The T Wars

[InvisibleJim]

Do I agree that rational functions are evaluatory? Of course. Do you understand what that means? Do you understand the limitations? Do you understand the difference between how Fi makes evaluations and their criteria and Ti? What does internal statics of objects mean to you, and what makes you think that anyone is forgetting its rationality? Have fun.

So you can't quote Sharp's Jungian Lexicon and nor can you provide a different source, valid examples could have included, but are not limited to: Sharps Collected Works of Jung or Psychological Types to add weight to your original complaint.

The origin of this is clear: You specifically aimed to critique a reply which expanded upon a post made by ArchonAlarion which is directly discussing Carl Jung's Psychological Types and also that I made the post. I shall elaborate how this is apparent.

You misconstrued two points, one that the discussion was about Socionics hence you lent on the crux of internal statics of objects in your refutation which is never mentioned by Carl Jung at all as Socionics is a later model and also the fact that I made the post because you had no complaint about ArchonAlarion's.

Still you haven't explained a single viewpoint you hold in any depth because you are afraid of honest and direct critique.

There are three options which you can choose, in the first you can come prepared to such grand declarations and prove me wrong (not hard to do), second, you could not come prepared and lose face again. There is a third action, you could save time and choose to ignore my posts if you don't think they have value to you. I will not be offended, this would be a beneficial outcome to me and I would be happy to respect that.

[squark]

Dude, I summarized the thing into a single word, and answered the only question you asked me. Now it's your turn.

[InvisibleJim]

Dude, I summarized the thing into a single word, and answered the only question you asked me. Now it's your turn.

You have neither answered if you agree with Sharp's Jung Lexicon nor answered in a single word...

Seriously? You must be putting this on, I didn't think you were this paper thin.

[squark]

You have neither answered if you agree with Sharp's Jung Lexicon nor answered in a single word...

Seriously? You must be putting this on, I didn't think you were this paper thin.

Actually, I did summarize what he said into a single word and answered your question. Read what I wrote, it's there.

And you're going to keep up with your usual handful of tricks: evasion, strawmen, baiting through attempts at condescension and minor insults, anything but a direct answer. So, I'm stepping out of this silly game now. If you'd like to answer the questions I asked you, knock yourself out.

[thePirate]

knock yourself out.

Literally, please.

[Gilly]

Literally, please.

Lol.

[ArchonAlarion]

What have I done?

*Never necro...*

[The Ineffable]

Wrong. He specifically refers to the "Introverting Thinking Type" as an "Introverted Rational Type".

He concludes each section of chapter X with "Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types, Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types, etc."

When he refers to the Introverted Thinking Type he is referring to the type who is an introvert with the thinking function dominant. He further clarifies this by referring to the introverted thinking type as a rational type. So, he means a Ti Dominant type, not an IXTX.

It is easy to make that mistake. Ti as a standalone function does not exist in Jung's work, as Introversion is a block attitude, so we can in no way tell that. Now, we might believe that no matter how one would look at the relation between Introversion and Thinking, whether they make part of the same function or not, we get the same thing, right? This is not the case, though.

Jung describes the Rational types and Irrational types are dominated by the respective functions and attitudes, but only because of that reason. Jung believes that "irrational" and "rational" functions are in contradiction with each other, this is why he does explicitly say that he treats them separately. That is it. In his "Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types" tells us just that he treated only the types having Thinking as Principal function and a Introverted attitude. I was very well aware he was not describing IXTx but IXTj. This is another aspect of differentiation of the way Socionics defines the p/j distintion compared to Jung: in Socionics, a Logic/Ethic is not a "rational" function, contradicting the other, "irrational" functions; these attitudes emerge solely by the positioning of these j and p information elements and they work perfectly together (in fact a Ji is inseparable from one of the two Pe, and the other way around in both manners). If we assign the rationality on Ti, for example, we would have to admit, the same way Jung did, that the two functions in a block are contradictory, which is not the case in Socionics. in fact we know from the relationship descriptions in Socionics that many Irrationals go very well with many Rationals and the other way around - there are some better relations betwen Irrationals and Rationals than between some between types in the same class.

In a nutshell, in Socionics, orientation (Bodies/Fields) is not separable from a function (or IE) while Cyclotymy/Schizotymy is merely emerging from the nature of the IE as Base function, also the Extroversion depends solely on the orientation of Base. In Jung, Perception or Judgment are traits that go with the functions, while the Extroversion is an pan-block attitude.


Makes sense? I can see how hard it is to read this argumentation for someone who does not have the full schema of reasons in mind, but I don't have the time to restructure and reformulate. Just me know if anything needs clarification.

[The Ineffable]

Apparently you overlooked the last section of Chapter X in Jung's Psychological Types

That is chapter XI. This is where Jung explained his multi-function model and made the opinion of scores of schoolars which does not match this alleged Jungian model I only heard of on this forum.

In my opinion you misinterpret what is writen there, Like I said, Jung assigns the Rational/Irrational on these "information elements", Thinking and Feeling are Rational by themselves, not only when put on the Principal function. He tells about their contradiction with the other two functions here:

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.

That view is not applicable to Socionics. There are only two strict necessities (if and only if) for forming a block:
- one function has to be empirical, the other mental (bodies VS fields)
- both have to be either dynamic or static

The attitudes are given solely by the way the leading function is set-up:
- T or F => Schizotym (so-called Rational)
- S or N => Cyclotym (Irrational)
- Bodies => Extroverted
- Fields => Introverted