Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Socionics & Social Darwinism / Eugenics

  1. #1
    JuJu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    2,704
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics & Social Darwinism / Eugenics

    One surprisingly consistent misgiving that people have expressed about Socionics - at least, based on what I've experienced following 'basic Socionics' talks - is its potential to perpetuate a sort of eugenics or Social Darwinism, i.e. to classify people and then use that classification to denigrate them.

    I didn't know much about eugenics before the topic was brought up to me, but in researching its history, I learned that the United States (among other countries; for example, South Africa, Australia,) has a troubled history of pseudo-scientifically classifying supposed "races" and then using that classification to prop up certain "races" at the expense of others.For example, a book published by the U.S. Immigration Commission - The Dictionary of Races of Peoples (1911) - lists 45 different "races," and their supposed traits. These races range from "Anglo-Saxons" at the top, to - at the bottom - "Hebrews" and "Southern Italians," who the book describes at violent and unprincipled.

    Obviously, this sort of classification is a repetition of scientifically baseless, racist ethnic stereotypes… Harmful ideas like these, masquerading as "expertise" gave rise to the bloodiest century in human history.

    This history of qualitative classifications leading to horrible events, I understand, gives some people an immediate cause for concern re: Socionics.

    My question is: do you think that this concern about Socionics - regardless of Socionics' scientific validity and ability to help people - is legit?

    ...Knowing that there will always be stupid people saying stupid things based on their own misunderstandings of information and prejudices...

    Personally, I believe that Socionics can - once fully explored with intellectual honesty, and mastered - greatly benefit people and not qualitatively denigrate anyone. E.g. no one with an interest in both Socionics and intellectual honesty would ever say that 'Type A' is better than 'Type B.' Different? Yes -- but in the best way, because Socionics helps us explore personal differences and gives tools to reconcile them.

  2. #2
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,478
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    no.
    It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarrelled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now.

  3. #3
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's no good and bad type...there are only good and bad people and those are a product of a lot of things.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So I doubt an evil mastermind could use socionics to declare 'All ESTps are the best types of people!!!' That would be comical in a way.
    its easier to justify compulsively locking them in cages.

  5. #5
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post

    So I doubt an evil mastermind could use socionics to declare 'All ESTps are the best types of people!!!' That would be comical in a way.
    People who have to label something to make sense of their own self like "I'm not a sensory...sensors are xyz.." will and have done that here and continue to do it. I've done it out of anger, but I know better and I spank myself when I do it

  6. #6
    silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    3,813
    Mentioned
    317 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JuJu View Post
    My question is: do you think that this concern about Socionics - regardless of Socionics' scientific validity and ability to help people - is legit?
    I would think not because one of the main ideas of socionics, that each quadra is dependent on the neighboring ones, lends it resistant to this kind of application. In quadra progress, each type receives energy and information input from types located 'upstream' and 'downstream'. If any one link is weakened or eliminated, then the whole cycle breaks down for everyone else involved. It would be odd for anyone to propose this unless they've read nothing of quadra progression and rings of benefit and supervision.

    The stupidest idea proposed so far has been using a person's sociotype to determine their "role" in society, which has found an application in career advising, but MBTI already has this covered and not much harm came out of it.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •