Gulenko subtypes translations?

[Reficulris]

Did anyone get hands on that new book and translate it?

@mu @silke

[The Exception]

There's a new book? Where? Please, please tell me.

[silke]

@Elina might have it

wb Refi

[Sol]

It's not normal Socionics, not Jung's typology.

Socionics Britannica School are working on translating all of them.

Sure. But to translate normal books is hard for them. While any bullshit - that's the point, to destroy Socionics image as more "astrology" than it is, maximum the farther from Jung to avert people from it.

[nondescript]

Jung didn't invent socionics. If you want to stick to Jung you're on the wrong forum.

Technically he did. Just imagine:

"If Herr Jung didn't exist, from where would have Aušra drawn her conclussions?"

[The Exception]

Well who knows? If Jung didn't invent the cognitive functions theory, maybe someone else would have further down the road. And then someone else other than Ausra could have invented what is now known as 'socionics.'

[Reficulris]

There's 4 books. One for each quadra. Socionics Britannica School are working on translating all of them.

ooohhh shiny! Can you keep me posten and or send me anything you find/get?

[glam]

why are there always these periodic disputes that come up about Jung vs socionics? it's not that hard to understand: Jung first observed and wrote about functions, and Aushra used his ideas (and others') to create socionics. so people who really want to understand the theory behind socionics can read Jung as well as Aushra. also, socionics is a Jungian typology, but not all Jungian typologies are socionics. so reading Jung alone isn't going to teach you socionics, but doing so can be valuable for your understanding of the theory. to declare Jung/socionics as one and the same, or as two completely separate theories that should never be talked about together - both views are wrong and unhelpful, IMO.

[Reficulris]

why are there always these periodic disputes that come up about Jung vs socionics? it's not that hard to understand: Jung first observed and wrote about functions, and Aushra used his ideas (and others') to create socionics. so people who really want to understand the theory behind socionics can read Jung as well as Aushra. also, socionics is a Jungian typology, but not all Jungian typologies are socionics. so reading Jung alone isn't going to teach you socionics, but doing so can be valuable for your understanding of the theory. to declare Jung/socionics as one and the same, or as two completely separate theories that should never be talked about together - both views are wrong and unhelpful, IMO.

Dont feed the trolls

[Olimpia]

Getting some good Socionics book(s) out in English would help with making Socionics more internationally known. Put it on Amazon, voilá.