Hey everyone, just want to clear up a misunderstanding a few people have had. When I speak about Jung I am in no way saying that he did not theorize or develop the ideas of the auxiliary or tertiary functions. What I say at around :50 is that when Jung wrote ABOUT the cognitive functions he did so as if they were in their purest forms, as if they were detached from all other functions. He goes out of his way to clarify this in the sub-chapter that follows which discusses the auxiliary function. This chapter on the auxiliary function is only 3 pages long in comparison the the dozens he wrote about the functions in and of themselves. The point I was mainly attempting to make was that Jung did not systemize the auxiliary or tertiary functions into types and that his original types primarily focused on the impacts of the dominant function. This is because, as he directly says, he believes the dominant function holds complete dominance within the personality, which is not a view that the MBTI and Socionics models directly adopt.
@joshuageorge7015
Жыл бұрын
Communication IQ: A Proven Way to Influence, Lead, and Motivate People (Life Languages)
@infinitysconcinnity2418
4 жыл бұрын
Your video is massively needed in the current typological community. There are so many theoretical shifts that are occurring from Jung to all current models. These shifts can dramatically alter our definitions and understandings of each specific parameter (i.e., cognitive function, 'slot location', cognitive vs. behavioral foundation, etc.). For this reason, it is so critical for each student and practitioner of typology to have a rock-solid understanding of how each theoretical framework is laid out. Your video here goes a very long way towards facilitating a nuanced understanding pertaining to each particular model. Well done!
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
Appreciate that. It was a difficult topic to word correctly, I did my best to do it justice. Thanks for watching!
@thepanthar
3 жыл бұрын
@@AsuraPsych What type are you in Socionics?
@ups.e1313
2 жыл бұрын
@@thepanthar lmao
@CognitivePersonality
4 жыл бұрын
Really, really great comparison of the various different models employed across our typological community. Also, thank you for the shout-out in this video - was a nice surprise!
@helenzheng9557
4 жыл бұрын
You can always learn from other people, even if you do not agree with them completely. Pointing fingers at others' theory is unwise, because you'll then waste energy in competing instead of learning. Thanks for sharing other people's channels. Love your work.
@atomnous
4 жыл бұрын
Socionics' way of including all eight functions, to me, is essentially the same with only using four functions. This is because certain positions in Socionics' arrangement means you devalue those functions. So in essence, this is the same as saying "this is how this type doesn't use these functions" or "this is how this type not value these functions". The way Socionics put forth all the 8 functions actually makes it more descriptive and narrow, there is not much room for ambiguity and confusion. I think MBTI does something called category mistake, in the sense that the four letters indicator they ascribe to a type doesn't correlate with the cognitive functions they're ascribing them to. The types themselves exist, but when functions are applied they become too nonsensical and contradictory in action. For example, IxFJ focuses too much on internal feelings (Fi) in description, however they ascribe Pi-Fe functions to these types. Resulting in them mixing up the definition of Si and Ni to cross with Fi and Ti. It's like a situation where there is an elephant in a dark room, one touches its trunk and says, "it's trunk!" and the other person touches its tail and says, "THIS is trunk!" They're both touching on the same elephant, they both ascribe the same name, and the things they touch definitely exist, but they're touching on different parts. Once they go out, they can use different theories that can explain real phenomena, but with completely different names. And now you have these experts that want to reconcile between the systems, and say that the trunk in both systems are the same. No, they're NOT. I think it's Te-valuers that would have a hard time grasping how this could be because they're so afraid with "changing facts" in their mind until this becomes largely apparent to Ti valuers. To prove this, now you see to Socionics page and look at the whole description of an IEI, for example. Now go back to MBTI's description of INFP. They're basically describing the same person. However they ascribe different function names to be responsible for each traits. Socionics think it's Ni and Fe that makes an IEI so dreamy, impractical, kind, adaptive to people, care for certain big cause, have deep values. While MBTI thinks it's because of Fi and Ne. MBTI thinks the P in Fi-dom becomes apparent because their first extraverted function is perceiving. While Socionics and Jung think that the appearance of P/irrationality in one type must necessarily mean that their most first function is perceiving/irrational. This is also why J/P switch doesn't work. Yes you'll be able to assign the function order correctly, but those functions mean different things in its application. MBTI's functions are too horoscope-y, their definition can appeal to many types at once (Barnum effect). The switch will become pointless.
@rhoheta5243
4 жыл бұрын
Jung "created" the cognitive functions? Surely there's a better verb. "Discovered" for example?
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
True enough! Coined the term cognitive function would have been good.
@t5396
4 жыл бұрын
Rho, Nietzsche certainly would favor the word "create" over "discover." As an Ni dominant type he believed in the creative force of cognition and the will. While I agree that Asura may not have worded it the best way possible, I also think that, as an Ni dominant type myself, that any understanding we have of anything is a narrative that we tell ourself. That's not to say that our narratives are invalid. For instance, while our current understanding of MBTI is highly useful, it's possible that future research essentially debunks the current narratives, just as our understanding of psychology has developed more and more over the past century. Tldr I think Asura is closer to the money by saying "created" than saying "discovered." It's not even as though we can see or measure the cognitive functions in themselves.
@herminecobainjulesvernedas5177
4 жыл бұрын
While often times impressively accurate, typology is still a system, that tries to DISCRIBE reality
@schlaubischlumpf211
4 жыл бұрын
I like to put up an analogy to mathematics in this situation. Were Mathematics discovered? Or were they created? Myself, I think that it was, in a way, created, because it is a system that tries to recognize patterns in our world and fit them into a system that is understandable. Same with psychology. We observe behavioural patterns and we try to abstract them into a universal system that we can easily understand. We have always done this, it seems to be a habit of humanity. One might argue that this, almost perfect system might be an indication of intelligent design (e.g. C. S. Joseph), but I think that certain patterns developed over time because they work well, and we just so happened to systemize them in a way that seems almost flawless... Just some rambling, excuse my english, I'm a foreigner :)
@TheKrugerm
4 жыл бұрын
First!!!! Thanks for being there to help me understand myself better through all of your videos. The clarity to your approach is commendable and I'd be a lot farther behind in my understanding if not for you. Give yourself more credit sir! I'd love to pick your brain about the whirlwind that was my life some day. Thanks again,Your Canadian Friend, Mr.Kruger (INFJ)
@gringotroller
Жыл бұрын
After looking into all the sources I found Jungs original Personality Types was still the most interesting. I don't agree with a lot of people that the functions are rigid. For example I think an INTP has more in common with an INFP than an ENTJ. Introverted thinking and introverted feeling are both introverted judging functions, and there has to be some overlap. I think this is what some refer to as the "quadrants." Also its been a while since I read Jungs text, but I thought he stressed at one point the importance of utilizing the auxiliary function. He also said in an interview that the type can change with age, which practically throws the whole book out the window ha. Nonetheless still interesting stuff
@Coneman3
9 күн бұрын
This is a good, well-balanced assessment and view of typology. I agree that different approaches can give different benefits.
@inspektorsx683
4 жыл бұрын
I totally agree with everything said in the video. Particularly I don't like Socionics very much because it complicates some parts too much, and the subtypes thing I find a little bit unnecessary. But obviously as an INTJ I'm open-minded enough to absorb everything that makes sense to me, so I don't judge much less dismiss anyone that like or use.
@sprucespaner
7 ай бұрын
As an INTJ with the Introverted intuition involves valuing a focused and deep mindset rather than being open-minded. It emphasizes delving deep for profound insights rather than having a broad curiosity. Introverted intuitives tend to be inquisitive about subjects that align with their chosen path.
@Binyamin.Tsadik
4 жыл бұрын
Jung spoke about the Auxiliary function in Psychological types.... In other books: He wrote about the unconscious being the 2 functions that we don't prefer And he wrote about the 4 final functions being a part of our shadow.
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
Yes, but he did not write in length about them. A majority of his writings focused on the functions in and of themselves and how they portrayed themselves in their purest forms. While there are dozens of pages explaining the dominant functions, there are three brief pages discussing the auxiliary/tertiary functions. My wording may have come across confusing to some in this video, my intention was not to say that Jung did not write about the other functions, it was to say that when he wrote about the cognitive functions in their descriptions, he wrote about them in their purest form, as if they were apart from the other functions. He goes out of his way to clarify this in the beginning of the sub-chapter that discusses the auxiliary processes.
@Binyamin.Tsadik
4 жыл бұрын
@@AsuraPsych I can get behind this, thanks.
@downsjmmyjones101
4 жыл бұрын
Oh man, how did you manage to just do 10 minutes? I'd bet you could turn this into a series.
@quasar9999
4 жыл бұрын
Hey, thanks for this amazing video, I'd like to see a video talking about Enneagram
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
Appreciate that! I actually have to do my homework on the enneagram. It's one of the systems that I've never really sat down and studied for a long time. I might look into it in depth in the coming months. Thanks for watching!
@quasar9999
4 жыл бұрын
@@AsuraPsych thank you for making such great videos and for simplifying psychology to us 🙏
@johnknight9150
Жыл бұрын
Personally, I've found the best approach -- not just to personality type, but psychology in general -- is to simply retain the best broadstroke fundamentals from each discipline, as we each sketch out an image of the human psyche. Psychology is reverse engineering, in that we can't look directly inside the box, we can only guess what's inside the box based on observed behaviour and experienced psychological phenomena. Therefore, each discipline will probably land on a broadstroke fundamental that can be of use to everyone else, but the further down you drill into each model, the fuzzier and weaker the data becomes. The more broadstroke ideas that are collected in the psychology world from competing disciplines, the stronger future models will develop.
@traditionalgirl3943
4 жыл бұрын
I appreciate your clarity and specificity when speaking and explaining. My Se loves it. (ISFP) 🙂
@WorldSocionics
4 жыл бұрын
Asura, I don't think what you say about the relationship between functions and behaviour is quite right about Myers Briggs or Socionics. Socionics is about behaviours arising from cognition through Information Metabolism. Socionics doesn't just reduce IM Elements to certain behaviours. Behaviour is too rooted in context to just do that. Behaviour can, with an awareness of context allow you to infer underlying motivations that are ordained by the Socionics type, so it's not actually so different. I think it's better to say that Socionics looks at IM Elements as both strengths and values, while Myers Briggs conflates these two different things as 'preferences' Meanwhile, with MBTI it's not clear cut. On the official site, the definitions given of the cognitive functions mix together values and behaviours in a vague way: www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm?bhcp=1 When looking at Jung's original work, it becomes apparent rather quickly that he is talking about something akin to values when comparing the Dominant function with its suppressed alternative focus, e.g. Te with Ti choosing objective facts over setting out one's own 'resplendent ideas'. At the same time, when comparing the Dominant with Inferior, this becomes more about focusing on one thing with the other becoming subversive to a person, which seems akin to a strength. It's not clearly defined, but it is a very reasonable interpretation to reach. Also CS Joseph really doesn't use Socionics. There's a lot of Beebe in his influences and beyond borrowing some socionics terminology on quadras, there's no resemblance. Let's discuss Jung together sometime, I've been reading through Psychological Types recently and it's very fresh in my mind.
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
Hey there, my look at socionics is primarily outsider looking in - that I can openly admit. The primary differences, from my standpoint, are along the lines that socionics infers behavior from cognition because of the strict placement of functions on a hierarchical stack that includes both introverted and extroverted forms of the function; each strict function slot implies a certain degree of familiarity or strength with a function. This is why its not uncommon for people with 8 function models to say things along the lines of "X acted in a certain way because of 7th slot X" or "They are bad at X skill because of X slot X." The reason I stated socionics as perceptual, value based, and behavioral is because I believe it to be additive to Jungs theory, not reductionistic. This was certainly not meant to be a jab at socionics. When I see Jung's work and describe it as primarily perceptual I mean that value and behavior arise from perception and are not inherently applied to any type. MBTI on the other hand associates value with overall type as well as individual perception, such as with temperaments. In my personal views, the dominant function is far more important to the generation of value than the temperament or pairing of the dominant function with the auxiliary. That is to say that I think the secondary function, while still innate and a magnetic like influence on the compass of values, is not going to play as large as a role as the Briggs model makes it out to be. For example, I am a proponent of the similarities between types like INTJs and INFJs compared to INTJs and ENTJs or INFJs and ENFJs; this is to say that I think INTJs and INFJs are far more similar than most of the MBTI community tends to think. You are right about CS J - I mainly associated him with socionics because there aren't many large strictly socionics KZitemrs out there. Many have Frankensteined MBTI, Socionics, and the Beebe model together and called it their own. One of the largest weaknesses of socionics and its community is its lack of general support and easily accessible/understandable information. I would be happy to chat sometime, I'm generally open to discussion and always willing to learn.
@WorldSocionics
4 жыл бұрын
@@AsuraPsych That's understandable. Socionics isn't too well known, and initial awareness of it always precedes a more nuanced understanding. We'll talk. I think that's right. I would also say that the lines of inference are always going to be multi-directional. The theory was put together initially first from observing behaviour, then trying to philosophically put together ideas that made sense in line with observed behaviour. In practice we have to infer cognition from behaviour. I think the two are always going to be linked, which means theories claiming to be just cognition run into problems. I think we can see this with the Myers Briggs, which if you look at their cognitive functions, is presented as a cognitive theory, yet if you look at their dichotomies and descriptions, reads much like a behavioural theory. No no, fair enough. I just thought you were talking more about how they are different things, while I also wanted to discuss the connections between, so I very much agree that Socionics was supposed to be additive to Jung, sort of like a self-professed 'update'. Myers Briggs instead, sometimes more of a dichotomy theory that claims inspiration by Jung, other times also a bit of an additive, depending on how it is presented. Your position on the dominant function forming values makes a lot of sense for classical Jungian. In my opinion, the Dominant function is certainly the main lens, while the Auxiliary flavours the Dominant. For example, when we take IEIs and ILIs in Socionics (loosely similar to INFJs and INTJs in theory but we cannot assume a perfect 1 on 1 equation), they both are oriented towards deep reflection and having an intuitive sense of long-term outcomes. They both dedicate themselves to visualising these singular outcomes and suppress the tendency to think up lots of alternative possibilities. However, their approach to this is flavoured differently. The IEI blocks their Ni with Fe, so they romanticise their future outcomes to others, phrasing it as 'fate' or 'destiny', something which must happen. The ILI blocks their Ni with Te, so they focus instead on crunching data to assess the likelihood of their forecasts, and phrase things in terms of practical steps, e.g. "that's a stupid idea, it's going to fail. You need this strategy instead." Naturally the absence of Te for the IEI and the absence of Fe for the ILI also flavours how Ni appears, the former seeming more mystical and lacking facts to support their intuitions (more classical Ni type by Jung), the latter being not thinking about how their comments land with others, being overly critical and rubbing people the wrong way in their projections. I'll email you.
@theoriesandworkings
Жыл бұрын
@@WorldSocionics and @AsuraPsych How did this conversation go. 😅
@kelseypelham4682
4 жыл бұрын
So much clarity and precision! I have been muddling through Jung and was looking for something like this.
@Hamless_Kiwi
4 жыл бұрын
Socionics is more accurate by a milestone
@kaisfp
Жыл бұрын
I'm learning here so I always have questions: Why do you think that, and could you please elaborate (even if you would just elaborate on 1 single reason)? Thank you.
@omermanjo7459
6 ай бұрын
You are correct. It's also the reason many don't know about it. Because ambiguity of MBTI while frustrates one, it also encompasses a lot.
@hajarm696
3 жыл бұрын
This was much needed! Thank you for the objective outlook
@tospeakintypology877
3 жыл бұрын
Right! There is no "right" or "wrong" system, only different.
@t5396
4 жыл бұрын
Asura, thank you for the uploads and it's great to see you create more content. One thing that really puzzles me about MBTI is, what role do our inverse functions play in our personality type? (Ne, Ti, Fe, Si, for us INTJs). I realize that you don't follow the Socionics model, but I find it hard to fathom that our inverse functions play no role in our personality. What value do you find in C.S. Joseph's work? As an INTJ, I'd like to believe that I have the potential to tap into my ENTP unconscious and ESFP subconscious, according to his model. Joseph says INTJs have a knack for dancing (ESFP subconscious), which would contradict what you say about INTJs being able to develop Se. (Between you and me, I think he's a master bullshitter, but he does raise some interesting points that seem to gel with my intuition.)
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
Hey there, thanks for your kind words. In classical Jungian view, cognitive functions exist in one attitude and this is because Jung believed that functions were hardwired into us - a nature over nurture approach to perception and cognition. An introverted feeling type would never employ extroverted feeling but they might act in a way that is typical of a Fe type. So for an INFP, Fe just doesn't exist, they dont process information in the same way an Fe type would. An attempt at Fe like behavior or cognition would most likely be very tiring or stressful to an Fi type. Take for example INTJs, I couldn't even imagine using Ne in any meaningful way. Spontaneous creation of thoughts and ideas in the rapid fire way that ENTPs do is very far removed from the highly singular focused Ni of the INTJ. Any attempt at TRUE Ne use is just an attempt at employing Ni in a different way. For an INTJ the ESFP would be the unconcious in Jungian view, a reversal of the functions that an INTJ has. The subconcious side of the mind is instead much more like our secondary and tertiary functions. They are not directly conscious like the dominant function but they are a part of our lives and something that we can become aware of. In terms of cs josephs work, I think he has said some really smart things. I like how he discusses the similarity in quadrants for example. Or some of his topics about types and their inherent values. Hope that answers your questions, thanks for watching!
@heatherbryant4197
4 жыл бұрын
If I could add my two cents, as someone who is familiar with Chase's model as well as many others, I believe the phenomenon you are describing about INTJs' penchant for dancing is easily explained by qualities of the inferior function I think Chase happens to describe quite well (although we might argue these are really John Beebe's ideas). I'm not sure I buy into the notion of cognitive transitions; I just simply haven't seen enough evidence for it being true. But I do find Chase's ideas about the aspirational aspects of the inferior function to be rather accurate. While our inferior function is something we are not naturally good at, as we get older, we tend to aspire towards using this function and often believe we are better at using it than we actually are (which is also reminiscent of Dave from OP's ideas about "peacocking"). What I've seen with INTJs is they often like the idea of becoming a skilled dancer, but rarely tap into that Se sense of living in the moment or overcome inferior Se clumsiness enough to reach the potential they envision. They will take great pleasure in being complimented on their dancing skills because it's something they tend to be insecure about. But in my experience, INTJs who aspire to dance are often not quite as good as they seem to think they are. 🤷♀️ (Sorry if this bursts anyone's bubble, but that's my experience) There's just something off about their rhythm that they're unable to sense because of their weak Se. But alas, confidence goes a long way, and sometimes peacocking is enough to convince people you're actually good at something. Personally, I don't think you have to buy into one system only. I've heard many interesting insights from many different creators and authors, but I've yet to encounter one that I agree with completely or whose theory I find to be all-encompassing. I think you shouldn't feel compelled to accept the entirety of a person's system, just because some of their ideas make sense to you. Personally, I tend to have my own interpretation of cognitive functions formed from a mish mash of insights that seem to be consistently true, while simply disregarding the ideas that don't make sense or seem to be demonstrably true.
@t5396
4 жыл бұрын
@@AsuraPsych thank you. That clarifies things. Still, something I've wondered about is if it's possible to overdevelop the bottom three functions. Regrettably, I work in a restaurant, which is not at all an ideal place for an INTJ to work because of the sensory overload, the necessity of multitasking and dealing with large numbers of people in quick succession. In my opinion this is not at all a good place to use Ni dominance. Instead, I feel like I use Te to accomplish tasks as efficiently as possible. Additionally, call it peacocking if you want, but I feel like I have a hyperawareness of my environment and that I have developed a relative mastery of Se, at least within the context of the repeated actions I perform at work. Because of inferior Se, though, I would expect myself to be clumsy and unaware, which I am not. By no means do I think I have developed Se well outside of work, but I also think I am somewhat unusual for an INTJ because I like to do weight training. Even though being alone in my ivory tower with my head in the clouds is where I feel most authentic, I nonetheless enjoy going to the gym as part of my personal development. If life prevents me from working out, I feel like I am missing out.
@t5396
4 жыл бұрын
@@heatherbryant4197 thanks for your thoughts. I cannot offer any disagreements with what you said. If you don't mind, please offer your thoughts on my reply to Asura.
@yoshiperspectives4880
3 жыл бұрын
I naturally us Ni, Fe, Ti, Fi, Te, and Se. When i hear the MBTI certifieds talking about the types i agree with both INFJ and INTJ. Apparently this isn't possible according to MBTI, but It's true.
@gillian1272
4 жыл бұрын
I think it’s very interesting to contemplate which deviations of personality typing correlate to which branch one views as most accurate. Perception does matter after all. -gilly
@haeun7180
2 жыл бұрын
I have to give a heads up: I've seen "mbti" systems using all 8 cognitive functions, not just socionics 😊😊 Some other people perfected myers-briggs and used all 8 😊 (u mentioned that further in the video, sorry to jump in 🤭)
@iagoferrer4090
3 ай бұрын
Strictly speaking, MBTI is the content of the book "gifts differing" and there you don't find a 8 function approach. So anything that considers more than 4 functions can't really be called mbti as far as I understand. That's why I consider it (while good for beginners) obsolete
@questinpodcast
Жыл бұрын
great explanation, thank you for the share!
@INFJinxed
3 жыл бұрын
Excellent video! I am with you on the overall integration of multiple theories - so much can be learned through bringing together all different models and perspectives! This video should be promoted more in this community. Harry recommended your channel to me and am happy to see your content!
@Coneman3
9 күн бұрын
Why do socionics change the functions of the 16 types? Makes no sense to me.
@neethy1836
2 жыл бұрын
Awesome video, thankyou!!!
@tachibanarui2572
2 жыл бұрын
INTP here. always finds the youtube video topic about typology interesting but ended up bored because of the speaker. idk why when i wanna know something in the next second you just explain it clearly and i never get bored of your speech..
@dirtywhitellama
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing this perspective. I think it's important to understand that none of the systems can be necessarily exactly right or wrong, and also understand that they define things differently, for example not all systems agree on the differences between introverted and extroverted feeling, or even extroverted feeling and thinking, or the differences between Si and Ni, etc. I'm not even sure I agree wth what I know of Jung's original theory from my limited observations of people, but I'm waiting to really judge that until I read it for myself (it's slow going, it's pretty chewy ;) ) I know there are certain people who I find a lot easier to communicate with, who seem to think more like me, and it isn't necessarily always in line with what their MBTI type would appear to be, so there are definitely more factors at play than just that. Like, my dad shows some pretty stereotypical signs of being Si dominant that I don't expereince myself (prolific storytelling regardless of whether anyone cares, for example), but in a lot of other ways we think very very similarly, and I don't think that's entirely explained by both being IxTJ, or by being related (I don't share a similar correlation with my mom, although we are similar in other ways) I'm very curious to learn as much as I can about it and draw my own conclusions. :)
@rithrius5384
4 жыл бұрын
Would you be interested/willing to make videos comparing certain personality types with their complete opposites? Particularly their similarities or lack thereof? (for example: INTP and ESFJ, ENFJ and ISTP, etc) Just some food for thought if you ever need a subject for a video.
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
Shadow type relations Is actually on my list for the near future. Thanks for watching!
@fredgeorge7374
4 жыл бұрын
i have the same piano
@arcano9268
4 жыл бұрын
Awesome, same idea too. They all came from Jung just with different approach and different goals. But still I hope someday we find a much more fundamentally concise description and mechanism of functions with enough evidence to clear up this rambling on these Jungian typology systems.
@niceguy4801
Жыл бұрын
Do you have any advise by taking the test? I mean it is so subjective for example it will ask "Other people's responsibilities" what does it mean? Does it mean something like "Do you think they are doing well with their responsibilities? " or something like ...... "Do you think they should follow their responsibilities?" or something like " I will going to do their responsibilities" And then it will let you pick whether strongly positive or strongly negative But base on what kind of question? It can mean many things
@couragecoachsam
2 жыл бұрын
If I believe perception, values, and behavior are interrelated, does that make me a socionics proponent by default?
@FlowState
2 жыл бұрын
10/10
@Ignasimp
3 жыл бұрын
There is something inherently bad about all these different models. Everyone in youtube has a different model and it's annoying. Concensus is primordial in science, and personality psicology needs consensus.
@Ignasimp
4 жыл бұрын
For me the problem with all of this is that there is no concensus. If everybody has a different theory and all of them are valid then non of them really are. We need to find scientific evidence that points us to a clearer direction. For me discussing if the functions we use are only 4 that we can introvert or extrovert or that there are 8 is just bullshit. De we have evidence that points more clearly towards one or the other model? Then why are we losing out time discussing that? Let's start making more studies that can tell us what is really happening, I already have a religion, I don't need an other one, here I want/need a science.
@atomnous
4 жыл бұрын
Try Socionics. Their definition is the most narrow and clear, not contradictory. If it's contradictory, they might be from different models. But in one model, it's clear what your type is. In MBTI, it was so unclear if I was Ti or Fi dom, cognitive function tests gave high scores on both, not to mention high in both Ne and Ni. But Gulenko's description makes it clear to me I can only be LII INTj (Ti-Ne), I wouldn't relate with any other profiles.
@MorkarKaramat
4 жыл бұрын
The last part resonates very well with me being INTJ...explore with bird view, see things from every angle but with the objective of creating a higher level, more abstract/general, and so more valuable to my eyes, framework :D But don’t expect xNTP will agree with the suggestion ;) BTW That’s what I’m doing, I like CS Joseph although I don’t agree on everything, but it’s very interesting and good insights!
@pippysmusic
4 жыл бұрын
Please Understand Me, by David Keirsey, was my first Love & introduction to psychological type. Do you think you might consider doing a video on your PUM thoughts one day? Thank you for your inspiring work AsuraPsych ❤️
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
I could certainly consider it, thanks for watching!
@lloroarcoiris
2 жыл бұрын
THANKS
@cymbol73
2 жыл бұрын
All very well said. Too many people aren't understanding, they are all pieces of the same puzzle, and often are saying the same thing in a different way.
@lauraelzey6371
3 жыл бұрын
I think your cute lol (little girl running away bc she’s shy)
@LittleMew133
2 жыл бұрын
He's married
@jeffreyg5303
4 жыл бұрын
Help me out here, it seems pretty clear to me based on what you are saying between like 3-5min, the most atomized and fleshed out version of jungian theory is socionics? it looks like you are giving me information that says jung and meyers just didnt detail their ideas to their logical closure. fuctions with different level of priority and attention (position in the stack) will logically lead to perceptual and value changes perceptual and value changes logically lead to cognitive dissonance, and ultimately behavioral changes therefore socionics is the most zoomed in look at jungian psychology so far because it incorporates perception value and behavior in the most dynamic way. to further clarify, each function is rewarded by being utilized, so its impossible to logically deny that functions alter behavior. A Ti user feels the urge to analyze, analysis is a behavior. The idea that functions could possibly not have an affect on behavior seems suspect to me. It may be that there is more to it than that sure, maybe the big 5 overlays our cognitive functions, maybe they influence each other, maybe its something else entirely and all of these people have been full of it. Clearly though socionics has gone the deepest, and is therefore the best jungian theory, if its logic is sound. please do respond, I felt compelled to edited this down to its most innocuous form, so either im getting older, or I really think you can teach me something.
@@hambone1668 this is fascinating, and is very reminiscent of something I would expect from TWFP, but im not sure I see the point your trying to make. What I see there doesnt suggest to me that functions arnt responsible for perception, value, and behavior. I should note, i already assumed a fundamental motivation for behavior vs stagnation (that thing being cognitive dissonance), so the idea of a prime directive is just something i was taking for granted, still even if that motivation is specified instead as matching reality and expectations (which think is actually a weaker prime directive since avoiding cognitive dissonance i.e. incoherence, a departure from what was understood, encapsulates it), reality and expectations are two ideas that first need to filter though a conscious process in order to have content (what is the reality, and what is the expectation). I argue the content of those two ideas would be different for people with different functional stacks. looking at it this way makes it clear to see how a person with a higher Ti function would be much more concerned with finding the truth of the matter do to its judicious nature, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance, and an Fi user would be much more interested in sheltering against, or finding sneaky ways around other perspectives due to its self involved nature. both of which are behaviors, determined by functions.
@hambone1668
4 жыл бұрын
@@jeffreyg5303 I'd like to read your comment more in depth later, but for now I will say that this document was more likely to answer your questions adequately than AsuraPsych, and so it was linked.
@jeffreyg5303
4 жыл бұрын
@@hambone1668 i appreciate it, i tabbed it up to revisit tomorrow after i get a good sleep myself
@AsuraPsych
4 жыл бұрын
Hey there, great question! So, the fundamental difference is quite interesting in my opinion. It is not that Jung and briggs did not come to logical conclusions, it's that they viewed cognitive functions in fundamentally different ways, socionics as well (socionics being the most different) Socionics for example says that behavior is directly linked to a specific cognitive function. Take for example Host Eric. He would very likely say something along the lines of "ENTJs Have bad memory with attention to detail because they have 7th slot Si". Jung/Briggs did not propose such a strict view on functions in relation to behavior and instead suggested it was more fluid, like a lens that alters perception. Like an Ni dom seeing the world through a red lens and an Ne through a blue, they are seeing the same things, but what is perceived is different. Jung didn't propose the idea of function "Strength" in such a strict way, and instead proposed that the lenses influenced behavior. Correlative approach between cognition and behavior instead of a causation based one.
@m.g.8897
Жыл бұрын
Nice video. U speak fast.
@sylviaowega3839
Жыл бұрын
Very informative video! You certainly speak like an INTJ. Lol
Пікірлер: 95