ETHICS - How socionics should be applied in real life
This thread is dedicated to how we should apply socionics in real life. I have never seen any attempt to develop a working ethic, which is a vital part of every philosophy. Here are a list of questions I feel are important and my answers. If you disagree with any of these, or have you own questions, I invite you to share your own list.
1. Are all the types necessary?
- Yes.
The world is infinitely more complex than any person can understand. To be functional, every person must focus their attention on a section of reality that is simple enough to work with. Once a person focuses their attention, they create unconscious blind spots. Problems attack us from every angle, regardless of if we are prepared for them. Our weaknesses are vulnerable when we are alone, but in society, potentially, we use our strengths to cover for each other.
What types, besides identity, are the most similar? Mirror? Quasi-Identical? Kindred? Business? Duality? Mirage? Benefit? Conversely, which types are the most different? Conflict? Super Ego? Extinguishment? Duality? Mirage? Business? Benefit? Wait, some of those types are on both lists. As I have thought about this, I have realized that I have something in common and in opposition to every type in the abstract. If you try this exercise honestly, you will eventually put most, if not all types on both lists. They will all be different and similar but not in the same ways, and you will not be able to say which type is the true opposite.
So if every type has a unique perspective, and not type can fully take on another type's social mission, society needs all types, and missing any would leave a society critically weakened and disabled.
2. Are all the type equal?
- Ultimately yes. Situationally maybe.
If you accept my first point, that all types are necessary, the implication is that eliminating any type (if such a thing was possible) would lead to the collapse of society. If you keep this conviction in mind, you can see even the people that annoy you and you want nothing to do with are serving a vital purpose. Killing them harms yourself.
A metaphor I have thought of is, if you had to choose to remove one system in your body, would you rather lose your nervous, circulatory, integument, respiratory, muscular, skeletal or lymphatic system? The question, of course, is absurd - losing any one of these would kill you. The only way the body can exist is with all parts working together.
I also come to this feeling of respect when reversing the intertype relationships. If you are close to someone, think about what they do that you are grateful for, or that annoys you. If you can reduce it to the laws of socionics, then assume the feeling is mutual, and see yourself through their eyes with your emotion. If you look yourself this way, you will realize to your horror that you have just as many faults as everyone else, and to your relief, just as many strengths.
So from both the societal and relational side, I think you have to say all people have equal worth. However, I don't know how to "prove" this, so let's consider the alternative. Let's say we are not equal, who is better than who? You will probably say your are the best and judge everyone else from your point of view. But everyone will feel this way. Nobody will accept that you have the right to tell them what to do, they will rightly assume they have the correct perspective for themselves. Then, the only way for you to make people submit to your will is to gain power over them and rule them by force. But a government should exist for the people, if you do not serve them, the people become your enemy, and nothing of value that you accomplish will last after your death, only your power structures will remain. The greater the power structures, the more they frustrate the people's natural development, and the more people must either submit, be damaged and less effective in society, or the more they have to be egocentric, pushing back and imposing their will on the world. In either case, you have either stunted the society or created an atmosphere of narcissism. Good job.
3. Is learning socionics, or Jung's broader theories dangerous?
- Yes.
This is a direct quote from the introduction to Jung's Red Book:
"Jung wrote that it was a difficult task to differentiate the personal and collective psyche. On of the factors one came up against was the persona - one's 'mask' or 'role.' This represented the segment of the collective psyche that one mistakenly regarded as individual. When one analyzed this, the personality dissolved into the collective psyche, which resulted in the release of a stream of fantasies: 'All the treasures of mythological thinking and feeling are unlocked.' The difference between this state and insanity lay in the fact that it was intentional.
Two possibilities arose: one could attempt to regressively restore persona and return to the prior state, but it was impossible to get rid of the unconscious. Alternatively, one could accept the condition of godlikeness. However, there was a third way: the hermeneutic treatment of creative fantasies. This resulted in a synthesis of the individual with the collective psyche, which revealed the individual lifeline. This was the process of individuation. In a subsequent undated revision of this paper, Jung introduced the notion of the anima, as a counterpart to that of the persona. He regarded both of these as 'subject-imagoes.' Here, he defined the anima as 'how the subject is seen by the collective unconscious.' "
If this sounds familiar, it should, because I think this is exactly what happened to EJ Areendee, who had the most successful socionics channel on YouTube, but then became convinced he was an old testament style prophet of God after a series of intense visions and dreams. Unlike every prophet in the bible, "God" never gave him a direct prophecy to speak to the people. It was always him ascending to heaven, or that time he spent an entire night driving his motorcycle around in the rain looking for his "wife" (he was not married as far as I know). Or that video where he said he had become all the 16 types at once. Or when he was living with a Christian couple who though he was possessed by demons. Most people made fun of him for his grandiose claims, or said he was schizophrenic (probably why he delete his channel). When I knew him, he was definitely a dick, but he wasn't crazy. I think he just dissolved his persona until he released the unconscious. He should seek out a Jungian therapist who knows how to interpret what he has seen. If any of you guys are still in contact with him, you should pass on this suggestion.
If the primary danger is releasing your unconscious, the second danger is accepting other people's crazy ideas, and incorporating them into your worldview. The socionics community attracts strange people and produces weird ideas. I think the main culprit is the alpha researcher who see the world in terms of socionics and tries to assimilate everything into it, like a B movie blob monster. Two good example that I know of are Gulenko and Churumov. In his own academic journal, Gulenko wrote how Timothy Leary's eight circuit model of consciousness correlates directly to the eight horizontal and vertical blocks in model A. HAHAHA, until Gulenko, show me how taking DMT or reaching the final stage of enlightenment is the same as my 5+8 block, or the beneficiary and semi-dual relation, I'm calling bullshit on this gem of insight. Churumov, who I believe is currently estranged from the academic community, has the equally batshit but more subtle idea that ILE is the original consciousness and is the closest to God.
The third danger is a loss of balance. Socionics is an abstraction of reality. This doesn't mean the laws in socionics are false, only that if you are trying to simulate reality, you have to have all laws, perfectly defined and integrated to get the right output. For example, only knowing about the law of gravity, you would think that a penny dropped off a skyscraper would accelerate to the speed of a bullet and kill pedestrians or embed itself in concrete upon impact. Even though the math totally checks out, this does not happen in reality because the air resistance causes the penny to reach terminal velocity fairly quickly and float the rest of the way to the ground. If it hit your in the head, it wouldn't even hurt that much. So do this prove the law of gravity is false? NO! It just proves there are other forces acting in the system.
In the same way, do I think that the socionics laws are correct? Yes, I think the Russians have done a great job, even if there is more work to be done. But do I think that socionics is a holistic model of being? Absolutely not. Since I know it is just a piece of the truth, I take it with a grain of salt. My LII dad has this saying, no doubt validated from a lifetime of experience, that "logic is a way of going wrong with confidence."
I try to balance the short comings of socionics by learning about it from real people. I have shattered many of my biases and stereotypes I may have formed in the initial stage of learning socionics from type descriptions by getting to know a few people who are very difference but still undeniable the same type. Unlike a model, all people are whole and complete - if you use them as your true source, and socionics as just a map, you avoid many of the pitfalls of abstraction.
Even so, actively applying socionics, even from rich experience, has its own dangers, which I will address in the next few sections.
-
...Will edit and add more later. Here are some more questions, I'm thinking about. I might change them when I answer them.
In what circumstances can socionics be applied?
How do you avoid stereotyping and bigotry?
Should you treat someone differently if you know their type?
Should you make dating / marital decisions based on socionics?
If you are married and you believe you have major issues based on clashing personalities, is this grounds for a divorce?
Should you make educational or career decision based on socionics?
Is it better to not share your type with strangers?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Tigerfadder
PoLR)
to focus on each type's equality.
). Another way I've had success with using socionics is picking which friend to hold me accountable, like if I want to be at work by a certain time or try to adopt some new habit. Any type can do this if they try, but I've found it comes effortlessly to an LSE friend. I think socionics also points toward what to compliment people on; even a small compliment on one's use of their suggestive is quite pleasing. It's nice to have more of a clue about why I get along or don't get along with someone so I can play up or down specific kinds of interactions--e.g., I act goofier around Ne suggestives.
