към началната страница psihologia.net
Сайт на преподаватели и възпитаници от специалност "Психология" в СУ
 
 Въпроси/ОтговориВъпроси/Отговори   ТърсенеТърсене   ПотребителиПотребители   Потребителски групиПотребителски групи   Регистрирайте сеРегистрирайте се 
 Профилпрофил   Влезте, за да видите съобщенията сиВлезте, за да видите съобщенията си   ВходВход   лични страници на възпитанициЛични страници

1. History of Jungian typology, short overview of socionics
Иди на страница 1, 2  Следваща
 
Създайте нова тема   Напишете отговор    psihologia.net Форуми -> Соционика. Запознаване с школата
Предишната тема :: Следващата тема  
Автор Съобщение
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 9:10:02    Заглавие: 1. History of Jungian typology, short overview of socionics Отговорете с цитат

Good morning, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen!

It is a great pleasure and honor for us to meet you and to hold such an international seminar.
In 15 – 20 minutes we will start.
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 9:43:32    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Socionics is a branch of psychology that studies relationships between psychological types. It is based on somewhat modified system of psychological types described by C.G.Jung in his Psychological Types (1916, 1920 etc.) and Tavistock Lectures (1935).

You can find a short presentation about socionics in Bulgarian here:
http://socioniko.narod.ru/bg/

(thanks a lot to Kalin Yanev who has translated this text).

You also know a different version of Jungian typology known as the Myers-Briggs Type Theory (MBTT). It is based on the test called Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), and is well known in the US, and for the last years also in Europe.

The Myers-Briggs Type Theory is sometimes confused with socionics, although there are some differences between these two theories. Let us describe them shortly:

a) Different methods of type evaluation: MBTT almost completely relies upon the test, while socionics from the beginning developed alternative methods – determining type by interviewing, observation, etc. Verbal testing is considered as a secondary, not primary method, because it says nothing about the NATURE of types (nevertheless, we are interested in testing, and we both developed a socionic Multifactor test, which we will discuss later). In the last years socionic focused on biological parameters of types.

b) Somewhat different definitions of the 4 basic type criteria. In MBTT, the type is defined as 4 basic choices: extroversion (E) or introversion (I), sensation (S) or intuition (N), thinking (T) or feeling (F), judgment (J) or perception (P). Socionics uses terms logic/ethic – instead of thinking/feeling, and rationality/irrationality – instead of perception/judgment. But more important is the contents of these definitions, they do not always coincide.

c) Intertype relationships: although several representatives of MBTT proposed their own views on compatibility between the Myers-Briggs types, a thorough theory of intertype relationships does not exist in MBTT. Socionics, from the very beginning, was created as a theory describing and explaining some regularities of relations between people.

These are main differences.

However, there is a lot in common between them. Main fields of application are the same: family and business consulting, education etc. When first publications about MBTT appeared in the former USSR (a short article in 1984, and several books since 1994), socionists found a lot of useful information there. We are sure that, instead of these differences, fruitful cooperation between these two branches of Jungian typology is possible, providing that we do not forget about the differences.

(to be continued…)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Kalin Yanev



Регистриран на: 31 Мар 2003
Мнения: 1197
Местожителство: София
Потребителски групи: 
[ Администратори ]
[ Випускници - психолози от СУ ]
[ Докторанти ]
[ новини ]
[ семинар "Соционика" ]
[ Студенти випуск 2002 г. ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 11:20:26    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Good morning from me too. It's a pleasure to participate in this discussion! My English isn’t that perfect so I beg lenience in advance.

I have a question (already) and I hope that I do not interrupt u, Dmitrii and Marianna. I guess u have planned to mention this in ur expose later. However I am hasty to ask the following to make the things clear for myself:
u said:
Цитат:
Socionics, from the very beginning, was created as a theory describing and explaining some regularities of relations between people.

In MBTT the main phenomenon to make study of are the personal types, aren’t they. So in socionics theory were the interpersonal relationships the staring point of research? I mean maybe in the beginning (maybe in Augusta’s works) the types were brought out as some determinants of the interpersonal relationship and not the opposite – the relationships as result of type’s compatibility? My question is whether the need of studying the types was determined by problems in understanding of some specific relationships phenomena or just the Jung's theory needing improvement and expansion?
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Изпрати мейла Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 11:35:41    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

OK, Kalin, thanks for the first question, we'll reply in some minutes.

1. Origin of C.G.Jung’s Typology.

Even those who never heard about Jung know the terms Extroversion (Extraversion) and Introversion. However, Jung himself for many years had doubts about their contents and semantics. He was only sure that the difference between extroverts and introverts arose from the pre-determination of different people to different kinds of psychiatric diseases.
Jung studied MENTALLY ILL people, for he was a psychiatrist. However, for the years of his studies he mentioned that even mentally sound people are predetermined to different mental diseases. Most of people for their whole lives have no opportunity to unleash this potential.

However, if we consider negative and positive epithets in literature, we will notice that very often the same quality may be described as both positive and negative. And, on the contrary, there exist mutually incompatible traits: one can develop one of them only at cost of the other.
Jung considered extroversion and introversion as such mutually incompatible characteristics. However, his definition of this criterion was vague and contradictory: as focus on the “outer world” (extroversion) or “inner world” (introversion). At that time (1910 – 1920) these terms were not accepted and/or understood by psychologists.

However, he continued to study other mutually incompatible traits. And in 1920 he published his fundamental work called Psychological Types. In this work he described 4 psychological types: two of them, Thinking and Feeling, he called Rational (Judging); and the other two, Sensing and Intuitive, he called Irrational (Perceiving). EACH OF THESE FOUR TYPES could be extroverted or introverted.

Did you notice what has changed? Initially Jung wrote about the extroverted and introverted TYPES. Later he changed his mind, he considers extroversion and introversion as something like “taste” of the main psychical functions.

For the next 15 years he extended his typology: he wrote that Rational types (thinking or feeling) can have irrational subfunction (sensation or intuition), and vice versa. He summarized his views in his Tavistock Lectures, where he finally described his 4 criteria of psychological types:

- rationality (judgment, J) and irrationality (perception, P);
- thinking (T) and feeling (F);
- sensation (S) and intuition (N);
- extroversion (E) and introversion (I).

On this basis it was possible to describe 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16 types.

However, then Jung seemed to forget his type theory! Very rarely, he made comments on it in his letters – and that was all! Why?
Jung was well aware of the fact that the definitions he gave to these 4 criteria were vague and unclear. And they could not be improved at his time! It was impossible because of very little knowledge about the human nature, about the nature of psychical functions. And Jung had negative attitudes towards those who wanted to popularize his typology, to create tests on its basis.

Jung made some important observations and statements about his typology.

First, he wrote that these type must be inborn. They were not just attitudes, conscious models of behavior. For any person, one half of the criterion (e.g. introversion) is “natural”, and the other (e.g. extroversion) is “unnatural”, contradicts to his nature. A person may behave like an extrovert, being a “born introvert”, and this makes him feel depressed, frustrated.

Second, in Psychological Types (1920) he wrote about interaction between his types. He wrote about “special charm”, “influence at the level of the subconscious” that have towards each other representatives of complementary types. These complementary types should be both rational, or both irrational, and other criteria should be different (for example, ES – IN, or ET – IF). Alas, this hypothesis was expressed only in brief phrases, Jung did not develop it later.

People who worked together with Jung defined him as Intuitive, Introverted, Thinking.

(to be continued…)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 11:58:43    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Цитат:
In MBTT the main phenomenon to make study of are the personal types, aren’t they. So in socionics theory were the interpersonal relationships the staring point of research? I mean maybe in the beginning (maybe in Augusta’s works) the types were brought out as some determinants of the interpersonal relationship and not the opposite – the relationships as result of type’s compatibility? My question is whether the need of studying the types was determined by problems in understanding of some specific relationships phenomena or just the Jung's theory needing improvement and expansion?


You are right – Augusta started from relationships, not from types.

Let us skip the Myers-Briggs Theory (I’ll consider it today but later), and tell some words about

2. The Origin of Socionics.

Augusta was an economist by education and occupation (after graduation she worked at the Ministry of Finance of the Soviet Lithuania), but later she became a sociologist. At that time (1960s) sociology was new in the Soviet Union – under Stalin it was considered as a “bourgeois pseudo-science”. Augusta studied family relations.

According to Marx, economy was the basis of everything – including human relations. Augusta studied happy nd unhappy marriages, and initially she relied upon Marx – she studied economic, social and cultural factors that took place in these families. However, she quickly realized that they were not enough. There were families, quite “normal” from the viewpoint of economic situation, cultural level etc., but unhappy anyway.
What was the reason of their unhappiness? Maybe sex? Augusta was not too shy in these matters (later she even published some articles on sexology). She began to read books on psychoanalysis. In fact she was in better situation than many other Soviet researchers, psychologists and sociologists, who lived in other republics. Lithuania became a part of USSR only in 1940, and before this year, many books on psychoanalysis have been published in Lithuanian language. In addition, many books from the West came to Lithuanian libraries at that time. She started from Freud, and very soon came across C.J.Jung’s typology.

But at first glance she did not understand it. She began to study other psychological typologies known at that time – these of Kretschmer, Gannushkin, Leonhard, Sheldon etc. Soon she understood that all these typologies were somewhat chaotic. These scientists simply observed some “typical cases” and made them “defined points” of their typologies.

By contrast, Jung’s typology was SYSTEMATIC, logical.

She came back to C.G.Jung’s typology and tried to apply it to the families she had previously studied…

(to be continued in 1,5 hours – sorry, we have a lunch break).
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 14:30:14    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

2. The Origin of Socionics (continued).

Augusta was surprised by the fact that none of the above mentioned personality typologies considered the problem of intertype relationships. She tried to consider families known to her from the viewpoint of different typologies. However, all of them showed no regularities – except the Jung’s typology.

The first regularity was named quasi-identity.

Jung did not distinguish clearly rational types from irrational. For him, Thinking Extroverted type with secondary Intuition (ENT rational) was “almost the same” as Intuitive Extroverted with secondary Thinking (ENT irrational). Jung’s adherents (M.L. von Franz, J. Hillman etc.), as a rule, ignored the rationality/irrationality criterion. The first test of Jung’s types (the Gray – Wheelwright test, 1938) included only three of the four criteria.

However, Augusta's researches showed something different - it was a VERY IMPORTANT criterion. It worked like a “switch” that sometimes changed positive into negative.

For example, she observed several families where one of spouses was an intuitive-logical extrovert (ENT irrational), and the second – sensory-ethical introvert (ISF irrational). The relationship within this couple was quite harmonious and good. However, it was opposite in the pair with ALL THE FOUR criteria different: e.g. intuitive-logical extrovert (ENT irrational), and ethical-sensory introvert (ISF rational). Compatibility between partners in this couple was very bad, they often fell into conflicts. In general, the situation in the first pair could be described as “mutual support”, “distribution of tasks according to the partners’ strong functions”, while the second pair could be described as "embarrassment", "frustration" and "disappointment".

Augusta used the term “quasi-identity” to describe the types with difference in the criterion rationality/irrationality. At first glance, quasi-identical types seemed similar in many ways. But at close distance, the difference became obvious. The quasi-identical types practiced usually same kinds of activities, but seemed to evaluate them from different viewpoints. However, in quasi-identical pairs such difference very rarely resulted in conflicts – more often it resulted in lack of understanding or indifference to each other.

(to be continued)
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Kalin Yanev



Регистриран на: 31 Мар 2003
Мнения: 1197
Местожителство: София
Потребителски групи: 
[ Администратори ]
[ Випускници - психолози от СУ ]
[ Докторанти ]
[ новини ]
[ семинар "Соционика" ]
[ Студенти випуск 2002 г. ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 16:27:04    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Цитат:
he wrote that Rational types (thinking or feeling) can have irrational subfunction (sensation or intuition), and vice versa

Цитат:
Thinking Extroverted type with secondary Intuition (ENT rational) was “almost the same” as Intuitive Extroverted with secondary Thinking (ENT irrational).


Can you explain what did Jung mean by "subfunction"? And what does "secondary" mean in the second quotation?
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Изпрати мейла Посетете сайта на потребителя
Stoyan Novakov



Регистриран на: 27 Май 2003
Мнения: 676
Местожителство: София
Потребителски групи: 
[ Администратори ]
[ Випускници - психолози от СУ ]
[ семинар "Соционика" ]
[ Студенти випуск 2004 г. ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 16:57:01    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Hello,
As I can understand socionics is chiefly an approach towards human relationships. Is that correct? And is the notion "approach" adequate or we might use the definition "school" which brings us to something more complicated than "approach". So my question is: Are human relationships the specific object of its scientific interest or there is something more beyond that? About the method: It seems that the achievements of Jung are the fundament and the starting point of socionics. As far as I know he pretends to demonstrate empirical disposition towards his objects of study (and often remonstrated against the pure philosophical premises when doing science). But as we know and as you mentioned his empirical work was mainly concerning mentally ill people who lived in a very different society (in time and space) from the one Augusta faced in the former USSR. So to what extend is the Jungian method used in socionics. What is the general methodological framework of socionics and its specific methods. If they are close the the Jungian one how relevant do you think it is to our contemporary situation?
Thank you!


Последната промяна е направена от Stoyan Novakov на 10 Яну 2005 20:09:08; мнението е било променяно общо 1 път. (0 процента)
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Изпрати мейла
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 17:48:24    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Thanks for questions (by the way, you may ask them in Bulgarian, we WILL understand!). We will reply in 15-30 minutes.
We apologize for such breaks in our messages. We usually have a lot of spare time at night, (and we will add a lot to this topic tonight).[color=red]
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Дмитрий и Марианна Лытовы



Регистриран на: 15 Дек 2004
Мнения: 54
Местожителство: Санкт-Петербург, Россия
Потребителски групи: 
[ семинар "Соционика" ]

МнениеПуснато на: 10 Яну 2005 19:39:26    Заглавие: Отговорете с цитат

Replying to Stoyan Novakov:

Цитат:
As I can understand socionics is chiefly an approach towards human relationships. Is that correct?


Correct. It studies the relationships between psychological types. The main idea of socionics is that the type predetermines relations to certain extent.

However, socionics NEVER forgets about other factors (irrelevant to psychological types) that also influence relations, such as economic level, age, sex, culture, corporate traditions, occupation etc.

And the type is considered IN DYNAMICS. This means that the relationship between two types, e.g. INT-rational and ISF-rational, may have various options. This is probably its principal difference both from original Jung’s ideas and from MBTT: considering the type not as a “list of traits”, but rather as an “algorithm of traits”.

Цитат:
And is the notion "approach" adequate or we might use the definition "school" which brings us to something more complicated than "approach".


Initially, when socionics was isolated from the official Soviet psychology, it was a school, or even a “circle of adherents”. It was the only school that studied the dependence between human relations and human types. The official “Marxist psychology" said that everything is determined by the society: character, human development and, finally, human relations. At that time socionics was even declared to be a “new science” :).

But starting from 1990s socionics more and more integrates into psychology, somewhere between the psycho-diagnostics and the social psychology. So, for us it is unclear whether socionics today is a school or a method. Both answers are acceptable.

Цитат:
So my question is: Are human relationships the specific object of its scientific interest or there is something more beyond that?


The subject of socionics is the human relations in the broadest meaning: in family, between friends, colleagues, in large workgroups, sport teams etc. Socionics wants to answer the question where are the limits of human compatibility between people of different (or identical) types, how it is possible to help people to adapt to each other, improve productivity of their co-working; sometimes, when conflicts at close distance seem to be insoluble, socionics suggests to introduce a ”third party” in order to resolve a conflict, or to regroup people, or simply to redirect their attention.

Also, studying relations is impossible without studying profound mechanisms of human psyche. For example, actually several socionists (Talanov in St. Petersburg, Prof. Bogomaz in Tomsk, Prof. Okladnikov in Irkutsk etc.) study the problem how types are relevant to the brain activity. We both develop methods of experimental and comparative studying of the types. And so, so on.

Цитат:
About the method: It seems that the achievements of Jung are the fundament and the starting point of socionics. As far as I know, he pretends to demonstrate empirical disposition towards his objects of study (and often remonstrated against the pure philosophical premises when doing science). But as we know and as you mentioned his empirical work was mainly concerning mentally ill people who lived in a very different society (in time and space) from the one Augusta faced in the former USSR. So to what extend is the Jungian method used in socionics. What is the general methodological framework of socionics and its specific methods. If they are close the Jungian one how relevant do you think it is to our contemporary situation?


Socionists believe (of course hoping to verify it experimentally) that:

1) The psychological type is a structure more or less stable during the whole life; a type is an algorithm with various options (see above), but it cannot be “reprogrammed”;

2) The types are the same in all countries and in all times; at least, in our biographical studies we still have not discovered something impossible to describe in terms of Jungian typology;

3) Jung himself wrote that THE SAME psychological types could be observed among mentally ill and mentally sound people. Moreover, he wrote that people fall into neuroses when they cannot live “according to their natural types”, for example, when an extroverted person in a collective overfilled with extroverts has to play a role of an introverted person. In other words, mental illness, according to Jung, is often caused by the “treason of one’s inborn type”, when one attempts to be not what he psychically is.
_________________
http://socioniko.narod.ru
Върнете се в началото
Вижте профила на потребителя Изпратете лично съобщение Посетете сайта на потребителя
Покажи мнения от преди:   
Създайте нова тема   Напишете отговор    psihologia.net Форуми -> Соционика. Запознаване с школата Часовете са според зоната GMT + 2 Часа
Иди на страница 1, 2  Следваща
Страница 1 от 2

 
Идете на:  
Не Можете да пускате нови теми
Можете да отговаряте на темите
Не Можете да променяте съобщенията си
Не Можете да изтривате съобщенията си
Не Можете да гласувате в анкети


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2003 phpBB Group
Форумът е адаптиран от: Калин Янев и Иван Янкулов