Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Socionics & Legal Issues

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Socionics & Legal Issues

    Should socionics enter the mainstream (which I think is inevitable, maybe not in its current form, but more evolved) there are some of potential constitutional/legal issues with a scientific process for categorizing people like this...here are a few...

    Will a person be able to claim discrimination against, for instance, an employer for not hiring him for a specific job theoretically best suited for another type (e.g. ESFp not hired as a history teacher despite a degree in education and 20 years of experience against an ESTj with only a few years of experience).

    Will a divorce be as simple to attain as arguing that a couple isn't "psychologically compatible?"

    In a child custoday case, would a parent or grand-parent, etc...be able to make a type based argument favoring themselves based simply on theories of inter-type relationships? (e.g. an ESFj father makes the argument that he is better suited to care for an ENFp child than his ISTj mother due to the conflicting nature of the mother-child relationship).

    Will politicians run based on a platform that they are a certain personality? Will this have to become independently verifiable? Would someone be able to "fake" their personality for this purpose? Would their be a penalty for such a misrepresentation (if even sustainable)?

    Would the constitution have to be re-written to account for differences in type distributions to ensure that all quadra values are fairly represented?

    Food for thought...

  2. #2
    meatburger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    A Quazar named Northern Territory
    Posts
    2,570
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)

    "And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin

  3. #3
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Socionics & Legal Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    Should socionics enter the mainstream (which I think is inevitable, maybe not in its current form, but more evolved) there are some of potential constitutional/legal issues with a scientific process for categorizing people like this...here are a few...

    Will a person be able to claim discrimination against, for instance, an employer for not hiring him for a specific job theoretically best suited for another type (e.g. ESFp not hired as a history teacher despite a degree in education and 20 years of experience against an ESTj with only a few years of experience).
    that's why we should think about making Socionics an academic discipline, like Myers-Briggs. I mean, either making certifying courses for Socionics (like "Socionics Certified level-II" or something), or making it an "Open Source" psychological theory.

    that to avoid unethical use of Socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    Will a divorce be as simple to attain based on a discovery that a couple isn't "psychologically compatible?"

    In a child custoday case, would a parent or grand-parent, etc...be able to make a type based argument favoring themselves based simply on theories of inter-type relationships? (e.g. an ESFj father makes the argument that he is better suited to care for an ENFp child than his ISTj mother due to the conflicting nature of the mother-child relationship).
    I'm INTj and my father is ISFj ; he's not a perfect father, but I accept him. we're not really conflicting only for socionic reasons (i.e. not understanding each other's informations), but also because he's probably got a passive-aggressive disorder.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    Will politicians run based on a platform that they are a certain personality? Will this have to become independently verifiable? Would someone be able to "fake" their personality for this purpose? Would their be a penalty for such a misrepresentation (if even sustainable)?

    Would the constitution have to be re-written to account for differences in type distributions to ensure that all quadra values are fairly represented?

    Food for thought...
    an experienced socionist can see if one is faking a type. faking a type is like being left-handed and writing with your right hand.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't think your view is realistic because there are many inequalities that we already know exist that law refuses to deal with

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My view is not realistic because there are inequalities that the law doesn't deal with? What about the inequalities that it does deal with? Are you saying that the law will simply ignore the implications of personality type should it become accepted by the mainstream psychological and scientific community? Your criticism needs some clarification.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i am saying that the law uses these things as tools for other ends not as ends in and of themselves. physics is used as a tool to determine whether or not one person has killed another. it is not used to determine appropriate punishment for a death.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, but that tool can determine guilt or innocence, which is the primary prupose of a court case involving murder. The punishment is secondary. Socionics, if accepted as proven science, could be used as a tool for objectively showing, for example, that one parent is more suitable than another to have custody of a child. That's not to say that one parent will or will not have visitation rights, which is secondary to the determination of whether there will be sole-custody or joint custody.

  8. #8
    machintruc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,252
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    yes, but that tool can determine guilt or innocence, which is really the only objective result in a trial. The punishment is subjective. Socionics, if accepted as proven science, could be used as a tool for objectively showing, for example, that one parent is more suitable than another to have custody of a child. That's not to say that one parent will or will not have visitation rights, which is the more subjective determination of the judge, as is the punishment in a murder trial (although this is the subjective determination of a jury).
    the best parents for that are the biological parents, except when one or both have psychological disorders rendering that inconcievable. Rick said Socionic relationships and types are not that important for parent-child relationships.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    tTere are many instances in which one biological parent will sue for sole-custody based on their own negative perception of their soon-to-be ex-spouse who is also a biological parent. If, as in the case I presented, one parent is an ESFj and argues that their ENFp child is better off with them than their ISTj former spouse, will this hold weight?

  10. #10
    cunnilingus epilepsy inducer
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,429
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    tTere are many instances in which one biological parent will sue for sole-custody based on their own negative perception of their soon-to-be ex-spouse who is also a biological parent. If, as in the case I presented, one parent is an ESFj and argues that their ENFp child is better off with them than their ISTj former spouse, will this hold weight?
    Maybe if being a ISTj is having a massive effect on their parenting style. Which it probably wouldn't massively, unless you are also arguing about the relationship in the future when the child grows up. In that case you could say that the chances of the child having a supporting parent in their adult age would most likely be better off if the child was under the custody of the ESFj.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Delta
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There’s this thread http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10220 that talks about socionics going mainstream.

    I personally think socionics going mainstream is unrealistic; not inevitable.

    And about the legal issues, people are morons anyway, I seriously doubt that any new system of thought or government or whatever will make things better or worse. It’ll just give ppl yet another thing to blame for all their misery.
    And its ppl who use law as a tool. Many laws and such are really good on paper, but when the human factor comes in, its original purpose is bent and/or broken. That’s why there’s so much corruption going on in the world. The system in itself is good, but when in practice and handled by people who are idiots, the system just doesn’t work as well as was hoped.

    btw Child custody is complicated. There are many issues regarding it and socionics would imo only add on to them not making it especially easier.
    9w1

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, all science, at some point, if it's provable, which I believe socionics will be at some point to the satisfaction of all, will inevitably be a factor in human society. As to people being stupid, that's a little grim for my taste, but given the natural pessimistic state of the ISTps I've known, I'll let it pass.

  13. #13
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,633
    Mentioned
    159 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Socionics & Legal Issues

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    Will a divorce be as simple to attain based on a discovery that a couple isn't "psychologically compatible?"
    Hmmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by machintruc
    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    yes, but that tool can determine guilt or innocence, which is really the only objective result in a trial. The punishment is subjective. Socionics, if accepted as proven science, could be used as a tool for objectively showing, for example, that one parent is more suitable than another to have custody of a child. That's not to say that one parent will or will not have visitation rights, which is the more subjective determination of the judge, as is the punishment in a murder trial (although this is the subjective determination of a jury).
    the best parents for that are the biological parents, except when one or both have psychological disorders rendering that inconcievable. Rick said Socionic relationships and types are not that important for parent-child relationships.
    Again, he did not say that. He said that parent-child relationships are characterized by more than just type.


    Anyway, my take on it is that Socionics needs to become a science before it progresses much further, socially, theoretically, or otherwise. The idea of socionically tailor-made families is cool, but obviously unrealistic atm.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I should state for the record, that the idea of court ordered families based on type is a nightmarish scenario I hope I never see, ever...however, divorces granted on psychologically incompatible partners is probably ok...probably would free up some the courts in backwards states that haven't adopted a no-fault divorce yet.

  15. #15
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    I should state for the record, that the idea of court ordered families based on type is a nightmarish scenario I hope I never see, ever...however, divorces granted on psychologically incompatible partners is probably ok...probably would free up some the courts in backwards states that haven't adopted a no-fault divorce yet.
    in that case, one should expect that a couple get a personality type evaluation prior to receiving permission to marry to ensure that no psychological incompatibility can occur, thus reducing the divorce rates.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  16. #16
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    I should state for the record, that the idea of court ordered families based on type is a nightmarish scenario I hope I never see, ever...however, divorces granted on psychologically incompatible partners is probably ok...probably would free up some the courts in backwards states that haven't adopted a no-fault divorce yet.
    in that case, one should expect that a couple get a personality type evaluation prior to receiving permission to marry to ensure that no psychological incompatibility can occur, thus reducing the divorce rates.
    This will be a very effective measure to reduce marriage rates

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Delta
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    I should state for the record, that the idea of court ordered families based on type is a nightmarish scenario I hope I never see, ever...however, divorces granted on psychologically incompatible partners is probably ok...probably would free up some the courts in backwards states that haven't adopted a no-fault divorce yet.
    in that case, one should expect that a couple get a personality type evaluation prior to receiving permission to marry to ensure that no psychological incompatibility can occur, thus reducing the divorce rates.
    This will be a very effective measure to reduce marriage rates
    That’s true.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    As to people being stupid, that's a little grim for my taste,...
    I didn’t mean all people are stupid... I suppose I should have been more specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    but given the natural pessimistic state of the ISTps I've known, I'll let it pass.
    :wink:
    9w1

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    I should state for the record, that the idea of court ordered families based on type is a nightmarish scenario I hope I never see, ever...however, divorces granted on psychologically incompatible partners is probably ok...probably would free up some the courts in backwards states that haven't adopted a no-fault divorce yet.
    in that case, one should expect that a couple get a personality type evaluation prior to receiving permission to marry to ensure that no psychological incompatibility can occur, thus reducing the divorce rates.
    This will be a very effective measure to reduce marriage rates
    Reducing marriage rates or divorce rates? I don't see mandating that people not be stupid in who they marry as a good thing as it could potentially lead to other variations on a theme. I say, let them learn their mistake, but make it slightly easier to fix...

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SFVB
    Yes, but that tool can determine guilt or innocence, which is the primary prupose of a court case involving murder. The punishment is secondary. Socionics, if accepted as proven science, could be used as a tool for objectively showing, for example, that one parent is more suitable than another to have custody of a child. That's not to say that one parent will or will not have visitation rights, which is secondary to the determination of whether there will be sole-custody or joint custody.
    i disagree. psychology in its current form is capable of doing that but courts do not require psychological analysis be done to determine parental suitability in child custody cases. i believe that you are thinking in terms of socionics and are overvaluing the impact it will have upon society.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's due to the fact that most people think psychology is an unreliable basis for which to evaluate anyone as there are too many conflicting theories on human behavior and personality to make it a suitable tool, even psychiatry, while more accepted, still is only admitted as opinion rather than fact. But should socionics be shown to be reliable and indisputable science (which you're free to believe is not going to happen), I'd be hard pressed to see it being irrelevent to legal matters regarding relationships between human beings.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree. It is used in insanity cases and so forth but not in every sort of case. People tend to resist anything that has massive implications. If change does come to the legal system it will be relatively slow and gradual in all likelihood. First it will be applied only to "aberrant" cases and then as it gains acceptance it will be applied more widely. But in my mind it will be sort of like what has occurred with biotechnology. People allow it to be used in odd contexts that they do really understand and that seem to have a positive return (stem-cell research, frost resistant crops, etc [which many are avidly opposed to]) and then counter-movements will spring up to slow the pace. By the time 'socionics' adjusts it won't be recognizable anymore much like neurology > freudian thought.

Posting Permissions

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