Social integration and regulation

[consentingadult]

In his study on suicide, Émile Durkheim suggest four types of suicides in relation to social causes. He used two independent dimensions to elaborate on suicide: (social) integration and regulation.

Integration is the degree to which an individual is integrated into a social group (e.g. religious, domestic or political). Regulation is the degree to which the life and actions of an individual are regulated (controlled) by the group.

This got me thinking about the individual's needs for integration and regulation from a Socionics perspective. At first I thought it was quadra related, but then I realized my insights were quite 'irrational centric', so I modified it as follows:

Rationals have a need for high social regulation, irrationals a low need for social regulation (note: this pertains the needs an individual feels for himself, not for society).

So where does this leave the need for integration? Could we explain this in term of Socionics? Any thoughts?

[The Ineffable]

So where does this leave the need for integration? Could we explain this in term of Socionics? Any thoughts?

IME NF's have problems with integration, I mean crave for it. They're looking for a meaning or something, Irrationals often jump boats from some groups to others. Causes them depression too. They sometimes need to find their ancient roots (eg Vikings, whatever) - but often there's no evidence for that and try to figure it out somehow, subjectively.

So may be Internal/External? Because Internal functions, Intuition and Ethics work more strongly when more hints confirm their feelings, for Intuition I can't decide how this manifests (maybe many signs, similar ideas - eg "someone has thought about this, too, maybe I'm onto something") but for Ethical types, the opinion of the peers is very important, that's basically the only alternative evidence that can diminish doubt based on them, I think. So the extremes would be ST vs NF - sounds like that axis?

[Begoner]

the theory is tarded.

You're just saying that because you're completely controlled by the XXXj hive mind.

[ashlesha]

lol

[Cat King Cole]

So where does this leave the need for integration? Could we explain this in term of Socionics? Any thoughts?

I would assume everyone has a high need for integration. There may be cases where the individual denies this, but feels it as a latent and unconscious draw to groups and for acceptance and acknowledgement.

Of course there are things to consider like mental illness and autism that may eliminate that need for integration that "most" feel.

[consentingadult]

What is high social regulation? If it's this, then the theory is tarded.

High social regulation is others telling you what to do and what not, what is acceptable and what not, and enforcing it as well. And it is not so much a theory: there is ample empirical evidence that various social groups have different levels of social regulation.

Or were you referring to Socionics as a tarded theory? ;-)

[Absurd]

I've never heard about it before you mentioned it here

You're influenced by it from the time your were born.

[consentingadult]

I would assume everyone has a high need for integration. There may be cases where the individual denies this, but feels it as a latent and unconscious draw to groups and for acceptance and acknowledgement.

Of course there are things to consider like mental illness and autism that may eliminate that need for integration that "most" feel.

I actually think most people have an average need of integration, perhaps even expressed by a Bell curve. There obviously is a need for integration, but not so much that it stifles individuality.

Anyway, since yesterday I have been thinking about this, but I can't come up with a decent answer, so it might very well be not type related.

But let me shed some light on Durkheim's ideas in relation to integration. He said that when the individual is not well integrated into the larger social unit, the individual is not provided with moral/social direction and support, and this could lead to a life in which the individual only recognizes rules that serve their self-interests. This is related to acts of egoistic suicides.

On the other side of the spectrum, there is too much social integration: the individual is so well integrated, that all of their actions are determined by the group, which are carried out with a sense of duty, or a sense of serving the greater good. This could even result in altruistic suicides, e.g. terrorists who engage in suicide bombings, or kamikaze pilots.

Now with this in the back of your mind, you could ask: who are more likely to get entangled in too high integration, and who are likely to drop out of a social structure when high integration is forced upon then?

In the opposite direction: who is likely to drop out of a social structure when the provided social integration is too low, and who is more likely to get accept such a situation?

Now from a stereotypical point of view, I would say Betas a more likely to accept high integration, whereas deltas are more likely to accept low integration, and alphas and gammas covering some kind of middle ground, though each in their own distinct ways.

However, this idea doesn't feel quite right: I have a sense that within a quadra, there is a difference between irrational and rational dyads.

[Absurd]

But the extent of that influence will vary for different reasons, most of which probably have fuckall to do with Stupitronics.

Organisation, custom, religion, health care, etc.

]Also figure that some people are adept at facilitating public personas compatible with social norms, but are smart enough to not take those norms home with them in private considering the arbitrary nature of them.

Providing they still have a home to take it in the first place

[consentingadult]

FWIW, I recall Gulenko remarking that Involutory (Result) types [ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI] were less inclined towards social regulation. But I'm not prepared to put a great deal of stock in that idea either. I'd personally hazard this as something more Enneagram-related, if anything.

Do you perhaps have a link to that? It seems to connect with my sense that there is a difference between irrational and rational dyads within a quadra.

[consentingadult]

Sure. It's briefly mentioned here.

That's not a lot of text, but it does give something to think about.

[Cat King Cole]

Now with this in the back of your mind, you could ask: who are more likely to get entangled in too high integration, and who are likely to drop out of a social structure when high integration is forced upon then?

Depends what values the child was raised with, and how much social pressure they experience to hold to those values, and whether they as an individual have, or believe they have, the ability to reject those social pressures.

There's no relationship to Socionics here. It's well without the domain of what Socionics can study.

The determining factors are an individual's history and their perception of whether or not it's possible to escape the social pressures they perceive about them. This could potentially tie in to such things as perceived agency and innate locus of control. Trying to tie these things to pure theory will always be like groping in the dark, and the best you could do is conduct a genuine Socionics study, such as the one used to inform "The Semantics of Information Elements".

However, if you want a theory to collect and explain your observations, the concepts of "needs" underlying the four classic temperaments might be a good starting point.

As a Melancholic I have twin needs: on the one hand, I need to be able to accept things as reasonable and rational (and ideally logical, on top of that) before I accept them as applying to me or informing my actions; on the other I have a need for community and people I can respect and feel there is a common social contract of care and support.

In Jungian terms this is rather aptly explained by Ti dominance (and thus being Fe-inferior). I have an ego need for things to be consistent and logical and to "make sense", and an unconscious need for community and support. The Lenoreism about Fe is that Fe believes all humans are beholden to care for one another, I think that's one of the few apt things she's said on it.

OTOH you have Phlegmatics like my IS(F) mother. She has a genuine need to "fit in" and uphold social and community expectations of her. She has a much higher need for social integration than me (and I suppose I would be average; I need community without the burden of expectations).

[consentingadult]

Depends what values the child was raised with, and how much social pressure they experience to hold to those values, and whether they as an individual have, or believe they have, the ability to reject those social pressures.

There's no relationship to Socionics here. It's well without the domain of what Socionics can study.

The point you're making, is exactly why I think there must be a relation to Socionics!

[Cat King Cole]

The point you're making, is exactly why I think there must be a relation to Socionics!

For that to be the case, Socionics type would have to be able to influence the universal human trait of being impressionable during childhood. It's an existing fact that children adopt whatever values and behaviours you explicitly imprint upon them through instruction, and implicitly imprint upon them through their impersonation of your actions and expressed sentiments.

Can you point to any resources that state or imply anything to the contrary?

Beyond that, considering the case of adulthood, socionics type would have to have some unique influence on the following, that is not otherwise adequately explained by non-Socionics factors, such as social context, and the level and quality of education available to and enjoyed by the individual:

Critical thinking in general,
and a critical approach to indoctrinated beliefs.
Perceived agency.
Perceived ability to be socially and financially independent from parents,
or the perceived ability to hold beliefs at odds with the group without becoming an outcast.
Perceived worth of original beliefs.
Perceived worth of alternate beliefs.

I disagree with Socionics having anything useful to say about any of these things. Socionics's strict domain is describing why we have the relationships with people that we do. It's a useful tool for organizing observations we have about the qualities of relationships after the fact. It has some predictive power as a model for telling ahead of time, in general terms, how a relationship between two healthy individuals will pan out, and specifically the qualities of those relationships. It makes no falsifiable or specific claims that can be adequately tested or not.

In fact, the only scientific approach to Socionics that I'm aware of is the study into resonance groups, and all that says is that individuals with an inclination toward thinking in a certain way, with certain vocabulary will begin speaking a curiously common language with other individuals inclined to thinking in the same way, with similar vocabulary. The good news about that is that one can take an empirical and evidence-based approach to Socionics.

I'm not talking down to you at all, I just think it's important to keep these things in mind, especially if you're going to make claims toward being scientific without forsaking your intellectual integrity.

If this is just a good-old fashioned head-wanking, then by all means, scratch the stuff about observation, but my criticisms of your ideas still stand.

[consentingadult]

For that to be the case, Socionics type would have to be able to influence the universal human trait of being impressionable during childhood. It's an existing fact that children adopt whatever values and behaviours you explicitly imprint upon them through instruction, and implicitly imprint upon them through their impersonation of your actions and expressed sentiments.

Can you point to any resources that state or imply anything to the contrary?

Beyond that, considering the case of adulthood, socionics type would have to have some unique influence on the following, that is not otherwise adequately explained by non-Socionics factors, such as social context, and the level and quality of education available to and enjoyed by the individual:

Critical thinking in general,
and a critical approach to indoctrinated beliefs.
Perceived agency.
Perceived ability to be socially and financially independent from parents,
or the perceived ability to hold beliefs at odds with the group without becoming an outcast.
Perceived worth of original beliefs.
Perceived worth of alternate beliefs.

I disagree with Socionics having anything useful to say about any of these things. Socionics's strict domain is describing why we have the relationships with people that we do. It's a useful tool for organizing observations we have about the qualities of relationships after the fact. It has some predictive power as a model for telling ahead of time, in general terms, how a relationship between two healthy individuals will pan out, and specifically the qualities of those relationships. It makes no falsifiable or specific claims that can be adequately tested or not.

In fact, the only scientific approach to Socionics that I'm aware of is the study into resonance groups, and all that says is that individuals with an inclination toward thinking in a certain way, with certain vocabulary will begin speaking a curiously common language with other individuals inclined to thinking in the same way, with similar vocabulary. The good news about that is that one can take an empirical and evidence-based approach to Socionics.

I'm not talking down to you at all, I just think it's important to keep these things in mind, especially if you're going to make claims toward being scientific without forsaking your intellectual integrity.

If this is just a good-old fashioned head-wanking, then by all means, scratch the stuff about observation, but my criticisms of your ideas still stand.

I respect your opinion as well, but I study Sociology and I think I have a fairly decent knowledge of Socionics as well, and I notice relationships between what Socionics has to say and what Sociology has to say. Now obviously Socionics talks about thinks that Sociology couldn't care less about and vice versa, but there are some things in Socionics that have sociological implications: quadra values. But also thoughts on rationality, which in Sociology means something different for each theorist and quite something different from what it means in Socionics, still, there are comparisons to be made.

[FDG]

Do you perhaps have a link to that? It seems to connect with my sense that there is a difference between irrational and rational dyads within a quadra.

The general rule derived from process result + rational irrational is:

process rational = hyperrational
result rational & process irrational = mildly rational or irrational
result irrational = hyperirrational

so I guess it might be predicted that process rationals are those most likely to bound themselves (even unconsciously) to some sort of social regulation. I don't really know if this prediction is correct though. I can think of many exceptions.

[consentingadult]

The general rule derived from process result + rational irrational is:

process rational = hyperrational
result rational & process irrational = mildly rational or irrational
result irrational = hyperirrational

so I guess it might be predicted that process rationals are those most likely to bound themselves (even unconsciously) to some sort of social regulation. I don't really know if this prediction is correct though. I can think of many exceptions.

Very interesting thought. But I agree, every solution I think of myself, can be too easily falsified.