/sigh
Ok, who made socionics? Aushra.
Is Socionics Jung? No.
Again, I'm confused as to why there's confusion over this at all.
/sigh
Ok, who made socionics? Aushra.
Is Socionics Jung? No.
Again, I'm confused as to why there's confusion over this at all.
because types exist outside of socionics
Socionics (and any model) attempts to describe and make clear what is already there, existing before, during, and after any model or theory we come up with.
Socionics is not perfect. IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM
The precisely wrong way to go about something like this is to dogmatically stick to one model and ignore everything else.
There is no confusion.
The end is nigh
"Reification (also known as hypostatisation or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it represented a concrete, real event or physical entity."
Types don't exist, sry. They're classifications within a discrete model.
What exists are people with minds. Jung works, Socionics works, the enneagram works; but not together. What you're doing is trying to use one model of the mind and claim its systems, classifications, and whatever else work under another, completely different model of the mind.
Just wanted to point that out.
Thats what you're doing, sir.Originally Posted by Gulanzon
They do work together for Ne-ers lol!
What I'm doing is cherry picking from whatever works and recombining, tweaking, modulating, and dividing it until I can get something perfect.
I never will reach perfection, hence I will always be searching and changing.
I don't see the theories as boundaried. They just float about and parts of them are wrong and I cut out the wrong parts and store them. I might come back to them at a later date though.
My whole orientation towards life is assimilating and synthesizing different systems and models. I'm not gonna change that for your dogmatism.
The end is nigh
Close textual evidence or it didn't happen.
Then that's not actually Socionics, and this discussion is thus moot.
/thread
Insisting on sticking to one model whilst ignoring others based on them being different (even though they describe the same realm of psychology and also of typology specifically) demonstrates that you don't understand that these models are just floating abstractions in our heads. I inferred this and I don't feel I'm wrong in doing so.
When I use Jung I'm not talking about something different. I'm talking about what socionics is talking about! I'm just using different descriptions that I feel are more accurate.
We ILE's don't give a shit what was the original model. I'm still discussing what socionics discussed here.
What do you promote, Gul??? Some sort of traditionalism or conservatism? Will you ever deviate? Are you just gonna argue which founder had the right way? Are you going to move the fuck on?
I wish that every member here had a different model. I wish new models were created every day. Once in awhile someone would wow everyone and then their model would be integrated into most others. Then we'd move on and continue the process.
You're a big big fool.
"socionics" is a freakin name.
If I was describing musical theory or calculus then you might have a point. It turns out that I'm actually discussing jungian typology, of which socionics is a sub-typology/offspring/development.
Have fun, kiddo!
The end is nigh
The problem is that each of these theories have their own language. They might be using the same words, the same symbols, but the meanings don't necessarily match up.
If you're going to talk with people, it helps to speak the same language.
If you choose to speak greek to a canadian, don't be surprised when you're constantly misunderstood.
Believe it or not, language isn't static, it does grow. Which is why some mexican people can understand some spanish people and/or some latin. But they still often run into problems because a concept uses different words, or a word has different meanings for each of them.
In this case, jung would be like latin.
mbti would be a variant (maybe spanish).
Kiersey would be a different variant (maybe catalan).
and socionics would be yet a different variant (maybe french).
(note, obviously i don't know my languages, lol)
It makes little sense to speak a mishmash of each of them while expecting that every single one of them will be speaking the same mishmash as you are.
If you go to spain...speak spanish.
If you go to france...speak french.
If you go to socionics...speak socionics (or at least try to).
(note, I, too, am learning to attempt to clarify which language I'm speaking when I refer to things like "SeA, TeA, SiA" as Se, Te, Si according to aspectonics.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Or rather, that you called types "real" demonstrates that you are guilty of what you accuse me of.
Of. of. of. of.
Repeated, because I hope it will eventually sink in: Jung is not Socionics.
It's like trying to argue that Australia is Antarctica because they're both continents, on the surface of the earth, and were at one point part of the larger landmass of Gondwanaland.
*sidestep*
Oh no, not another type discussion.
Temper, temper.
What I promote is logical consistency. Antarctistralia still does not exist, and the analogy still largely applies here too.
Also, Jung didn't found Socionics. Repeated again.
Jung came up with the idea of functions. He came up with extravert/introvert. As an afterthought, on the third day, Jung said "Let there be Thinking and Feeling, and Sensing and Intuiting!" and thus it was so, and Jung was pleased.
Then some scowly Lithuanian lady came in and thought "Hey, I like the idea of logical divisions! I think I'll steal them." and came up with Ethics/Logic and Sensing/Intuition, which were quite a bit removed from Jung's stuff.
Skip forward to 2009, where an angry young man is yelling at a cold young man trying to convince him that Australia and Antarctica are part of Pluto because we're all conglomerated stardust spewed out by a spinning disk of energy.
That's cool, so long as they don't call them socionics, and worse, then try to say that their model is The One True Model To Rule Them All (Because The Others Are Wrong (Because They Aren't Mine)).
It's a label that refers to a specific, quite discrete model of the human mind.
Here's a google define: on what "model" means:
a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; "the computer program was based on a model of the circulatory and respiratory systems"
/facepalm deployed
Glad to see you're actually reading and engaging with my posts. It's really encouraging.
And it's great that you've gotten over your issues with being excessively defensive and rude. I really feel you've made a positive change towards being able to communicate rationally with other intelligent human beings. Again, I feel your massive progress is really encouraging.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
