Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 13/02/2006, 10:30 PM
jsb'07's Avatar
jsb'07 jsb'07 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 160
Default Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

It is widely discussed about the relations between the Socioncs and it's Western relative, the MBTI. But I have heard not much about how this science relates to the Analytical Psychology, the Jung's school in psychology. So here are some questions.

How these two are related and how do they get along with each other?

Is Socionics step ahead from it? Yes/no, why?

This topic interests me much and I would like to know as much as I could.

Thank you!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14/02/2006, 02:07 PM
time is being time is being is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 108
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

Quote:
Originally posted by september83:
It is widely discussed about the relations between the Socioncs and it's Western relative, the MBTI. But I have heard not much about how this science relates to the Analytical Psychology, the Jung's school in psychology. So here are some questions.

How these two are related and how do they get along with each other?

Is Socionics step ahead from it? Yes/no, why?

This topic interests me much and I would like to know as much as I could.

Thank you!
i wanted to point out that modern psychology reguards jung, analytical, and archetypal psychology as mere illusion. jung based his psychology on soul, and maintained that soul does exist. jung also researched the unconcious and dreams while these things do not hold any validity for more orthodox science. jung is seen as a system of meaningless symbols.

how is mbti and jungian psychology related? jung, in exploring the unconcious, developed the four divisions i/e, n/s, t/f, and j/p. each division/manifestation of libido could be considered an archetype in itself. archetypes are the contents of the collective unconcious. "an archetype is an unlearned tendency to experience things in a certain way." the idea of unlearned tendency connects mbti to archetypal psychology. (i will leave the collective unconcious for another post.)

where mbti differs from analytical psychology is the depth of understanding. i doubt briggs/myers understood the collective unconcious. (i could be wrong). i say this because the mbti system turns the psychology into a dead edifice, or dead typology. i dont think jung would be pleased with mbti because it is too easily understood as having no relation to the collective unconcious. (to understand psychic processes, one has to have both the conscious and unconscious).

socionics, is a continuation of mbti. it shares its faults. i dont think socionics is superior to mbti, just a logical next step. so i would say that socionics & mbti are inferior to analytical psychology.

(the founder of socionics, i believe was an entp. entp's are notorious for not really coming up with novel ideas, but knicking others ideas and expanding or rearranging them. this is extreme speculation though)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 14/02/2006, 09:31 PM
TheGeorgiaPeach TheGeorgiaPeach is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

Socionics isn't a "step ahead", or "continuation" of MBTI, becuase it's development had nothing to do with MBTI in the first place. While setting up her system, Aushra Augusta did not even know the MBTI existed.

As for how I see the MBTI and socionics correlating to each other...

http://www.the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2572
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15/02/2006, 12:14 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGeorgiaPeach:
Aushra Augusta did not even know the MBTI existed.
That's where you wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15/02/2006, 12:19 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

Quote:
Originally posted by time is being:
socionics, is a continuation of mbti. it shares its faults. i dont think socionics is superior to mbti, just a logical next step. so i would say that socionics & mbti are inferior to analytical psychology.
I have put this in HTML code for socionics.com awhile ago, but for some reason it did not have the desired effect with the search engines as it intended to:
code:
<meta name="description" content="Socionics is a step forward
from MBTI(r) theory, which is a step forward from Personality
Type, which is a step forward from Jungian Type, which is
a step forward from...">
[/quote]
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15/02/2006, 04:54 AM
TheGeorgiaPeach TheGeorgiaPeach is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

I heard she did not know of MBTI when she first started. That's what I meant. I know she heard of MBTI later on, but after she had already set up her system, no?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16/02/2006, 08:07 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

You're quite right, Aushra did not know that MBTI existed when she started. She was reading Jung and Kempinski. So in this respect Socionics is indeed closer to Jung than MBTI. However as soon as she found out about MBTI (I think it is safe to say that she already knew about it in early 80s) she devoted lots of time to it, she even translated and included it in some of her works. So Socionics does have MBTI influence whether you want it or not.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 25/02/2006, 05:55 PM
Matt the Raver Matt the Raver is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

As someone with a behavioural neuroscience background (I have a BSc, MSc and a certain amount of theoretical knowledge) I can see how description of Jung's function is scientifically PLAUSABLE, although I say this somewhat tentatively. Alot of which could be described in terms of behavioural conditioning, which can now be described (to some extent) in terms of cellular properties and the functional roles played by different brain regions in behaviour exhibited:
1st: rational/irrational = cortical/limbic
'Irrational' behaviour is probably more influenced by the limbic systems which is mainly responsible for evolutionary survival, and is described more simply as the '4Fs' Feeding, Fleeing Fighting and you know wot!
'Rational' can probably be described more as 'higher' functioning, which seems to be more the domain of cortical regions, particularly frontal and temporal lobes (but I'm generalising and simplifying MASSIVELY)
2nd: Extrovert/Introvert US/CS
This requires a understanding of classical conditioning (see Pavlov's dogs):
A unconditioned stimulus (US) is something which is intrinsically good or bad (getting food when you're hungry for example).
A conditioned stimulus (CS) is something that is initially neither good or bad (such as a bell ringing) but if you're exposed to it at the same time as an US (such as food), you'll learn that ringing bell=food, therefore in this case ringing bell=good.
All very nice, but what has this got to do with E/I? Well, in real life classical conditioning is FAR more complex, we can learn to connect all sorts of US and CS on a daily basis and the difference between E and I is simply the RATIO of US vs CS.
Extroverts prefer more US because they make fewer connections made with CS.
Introverts are more likely to find excessive amounts of US overpowering and distressing, as they are incessantly and persistently reminded by CS everywhere.
3rd: Sensation/Intuition=Habituation
Persistent exposure to a stimulus results in a reduced response, this process is called HABITUATION which simply means you get bored or resistant to a stimulus which before you responded to very strongly. Senation could be described as exhibiting a lower rate of habituation than intuition.
4th: Feeling/Thinking
This is alot more slippery to define and I can only describe it in terms of the EXTENT of limbic input into the frontal lobes, damage to this results to in an inability to make decisions, which might also be described as a lack of 'feeling' but I don't really think this is very illuminating.
Loose ends:Judging/Percieving+function interactions
I think of the J/P axis as just a way of tying up the loose ends to define auxillary functions. I don't understand why and auxillary funtion has to be extroverted to a dominant introverted function and vice-versa.

As far as Jung's personalities, MBTI and socionics is concerned, I get the impression that we're 'all singing from the same hymn sheet' even if we're making slightly different sounds.
While I might have proposed a tentative theoretical framework, I don't think much of this is testable to a meaningful extent and indeed on closer analysis Jungian analysis can start to look rather crude compared to present scientific evidence especially since consciousness almost seems to be an evolutionary afterthought and this sort of 'top down' thinking isn't usually that helpful and can almost be counter productive as you can come to a conclusion before you have sufficient evidence. That said, as a theory, it's interesting and on a day to day basis it can yield some interesting observations, but I wouldn't put more faith in it than that!


Matt the Raver INTp (supposedly)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 25/02/2006, 06:59 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

Quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Raver:
'Irrational' behaviour is probably more influenced by the limbic systems which is mainly responsible for evolutionary survival, and is described more simply as the '4Fs' Feeding, Fleeing Fighting and you know wot!
'Rational' can probably be described more as 'higher' functioning, which seems to be more the domain of cortical regions, particularly frontal and temporal lobes (but I'm generalising and simplifying MASSIVELY)
I somewhat disagree. Fortunately you can put all the functions in order of complexity. Sensing is the most basic of them all, as you say "Feeding, Fleeing Fighting and you know wot!". Feeling is already more complex and advanced over Sensing, and Thinking is much more advanced than Feeling. But the Intuition (which seems to be also "irrational") is the most advanced function of them all. It has got the ultimate "higher" functioning.

Do you see my point?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 26/02/2006, 01:42 PM
Matt the Raver Matt the Raver is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

I think I should start by pleading ignorance. I've read an English translation of Jung's psychological types a few months ago http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm I hadn't given him much cred before, but since his characterisations were so plausable (disturbingly so) I'm also loosely familiar with Kantian and Hegelian philosophy and so I THINK I can see where he's coming from. I haven't read any socionics and so I'm not aware of how exactly socionics has developed Jungian theory.
So, could you please explain to me how functions can be ordered in terms of complexity.
I think I've inadvertently dragged this thread from analytical psychology (that means psychoanalysis doesn't it?) into neuropsychology, I'm sorry. I'll start a new thread!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 26/02/2006, 02:00 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

You don't have to apologise just because someone disagrees with your opinion, that's what the forums for.

As for order of complexity, that's exactly how the functions are ordered: Sensing -> Feeling -> Thinking -> Intuition.

Sensing acts on the shortest distance - you have to be able to touch another person to actually engage Sensing. For Feeling it is enough to see or hear the person, Thinking you can pass over distances and centuries in the form of texts. Intuition has no limits!

By the way, how sure are you of being supposedly an INTp?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 26/02/2006, 06:24 PM
Matt the Raver Matt the Raver is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

By INTp I mean introverted thinking, with extroverted intuition as an auxillary function.
Now.....if you're familiar with behavioural concepts such as classical conditioning, desensitisation and extinction as well as neural properties of learning, such as long term potentiation (LTP) the 4 functions Jung describes as irrational can be described pretty well in these terms:
eS (simple conditioned response, slow desensitisation)
eN (simple conditioned response, fast desensitisation)
iS (complex conditioned response, slow desensitisation)
iN (complex conditioned response, fast desensitisation)

introverted/extroverted rational can also be defined by the degree of associations that can be made:
iT/iF more complex associations
eT/eF less complex associations
Rational functions can be ascribed more as cortical functions (see frontal lobe damage)
any T/F differences are probably to do with differences in parietal lobe(spatial vision)/temporal lobe (linguistic abilities, facial, an emotional recognition) see between men and women coupled with a 3:1 feeling preference compared to 1:1 in men.
I'll explain this all in more detail in a separate topic.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 26/02/2006, 07:13 PM
j-kan j-kan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 16
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

INTp in socionics is NiTe; introverted intuition dominant and extraverted thinking as auxillary function.

if you're TiNe, you're an INTj in socionics. more info: http://socionics.com/advan/intjorintp.htm
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 26/02/2006, 07:33 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

I'm looking forward to read your further explanations, Matt the Raver. I'm interested in neuroscience myself, though I can't say I know that much about it. But I think it will be easier to follow your arguments if you write Se instead of eS when you refer to extraverted sensing, and so on.

Your way of writing makes me suspect that you and I could be the same type. And if you've read some of my posts, you might have seen that I have until now thought I was a socionics type INTj, because that type is defined as TiNe in the socionics model - i.e. with introverted thinking as dominant function and extraverted intuition as secondary. In the MBTI model and the Keirsey model I fit the descriptions of an INTP very well, and if you and I are the same type, you probably would, too.

In socionics it might be that we both fit the descriptions of an INTp better than the descriptions of an INTj, but an INTp is defined as a NiTe, with introverted intuition as dominant and extraverted thinking as secondary. So, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I've tried to distinguish between INTP (which in the MBTI model is supposed to be an introverted thinking type) and INTp (which in socionics is supposed to be an introverted intuitive type). If one skips the theories, and only describe how they are empirically, from outside observations, it could be that they appear to be roughly the same type. I haven't come to a conclusion about this problem yet, but the discussions so far seem to indicate, that that might really be the case.

If that's true you could really be an INTp, but maybe not an introverted thinking type, if you accept the socionics model.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27/02/2006, 08:22 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

Matt, I would suggest you disregard the previous post before he gets you all confused like he did to himself. Read INTj or INTp article instead, that should help unless you're an ENTp.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03/03/2006, 09:14 AM
jsb'07's Avatar
jsb'07 jsb'07 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 160
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

According to owner of socioncs.us website the Jungian typology and socionics are not the same. The last one integrated Jung's ideas into itself with some other theorys available. And socionics belongs to another inegraltype from Jungian typology. One should also know that MBTI and Jung's psychological types are not the same. MBTI is actually another independent typology and so is Keirsey.

What I really wanted to say was that the people typed by Jung are not the same who they are in socionics sometimes. For example Jung typed Freud and Darwin as Te types, but socionics typed both of them as ENTp.

This leads us to the point that don't take all what Jung wrote about the types as valid material.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03/03/2006, 12:36 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,502
Default Re: Socionics and Analytical Psychology.

Quote:
Originally posted by september83:
but socionics typed both of them as...
What exactly does it mean?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM