Socionics and Communism

[anndelise]

Whether I personally feel one identity is worth more than another is irrelevant to this discussion.

Gender and race differences do affect outcomes in life. This is a touchy subject for many people, but the average women is not as strong as the average man. The average black is not as intelligent as the average white. As such, they won't be equally distributed throughout society. Governments create resentment whenever they interfere through social engineering programs like affirmative action and housing, taking from one group to benefit another.

Physical strength is a useful talent for work that requires physical strength. But not all work requires physical strength. There's no reason that a physically strong person can work a job that utilizes their physical strength, while a person with a different kind of strength/talent works a job that utilizes those. But if two people have equal ability/talent to do that work, Why should one of them be attributed more status/worth than the other simply because of gender/race/class?

As for the intelligence claim, how do you know that there weren't other factors involved when testing for which race was more intelligent than the other?

People with white skin have a wide range of IQ. Some very high, some very low. Why would you think that black people are innately incapable of also having a wide range of IQ, from high to low?

Could the test have been testing people who had wealth opportunity to develop ability to properly answer the test, and comparing it to those who had far less opportunity to develop their ability to answer the test? Comparing a Hampton's 16yo to a Harlem project 16yo isn't exactly a well formed intelligence test.

Also, we are on a forum about different ways of processing information, so this particular concept won't be new to you. Why would you think that, say, a black LSI is innately less intelligent than a white LSI? Are you sure the tests weren't comparing, say, a white ILE to a black SEE on a test that tests for abilities of ILE? Of course the ILE would do better at an ILE test than an SEE would. That doesn't make the SEE somehow of less worth than an ILE. It just means that the SEE is more intelligent in other areas.

(Note: I still argue that it would be stupid to use a Socionics test to decide what kinds of jobs people can have. An intelligent, talented SEE might still be able to do a job better than a low intelligence ILE...regardless of gender/race.)

If you see equality as the end goal (like a communist) then you have to dismantle the natural order first, which means removing the family and other natural forms of group identity that separate people. As the Soviets learned, ideological crusades like this makes society much less productive and that is ultimately bad for everyone. Their ideological cousins in American media, academia etc refuse to accept reality, however, and march on, so determined are they to force their dystopia upon the rest of us.

Equal opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status =/= equality (in the sense that you keep trying to claim).

You are the one equating them, not the "social justice brigade".
You've created a strawman arguement for yourself to knock over.

Equal opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status =/= "turning wives against their husbands, turning children against their parents, and communities against themselves" unless you believe that something other than ability or talent assures status.
It also does not mean dismantling families, group identities, etc. It just means that your group/identity is not necessarily assured higher status (nor power) over other groups/identities of similar talent/ability, nor even of others who provide other talents/abilities needed by the society BOTH groups are living in.

[Spermatozoa]

Physical strength is a useful talent for work that requires physical strength. But not all work requires physical strength. There's no reason that a physically strong person can work a job that utilizes their physical strength, while a person with a different kind of strength/talent works a job that utilizes those. But if two people have equal ability/talent to do that work, Why should one of them be attributed more status/worth than the other simply because of gender/race/class?

Nobody is ascribing more status to particular groups of people here solely on that basis, except you. I don't think worse of anyone just because they come from a different background, because you can't choose who you are born.

As for the intelligence claim, how do you know that there weren't other factors involved when testing for which race was more intelligent than the other?

People with white skin have a wide range of IQ. Some very high, some very low. Why would you think that black people are innately incapable of also having a wide range of IQ, from high to low?

I find it hard to imagine that nearly 100,000 years of divergent evolution between Caucasian and African people wouldn't produce some measurable differences in psychology. Unsurprisingly, this is what we observe. I am happy to list examples if you wish.

By the way, I never said that black people cannot be smart. That is pretty shameless of you and an actual strawman.

Could the test have been testing people who had wealth opportunity to develop ability to properly answer the test, and comparing it to those who had far less opportunity to develop their ability to answer the test? Comparing a Hampton's 16yo to a Harlem project 16yo isn't exactly a well formed intelligence test.

Also, we are on a forum about different ways of processing information, so this particular concept won't be new to you. Why would you think that, say, a black LSI is innately less intelligent than a white LSI? Are you sure the tests weren't comparing, say, a white ILE to a black SEE on a test that tests for abilities of ILE? Of course the ILE would do better at an ILE test than an SEE would. That doesn't make the SEE somehow of less worth than an ILE. It just means that the SEE is more intelligent in other areas.

(Note: I still argue that it would be stupid to use a Socionics test to decide what kinds of jobs people can have. An intelligent, talented SEE might still be able to do a job better than a low intelligence ILE...regardless of gender/race.)

Look, why is it so hard for you to accept that there are inherent differences in ability? I freely acknowledge there are men out there, including on this forum, who will be stronger than me, and/or better at logical reasoning. That is life, and I've got skills they don't to make up for it. We all have a place and an opportunity to contribute something.

Serenity will save you a lot of stress and enable you to better focus on what you can change, which is your own life.

Equal opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status =/= equality (in the sense that you keep trying to claim).

You can decide to confer more status upon someone/a group of people, if that makes you feel more virtuous. However, in reality all you've done is change a few labels - you're still selling us the same product underneath them.

You are the one equating them, not the "social justice brigade".
You've created a strawman arguement for yourself to knock over.

Your goals are not possible to achieve in practice without forcibly removing biological differences. You must understand this.

I don't think a world where we're all just soulless copies of each other is one you should be aspiring to create.

Equal opportunity, equal gender status, and equal race status =/= "turning wives against their husbands, turning children against their parents, and communities against themselves" unless you believe that something other than ability or talent assures status.
It also does not mean dismantling families, group identities, etc. It just means that your group/identity is not necessarily assured higher status (nor power) over other groups/identities of similar talent/ability, nor even of others who provide other talents/abilities needed by the society BOTH groups are living in.

Again you completely miss the point, time after time (I am beginning to suspect this is due to Ti PoLR).

A hierarchy is the natural consequence of an unequal distribution of ability, and in a democracy, numbers matter in determining who gets to the top as well. I am frustrated that you see inequality itself as a moral evil, despite the fact that a lot of the time, it is nobody's fault. Contrary to what SJWs seem to believe, very few white men devote their time and energy to oppressing others. Keep tilting at windmills - you are just virtue signalling and reinforcing your own sense of righteousness.

[anndelise]

Nobody is ascribing more status to particular groups of people here solely on that basis, except you. I don't think worse of anyone just because they come from a different background, because you can't choose who you are born.

So we agree, certain groups shouldn't be attributed more status than certain other groups solely on the basis of being a member of that group (aside from ability/talent).

I find it hard to imagine that nearly 100,000 years of divergent evolution between Caucasian and African people wouldn't produce some measurable differences in psychology. Unsurprisingly, this is what we observe. I am happy to list examples if you wish.

By the way, I never said that black people cannot be smart. That is pretty shameless of you and an actual strawman.

Yes, we agree that some differences exist, but as in the first paragraph above, we also agree that these differences don't ascribe more status to a particular group solely on the basis of being a member of that group.

Look, why is it so hard for you to accept that there are inherent differences in ability? I freely acknowledge there are men out there, including on this forum, who will be stronger than me, and/or better at logical reasoning. That is life, and I've got skills they don't to make up for it. We all have a place and an opportunity to contribute something.

I've already agreed that there are inherent differences in abilities and that we all have a place and an opportunity to contribute something of value to our society…well, not all of us do, some people are being blocked from opportunity due to gender, ethnicity, class…which…we've already agreed shouldn't apply to one's innate status. (social justice brigade is trying to remove those particular blockages, however.)

Serenity will save you a lot of stress and enable you to better focus on what you can change, which is your own life.

I'm all for serenity and less stress! Hopefully, though, your serenity isn't obtained at the cost and exploitation of those less fortunate than yourself.

You can decide to confer more status upon someone/a group of people, if that makes you feel more virtuous. However, in reality all you've done is change a few labels - you're still selling us the same product underneath them.

We just agreed in the very first paragraph above that we both don't believe that more status shouldn't be conferred upon someone/group based on mere luck of the draw things like gender, ethnicity, class. I don't know what you think I'm selling you.

Your goals are not possible to achieve in practice without forcibly removing biological differences. You must understand this.

I've never pushed for removing biological differences. It's bizarre that you would even draw that conclusion from what I've written. You AGREED with me above that we shouldn't ascribe more status based solely on the circumstances of their birth. We also both agree that status is best obtained by ability and talent.
Do you think that it's possible to have a society that attributes status based on ability/talent without attributing status solely to circumstances of one's birth? I do.

I don't think a world where we're all just soulless copies of each other is one you should be aspiring to create.

I don't either. I love differences between people and groups. I love that different people can compliment each other and cooperate together to create something bigger than themselves that ALL of them can enjoy and be proud of.

Again you completely miss the point, time after time (I am beginning to suspect this is due to Ti PoLR).

No, I haven't. I've tried showing you how your descriptions of communism (well, socialism) aren't what's really the results, intents, etc desired. Yet you stick vehemently to your initial lens, and seem to have difficulty stepping out of that lens. You type yourself as EIE, right? 1D Ti. So we both have 1D Ti. Perhaps your missing MY point, time after time, due to your own 1D Ti? or maybe its cuz of your Fi ignoring, I mean, who cares about the internal world of the members of other groups, right? oh Fi does. Or maybe it's cuz of your Se agenda? Do you want power? control? status? yourself based on physical externals you had no control over? See how stupid your argument there is? (Note: beware turning a discussion/debate into accusations of type issues…cuz it can be turned right back onto you. I don't actually think those questions I just asked in this paragraph, but I do think that you're stuck in one lens and are having difficulty seeing the contradictions between the lens you have of "equality" and the one I've tried showing you.)

A hierarchy is the natural consequence of an unequal distribution of ability, and in a democracy, numbers matter in determining who gets to the top as well. I am frustrated that you see inequality itself as a moral evil, despite the fact that a lot of the time, it is nobody's fault. Contrary to what SJWs seem to believe, very few white men devote their time and energy to oppressing others. Keep tilting at windmills - you are just virtue signalling and reinforcing your own sense of righteousness.

That's not even my argument, nor my stance. We even agreed on the premises of my argument (see first paragraph of this post).

If trying to reduce the oppressing and exploiting of others, based on the circumstances of their birth beyond their control, is moral evil…I'm afraid to ask what you think is morally good. Ignore what you THINK I mean…drop, for a moment, what you THINK sjw's stand for, and look at that sentence alone, as is, without assumptions. We want to reduce the oppressing and exploiting of others that occurs based on the circumstances of their birth and things beyond their control. How is it morally evil to want to reduce oppression? How is it morally evil to want to reduce exploitation?

I agree that nowadays very few white men devote their time and energy into oppressing others. Why is that? Because during the civil war, and during the civil right's movements, and every time in between and before, those who were oppressed had to fight back. If your children were enslaved, would you fight for your rights? for theirs? of course you would. You wouldn't just sit back and accept the system as it was.

But that mentality of holding slaves, of using the bible to claim dominance over other ethnicities, other genders? That doesn't have to have time/energy devoted to it for it to continue on in one's society. There are long term effects to such things. They can permeate so many unconscious behaviors. And if you're not on the receiving end of it, then you wouldn't know just how much there is going on. The civil rights movement helped some. SJWs hope to help some more. And yes, some of them go way F'n overboard!!

But if you sit there and want to accuse SJWs of wanting to rip families apart, of trying to turn communities against each other, of trying turn children against parents?...then you'd have a clearer understanding if you'd consider that any ripping apart that's happening, is cuz the oppressive mentalities SJWs are fighting against (even the subconscious ones) are being triggered…and are fighting back to retain their familiar, comfortable, oppressive mentality.

If wives are turning against their husbands…it's cuz the husbands were oppressing the wives, and the wives are demanding their own liberty.
If children are turning against their parents..it's cuz the children felt oppressed by their parents, and are fighting back for their own liberty.
If communities are turning against themselves…it's cuz there's oppression happening in the community and the oppressed are fight back for their own liberty.
Those oppressions didn't come from SJWs, they've come from the bible, from authoritarians, from users, from exploiters, from a long of history of such things. I don't consider it morally evil to fight against oppression/exploitation.

[ooo]

The amazingness of socionics: dividing people into groups and spitting on anyone that doesn't belong to yours. Racism 2.0

(Delta the bestest aha)

[totalize]

Any communism thinkers here?

Hello I am a Communist.

The problem is that Communism is not aobut "the wellness of the collective." Communism is a stage of human economic development which also happens to be the final stage. Marxist theorists have suggested how humans might behave in this stage, but they don't know for sure. A Communist is simply a person who believes in Marxist social-economic theory.

Marxist theory looks at social evolution, or how material forces (things in the real world) change societies in different ways. In practice Communism has been a collectivist ideology for obvious reasons but the jump from Communism -> Redistributing peoples babies according to socionics type is a massive one, implausible in theory or practice, and I suspect facetious.

[totalize]

Not really. If people are forced to give the fruits of their labor to the government then they aren't very free to do what they want, are they?

You are already forced to give the fruits of your labour to other people in capitalism.

Unless you opt not to work, but then you can try starving.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Hello I am a Communist.

The problem is that Communism is not aobut "the wellness of the collective." Communism is a stage of human economic development which also happens to be the final stage. Marxist theorists have suggested how humans might behave in this stage, but they don't know for sure. A Communist is simply a person who believes in Marxist social-economic theory.

Marxist theory looks at social evolution, or how material forces (things in the real world) change societies in different ways. In practice Communism has been a collectivist ideology for obvious reasons but the jump from Communism -> Redistributing peoples babies according to socionics type is a massive one, implausible in theory or practice, and I suspect facetious.

A Communist is simply a person who believes in the state monopolization of property and of the workforce via a totalitarian ideology.

[totalize]

A Communist is simply a person who believes in the state monopolization of property and of the workforce via a totalitarian ideology.

No, a Communist is a person who believes in Communism (in our native language). Communism is the belief in creation of the Communist society. It's virtually impossible to be a Communist without also being a Marxist in the same way it's impossible to be a Catholic without being a Christian even though many people who profess religion have a poor understanding of it (and many people who profess a love of capitalism or democracy have a poor understanding of that, too.)

[Not A Communist Shill]

No, a Communist is a person who believes in Communism (in our native language). Communism is the belief in creation of the Communist society. It's virtually impossible to be a Communist without also being a Marxist in the same way it's impossible to be a Catholic without being a Christian even though many people who profess religion have a poor understanding of it (and many people who profess a love of capitalism or democracy have a poor understanding of that, too.)

Communism demands state control over all property and the workers, taking away the drive that comes from competition and calculated risk, while not allowing for any democratic agency.

[totalize]

Communism demands state control over all property and the workers, taking away the drive that comes from competition and calculated risk, while not allowing for any democratic agency.

Your post contains two parts:
(1) An examination of what Communism is,
(2) A one-sentence critique of (what you think) Communism is.

Not commenting on the problems of combining these two things, again your analysis of Communism is not true. The Communist society is where common ownership emerges as a consequence of increased productivity. Not even the Socialist societies (like USSR which you are probably referencing) claimed to be Communist and they definitely weren't.

The theory of Communism - i.e. what Communists want - doesn't marry the reality of what happened in the most famous Communist countries very much. But that isn't much about the theory of Communism as a social idea.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Your post contains two parts:
(1) An examination of what Communism is,
(2) A one-sentence critique of (what you think) Communism is.

Not commenting on the problems of combining these two things, again your analysis of Communism is not true. The Communist society is where common ownership emerges as a consequence of increased productivity. Not even the Socialist societies (like USSR which you are probably referencing) claimed to be Communist and they definitely weren't.

The theory of Communism - i.e. what Communists want - doesn't marry the reality of what happened in the most famous Communist countries very much. But that isn't much about the theory of Communism as a social idea.

The Soviet Union was run by an organization called The Communist Party.

[totalize]

The Soviet Union was run by an organization called The Communist Party.

No, a Communist is a person who believes in Communism (in our native language). Communism is the belief in creation of the Communist society

If you think the USSR thought it had actually finally created Communism then the conversation ends here because you obviously have not read anything about the CPSU or the Soviet Union.

[Singu]

Authorities of the past have often used their supposed "superiority" to justify their authority, often using religion or God or some innate superiority or royalty as a pretense. There have been incompetent Kings and Queens, tyrants, warlords, sketchy religious leaders etc. who ruled over all at the expense of everyone else. But they will inevitably collapse because they are not supported by the masses. So we have democratically overthrown them under the banner of "Justice, Liberty and Equality". The problem with "The strongest shall survive/rule" "Law of the jungle" is that without rules and order, without fairness and equality, it's usually those who play the dirtiest who get to rise to the top. That's why there have been tyrants and authoritarians who rule over all at the expense of everyone else. Since then, we have created rules and laws so that they can't abuse their power, so that the rights of everyone are protected, so that democracy and democratic legitimacy are preserved.

[Sol]

Communism is, in theory, the wellness of the collective (no matter the individual cost).

Collectivism - the priority of the wellness of the most people.
The idea of communism is to get most from the every individ for wellness and happiness of all/most.

So there is no social parasitism/exploitation, no limits for education and social power except personal gifts, no private property, no trading and profit. Everybody (following own sincere wishes!) lay own life to serve people, humanity ; when the main individual interest is to selflessly serve interests of others ; when individes percieve themselves as part of humanity, not as isolated persons ; the main emotions to other human is compassion and love.

This is communism. Very close to christian ideals of selflessly serving to other people and unconditional love to others. It's more natural social organisation of people than any other. It's obligate step when the humanity will unite as one tribe.

Socionics may help to establish communism by helping people to have unconditional, altruistic love to each other.
At 1st you love your dual - get state of unconditional love to him/her. This practice trains you to love people on the example of one. Also your mind integrates weak functions and you understand yourself and the world better, may behave more optimally, your type becomes lesser expressed. So then it becomes easier to love people of other types. As the result a human becomes more developed as person, with more collective and humanistic psyche.

There can be used religious monotheistic techniques to unite minds of two (or more) people to help them love each other, synchronize unconscious of each other, to adopt individual psyche to serve the humanity as a whole, to get access to advanced gifts which are mostly on unconscious level (for example, telepathy).

[Alomoes]

Well, the way I saw it is that in order to create a communist utopia, you'll either need infinite communal goods to fulfill infinite demand, or that theory of ininite demand is incorrect. It'd probably be good to use limits for this type of thing, but I never took calculus. Anyways there was a movement in the Soviet Union for automation for this purpose. It died out though, as they were struggling with what they had.

From what I read, I think Sol has it pretty close to how I see it, except I don't believe in telepathy or monotheism.

But yeah, for the USSR, China, and a whole bunch of other nations, communist party/government does not equal communism. It might one day, but I really doubt it. In fact, some of those nations are the opposite of communism, fascism. It kind of comes with the scarcity of resources, misallocation of manpower, not having technology, and lax administrative controls. The outcome is corruption. I don't know the solution, but it is not Stalinism or Maoism. Leninism was decent, but played the short game, warfare. Stalinism was good for biding your time, but ultimately the end goal was warfare. Maoism didn't really emphasize warfare, but they did cause repression and violence, which is bad for their nation. Giving children guns, and telling them to go shoot people who are against the government is bad. We want long term solutions, and warfare is not one of them.

As such, they definitely screwed the good name of Communism. To be fair, Marx did say that they should kill the Bourgeois, which is... special. To be fair, he did have his reasons, seeing poor working conditions, people being mistreated, political repression, and so on and so forth. He's like, well, our views are irrevocable, and you want to kill me, so I'll have to kill you first. He had to flee from Germany to England, because the people in power there were not nice people. Bismarck, unified Germany? Easily willing to imprison his own people that went against him. Same with Napoleon, but nobody talks about that. They only talk about the stories of his excellency, not that he was part of a coup to dissolve the legitimate government and backstabbed his allies at the last second. Interesting stories, but slightly off topic. These are the people who want to sacrifice a potentially infinite amount of lives for greater glory/profit, and these are the people Karl Marx grew up with.