Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
What are referring to with "integral typings"? Just curious.

I haven't looked at Dario Nardi's work much, he seems to work on areas of the brain and cognitive functions, which is an absolute necessity if Jungian typology is to "level up" to a more serious discipline.

I personally am not a fan of Aushra's terms such as Internal Object Dynamics to refer to Fe because IMO the image it gives is not really connected to anything real. It doesn't feel "concrete". I do like how WSS refers to functions such as for example Fe being "emotions" which transfers the message much more clearly. But the thing I take away from model G is that it takes into account energy metabolism, which is how types actually act on the IEs and not just the information they have about these IEs. I think this has the potential to make the sociotypes translate into something more "real" for people. Problem is that Gulenko and his school has either 1) been doing a poor job of communicating his theories which make it seem as though they have no potential or 2) Gulenko himself doesn't apply his own theories well when typing people (and note that both options are a possibility as well).
Internal Object Dynamics seems untranslatable until you find out the "dichotomical definitions" of every word.
Gotta break it into pieces:
Objects vs fields means that the IM deals with the thing directly (objects) or with the interconnections that exist between these things (fields).
Dynamic vs Static means that the IM deals with information that is changeable or it's malleable (Dynamic) or is stable, fixed category that cannot be malleable (static).
Internal vs External means that the information the IM deals with is generated from within and doesn't need an external, logical output (Internal, for example ethics and intuition) or deals with information that proceeds from rational, or external output (External, for example Thinking and Sensorics).
Taking Fe as Internal object dynamics and translating it to a more colloquial explanation, I usually say that Fe is about perceiving, creating or managing subjective energy or emotional impressions from things (Could be a movie, a piece of art, the expressions of a person, etc). I mainly like to go this route bc it takes out stereotypes or more colloquial interpretations that I see as unrelated to the subject (for example, notions like T types like sciences and F types like humanities, or things like associating negative or positive behavior to types when those are not implied in their base cognition)

Clarifying that Gulenko does sociological explanations with socionics but not integral typings, I mentioned integral typings as the kind of thing we should not be taking into account. Integral typing is typing countries, for example, typing Germany as ISTj, thinking that whole collective entities, when operating together, share a single form of cognition.