Socionics Dynamic vs. Static and Process Philosophy
What do you think is the relationship between socionics and process philosophy? For example, Aushra Augustinavichiute typed herself as ILE because she saw intuitive information as existing actually in the world. She didn't think IEs were just in people's heads like Jung did, though this all just seems like a sort of Soviet knockoff of Kępiński's theory of information metabolism. Aushra also used Kant's definitions of intuition of space = Ne and intuition of time = Ni.
However, I tend to wonder how exactly the idea of introverted IEs relating to fields while extraverted IEs relate to objects makes all that much sense in light of the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead whether or not you personally agree with it. Whitehead said that the mind is a cause in the future and the body is a cause in the past, and that this is relational. Essentially, according to Whitehead's philosophy intuition of time might still be internal in some sense but it doesn't make sense to think of it as psychologically introverted when it brings people together in relationships.
Aushra and to some extent Jung himself seem to be operating on the common philosophical assumption that objects are real and the relations between objects, in socionics called "fields," are unreal. This even seems to be built into the static vs. dynamic dichotomy. I think this is a deep flaw in socionics, but probably not so much in Jung since he didn't focus very much on typology and kept developing it over his life anyway. Essentially, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between the idea of perception of some internal aspect of things and psychological introversion and vice-versa for external things and extraversion.
This can also be seen in the description of Se. Se is described as being about power, but power is strictly defined as force. However, in process philosophy persuasive power is seen as more original and also greater in its effects than coercive power. This also seems to be where a lot of the stereotypes relating to the EIE type as some sort of hypnotist come from, but this type is mostly seen as a bad type as in literally Hı̇tler, while SLE is seen as being like Churchill who most people have a slightly positive opinion of or a higher positive opinion. Perhaps people like to project their inability to use soft power onto socionics and fantasize about a world in which hard power would get them everything, and the ITR aspect of socionics is an attempt to explain the failure of this strategy.
Socionics has some interesting ideas, but I tend to think the ITR aspect ruins relationships and is extremely pernicious. Any problems you have in relationships aren't because you didn't put in the work or try to communicate, they're because you and the other person are conflicting types and you will never get along, whereas if they were your dual you would just communicate via some sort of mind-meld without ever having to work at it at all or having conflicts with one another just like magic. Since this is not how real relationships work and they still wouldn't from an a priori point of view even if you mind-melded like on Star Trek the circle of people one can have a relationship with always decreases until it's essentially just other socionists, who are all self-typed IEI because they fantasize about a world where brute coercion gets everything but don't self-identify as competent enough to do it themselves, and also didn't go out and learn real STEM or something to self-type as an NT instead.
Reply With Quote
) . 
