Originally Posted by
tcaudilllg
I've been wondering for the past two years what socionics actually means. Tonight I began considering something that I had not previously considered: that it means nothing.
In her writings, Augusta at one point makes the assertion that everyone is various types, nothing more. It was as though by the end of her life she saw people as nothing but types. I previously did not want to take it seriously, but the conserved relational process perspective renders everything so objectively that I think it is worth considering that she may have actually meant it.
Socionics renders the subjective objective. But, it does nothing to make the objective subjective. This is experienced as a total mechanization of the human experience, making people into essentially robots. It's on the one hand a realization that human experience does absolutely exist, but it seeks to undermine that truth by rendering experience unimportant. Yes, X person has X weakness, but what does it mean to them? Socionics says nothing about this.
Socionics is important. Awareness of conserved relationships is important. But we are more than our relationships, aren't we? Our relationships have consequences to us on a personal level. Let us not lose sight of the fact that on that point, Augusta was acutely wrong. We are not types; we merely have types. Confidence may define how we behave, but it does not define who we are.
Was Augusta on the fringe?
Reply With Quote