regardless of the type they have, meanwhile in artistic fields, which I also frequent, people are, on average way more openly emotional. I also think the more abstract an intuitive is, the less practical they are and the more they need physical help, while there are other intuitives who are more concrete and are unable to perceive abstract, far-reaching patterns. it's clear to me that an unexpressive, analytical person is not gonna get along with someone who is openly emotional and reflects a lot on social issues. but there are many variations in between. People should focus more on identifying subtypes because it seems to be that the more similar they are, the more stable the relationship will be, as opposed to the "opposite attracts" approach of duality, but these are just my observation

I also think that people do not consciously decide which subtype they fall into. I don't think people actively choose to be artistic or practical or philosophical and so on. It's likely a genetic tendency that is highly heritable. I also suspect that a person can actively infuence subtypes to a certain extend which people will perceive as the person changing (and I am not talking about DCNH here). I also think some subtypes are rarer than others and might be influenced by IQ for example but I am not exactly sure if it's even constructive to see such things as "subtypes", it might be better to view them through traits. I'm unsure. everything is still very vague for me. people who have the same type with a similar subtype will think they have found a soulmate and it will be their true "identical" how socionics defines it, while people with different subtype and same type can even loathe each other. I think certain subtypes have more power depending on the environment. a conservative, practical and traditional person will be more valued in highly dangerous environments with scarce resources for example. their ideals do not fit into current societies.