User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 35 of 35

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    6 sp/sx
    ILI Si


    Quote Originally Posted by Legion
    The difference is in function sequences. Can we change the order of functions, such that we start with something other than the dominant, yet such that it takes the role of the dominant? And so on.
    My own take has tended to be that I think one does functionally have the ability to change through life. It's kind of like an organism trying various strategies and finding the balance between what works against circumstances + is still consistent with oneself.

    But, I tend to think if there is such a thing as a core identity to the organism, there's a 'genuine' type behind it all.

    Overall, that's the same take you seem to find among the Jungian analysts. Daryl Sharp seemed to generally be of the view he's an introverted sensation type with auxiliary thinking. But he comments that there were various points in life when other functions functioned as dominant (including thinking at one point and introverted feeling at another).
    Von Franz says similar things about people she experienced/how as new functions enter development, it is actually important they remain at the forefront for some time to undergo some differentiation.
    And of course, Jung himself commented that the type is nothing static/changes through the course of life.

    It's probably similar to the general answer one can give to 'is there continuity of identity' -- we can scarcely even make a claim without assuming some continuity, and yet there is a sense that it is a theoretical assumption at the end of the day.

    I think with enneagram, I probably was pretty 1-ish at points, but I do think we settle into a 'deeper pattern' at some point, and my sense is mine is 6-ish...the deeper pattern is also a lot harder to get out of, because it is so well rationalized that it 'works' for us at some very core level.

  2. #32
    Talk to me. Merced's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    285 so/sp


    Socionics is janky and we as a society should do more to roast it.

    And I guess it's inflation, but damn it's hard to value my two cents
    As a kid I was idolizing millionaires and all the presidents

    - Left at London

  3. #33
    Senior Member raskol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    SEE Se


    Quote Originally Posted by typologyenthusiast View Post
    it doesn't seems so. ... As long as don't refer to the meaning of the "psyche" and "logy", no true psychologist will recognize it as a psychology. ...
    I am not expressing an opinion. What I am telling you is twofold, relating as much to the use of language as it does to the evolution of concepts through time. Whoever attempts to pick apart the meaning of a term by searching for its original meaning in its etymology is committing a logical fallacy.

    Psychology means the science and study of behavior and mind. That's it. And since psychology doesn't rely on objectively measurable foundations, it can never attain the methodological rigor of any of the hard sciences. Beyond the rhetorical hyperbole, this is the distinction I am looking to underscore.

    What problem that behavioral scientist wish to investigate? are they the same as a the psychologists?
    The behaviorists created a branch of psychology that attempted to introduce the standards of the hard sciences into the sphere of the soft sciences--and failed miserably.

    I have no comment about socionics and enneagram, Beebe.
    But for Isabel Briggs Myers MBTI, it was Jung Psychological types that Myers refer to and develop further the MBTI. I have never read Myers even mention Freud's name. Myers can't have referred to freud's teaching.
    This is the socionics subforum, so you ought to consider the Freudian context in socionics in order to be prepared for these interactions.

    Is there anyone who force you to accept about all that you refer to as "assumption", and "underpinnings" anyway?
    For a theory to be applicable in a given context, its underpinnings must be solid enough to pass scrutiny. In other words, every adherent of MBTI and socionics is either tacitly or explicitly embracing concepts such as the unconscious, repression, cognition through "functions," etc.

    What I have pointed out is that I am ready to suspend skepticism as regards the veracity of either of these terms as applied in socionics, as I am primarily embracing its practical application. But if I am forced to solely consider the theory's explanatory power, I will have to admit that it regards the kind of soft science that wouldn't stand the test of methodological rigor.

  4. #34
    Member Drunkstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019


    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    Does there exist any strong case for the subtypes? I like the idea but I haven't seen any compelling arguments in favor of them. I am referring to the 2 subtype system, not the DCNH subtypes.
    I don't understand what you are saying by 2 subtype systems and not dcnh, I thought they were the same. Anyway, subtype system is pointless. Are you an ESTJ who likes Si better or are you an ISTJ who likes Te better... come on

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    Actually this is a criticism I have of socionics in general. I've noticed that a lot of the hard core proponents use a kind of circular logic in their justification of socionics as more scientific than MBTI--when you ask someone to prove their assertions, they revert to theory to prove their theory.
    I don't think hardcore proponers take the subtype system too seriously and I don't think socionics is more scientific, I just think it's closer to jung and jung is more respectable 'cause he was a professional and myers was just an enthusiast. When Jung typed people, it was based off over 20 years of observation and working with real patients. Furthermore myers briggs descriptions over the internet got overshadowed by stereotyped description made by even more amateur people who sort of pull it out of their imaginations. example: ESTPs are jocks, ENFPs are gay, INTJs are psychopaths, ISTJ are working drones, ESFJ is your mom, ESTJ is your boss..I mean, come on

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    I don't really care what Gulenko or some other "expert" says, since they're really just presenting a model based on their very subjective understanding.
    1st: Gulenko is the most mbtier of all socionist, his model very much differs from augusta who has dropped socionics some time ago. 2nd: everyone have their own subjective understanding of things, so I don't know what was your point there exactly. Are you saying someone like Dario Nardi has a less subjective understanding of typology? cause if you are I'm gonna start laughing.

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    So convince me the subtypes are real, and while you're at it, convince me socionics is not just pseudo science dressed up with a lot of nice graphs and charts to make it appear more science-y than MBTI or other typological systems.
    Ok, so here is the thing: 1st subtypes are BS, when Jung typed people, say a Ti dom. Let's say a Ti dom with a mild preference for Ne as auxiliary (INTP). Then mbtiers/socionists go and say "ah that's very similar to an ENTP" cause of Ne dom and Ti aux. Well, no it's not. An introverted rational type is very much different from an extraverted irrational, at least in this sense socionics go "oh let's call this one INTj then, makes more sense" and it does. Jung believed your main type is the very first function, mbti and modern socionics kinda give too much importance to the 2nd function.

    So you take some of the original descriptions and compare:

    Jung Si: subjective perception through sensing (artists: Si-Fe, weird people Si-Te)
    socionics Si: bodily sensations, homeostasis, etc (ISFp, ISTp)
    mbti Si: doing things by the book(???), being conservative (???), having nostalgia about the past (???)...ISFJ, ISTJ

    jung Te: objective reasoning, science, conclusion
    socionics Te: objective logic, pragmatism, efficiency, mcgyverism
    mbti Te: efficiency, leadership qualities (???), achievement orientation(???)

    jung Ni: prophetic vision, surreal inclination, sixth sense (mystic artist:Ni-Fe, mystic thinker: Ni-Te)
    socionics Ni: intuition of time(?), perception of development of things over time, dynamic perception
    mbti Ni: daydreaming(??? wait, didn't mbtiers say that was Fi also?), evil look (???), conquering the world(???)

    So you see, I'm sure both systems ended up going their own ways, I prefer socioncis for reasons of making more sense and the only times it doesn't is when enthusiasts (as in mbti) start to make stuff up. Reinin for instance is a guy who made a lot of stuff up with those asking vs declaring, strategizing vs making tactics, etc. Whenever I see things go off, I go back to the roots and try to get what was the main principle, 'what was actually observed that we can say it is a difference in personality and it is related to that specific function or psyche state?'

    So how scientific are these systems overrall? Taking the example of Ti again. So imagine you're Jung back then trying to figure out what is wrong these crazy bastards then you start to find a pattern. He sees that whenever the person was using too much of this function (Ti), the psyche sort of compensated by extraverted feeling in an archaic manner, that grabs the user somewhat subconsciously (meaning, he/she don't realize they are doing it), then this person who is usually very calm and collected and introverted starts to throw a child tantrum, which he called "inferior function", in this case inferior Fe. And he figure that by "balancing" the person out, instead of overly using that onesided Ti, balancing their perspective by making them consciously experience feeling judgment makes them go back to normal. But since there is an hierarchy in the psyche of each particular type, he had to go through the steps (make the person aware of (overly)thinking, then intuition then sensing and only then feeling, if he jumps immediately to feeling it's too hard on the person's psyche, they feel uneasy because it's unusual territory in a way.

    Jung believed, in fact he told a story where opposite types naturally attract, about the Se guy who was fishing and his Ni girlfriend who was a noob ended up fishing better than him, anyway it's on one of his interviews you can find on youtube. In this sense socionics and their intertype relations are also close to Jung, the concept of duality etc. Mbti on the other hand either don't use it or it does in that other weird system where all the supposed unconscious functions are your "go to" type, for ex: INFP and ENFJ. Or the even stranger keirsey method INTJ-ENFP (socionics types these as supervision relations and I agree because I can observe the same, the ENFP (usually female) is on a disadvantageous psychological position compared with her INTJ partner and it doesn't seem like an ideal realation.

    But at the end of the day, Jung said type wasn't static, it can change over time and later on he even came up with the "transcendent function" with the idea of breaking out of your type, similar to what Ichazo was originally doing with enneagram, trying to break the fixation. Of course nobody followed that and instead preffered to take pride on their type but whatever...

    Anyway going back to the scientific aspect, they say the only scientific system accepted by the "scientific community" is the big five. They pick random characteristics (some of them even overlap with mbti) and go with it. My main problem is with the "neurotic" aspect. They figured in today society this is kinda of a personality trait, while Jung perceived neuroticism as what I told you above the inbalance between antagonistic functions (Ti-Fe, Si-Ne, etc). And if big five is going to include neuroticism, why not narcissism?, psychoticism? This trait seems to be a bit random IMO but I guess they were trying to fix the problem with the over generalization between T and F that mbti had, for instance thinkers who are sensitive and feelers who are more thick-skinned, so they came up with neuroticism, and having high levels of it means you are thin-skinned and low levels means you are more chill.

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    Not to sound condescending, I just have yet to see a good explanation. Every "expert" seems to have a drastically different explanation of socionics.
    This is a problem with every system, mbti, enneagram, etc. Enthusiast who haven't gone deep start pulling things out of their a%¨¨ and making strange stereotypes and assessments. So, not trying to appeal to authority, in fact I love when people have their own thoughts and opinions but at least try to understand it more deeply before deciding. I recommend Bukalov, if you can find some interviews, he worked with Augusta and as far as he explained the theory on quadras was actually put to test many times between groups and is not just random theory. Gulenko is the most popular but I think he's gone a bit far off, like I said before I think he is the most mbtier of the known socionists. Oh and definitely stay away from World Socionics Society, they don't know what they're doing, the guy even reads off from wikisocion while making videos, pretending he is an expert. At least change one or two lines to make it more believable, Jeez! Hey I'm an expert in dinosaurs, wanna see?

    Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles[note 1] of the clade Dinosauria. They first appeared during the Triassic period, between 243 and 233.23 million years ago, although the exact origin and timing of the evolution of dinosaurs is the subject of active research. They became the dominant terrestrial vertebrates after the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event 201 million years ago; their dominance continued through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Source: Me, I swear

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    6 sp/sx
    ILI Si


    Ok, so here is the thing: 1st subtypes are BS, when Jung typed people, say a Ti dom. Let's say a Ti dom with a mild preference for Ne as auxiliary (INTP). Then mbtiers/socionists go and say "ah that's very similar to an ENTP" cause of Ne dom and Ti aux. Well, no it's not. An introverted rational type is very much different from an extraverted irrational, at least in this sense socionics go "oh let's call this one INTj then, makes more sense" and it does. Jung believed your main type is the very first function, mbti and modern socionics kinda give too much importance to the 2nd function.
    So this issue is pretty complicated (despite there being a tremendous truth to the idea that Jung emphasized the dominant very strongly) and I wanted to say a bunch to make it clear for those unfamiliar with the issues -- that is, the issue of how much Jung really thought of the auxiliary as a kind of distant second to the dominant, versus essentially seeing you in terms of your top two functions. I'd say the presentation of the main portraits in Ch. X of Psychological Type as well as some of his remarks in Ch. X were very consistent with that; for instance, he often referred in his portraits to the 3 functions besides the dominant being corrupted by the unconscious (as in, say, the intuition, sensation and feeling of an introverted thinking dominant type).

    I'd say the best interpretation I come away with is that this is true in principle, but that in practice, he seemed to very much think 2 functions end up conscious and differentiated in a relevant sense. And his star pupil von Franz makes similar remarks to the effect that it can be so tough to tell the difference between a thinking>intuitive and intuitive>thinking type that one might just have to look to the inferior to decide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    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.

    So there, it's clear he's going with the 'one function only is conscious' and emphasizing the dom>>>>all perspective. However, Jung was not the most consistent writer, and you often have to read him cautiously in many places to find his meaning. For example, after swearing to only one function being conscious, he clearly writes otherwise:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.
    in his discussion of the realistic practical cases involving a developed auxiliary. Note the plural of functionS.
    And note the mention of conscious 'practical intellect' or ST. This is clearly a stark difference in attitude to what he displays when discussing, say, a Ti-dom, where he considers the functions besides thinking (that is, besides the dominant) to be of an extraverted character, due to the extraverted character of the unconscious

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.
    Note that it is FAR from the case that Jung necessarily thought that the functions besides the dominant take on the attitude of the unconscious. Rather, in the case of Nietzsche, who is typed as an introverted intuitive dom in Ch. III, he is clear both in Ch. III as to his 'introverted intellectual' (how Jung writes Ti) side as well as in Ch. X, reiterates the strongly introverted character of his auxiliary thinking:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jung
    Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.
    Further, one should note the frequent willingness to reference an instance of auxiliary function X as a type X (e.g. a thinking auxiliary as a thinking type), something he is only willing to do frequently for the first 2 functions.

    So all said, I'd certainly say it's not anti-Jungian to worry that it's hard to distinguish, say, a N-dom from a T-dom if the 2 functions are well-developed.

Similar Threads

  1. What Exactly is the Temperament System?
    By Smilephantomhive in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-08-2016, 08:05 PM
  2. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  3. What is the point of the MBTI?
    By Dufresne in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 04:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO