Typing and Type Discrimination

[Lobo]

I was thinking about this, in how there might be a significant amount of type discrimination in the forum. Liking or disliking someone does not have to be dictated by their socionics type... It sounds ignorant to say that you don't like people of a certain type, considering how people of the same type can be considerably different. Granted, their communication style and IE preferences might still apply, but their way of "being" cannot be so broadly described using a negative stereotype. These stereotypes might be done out of frustration in arriving to a conclusion, considering the amount of information you need to actually establish a model that can apply to the majority of people is outside the capabilities of anybody here.

Consider these two sentences: I don't like black/asian/indian/white/etc because they smell bad, and I don't like *insert type* because they use *insert function* too much and me don't like. Saying these things promote negative stereotypes and prejudice, and I personally think is a very ignorant thing to say. This also applies to saying how wonderful a type is, since that is subjective as well, and it might be that they make you happy in some way that does not necessarily have to do with type.

I would like to present the probability of knowing someone from a type compared to the total number of people in the world who share the same type, if you haven't thought about this already:

-Estimated number of people you know of a type: let's say 30.
-Estimated total number of people in the world of a certain socionics type: assuming equal distribution... 375 million
-Fraction of people you know of a certain type compared to a rough population estimate of said type in the world: 30/375million = 0.00000008%

Are people here truly open to the possibility that they might know diddly-squat about a certain type? That's something to think about.

[Trevor]

One need not to have big reasons to hate someone. Sometimes only 3 or 4 dichotomies are all it takes.

[silverchris9]

I would like to present the probability of knowing someone from a type compared to the total number of people in the world who share the same type, if you haven't thought about this already:

-Estimated number of people you know of a type: let's say 30.
-Estimated total number of people in the world of a certain socionics type: assuming equal distribution... 375 million
-Fraction of people you know of a certain type compared to a rough population estimate of said type in the world: 30/375million = 0.00000008%

I don't like how EIIs use pseudo-statistical data to back up their Fi/Ne "don't judge people, oh except I'm maybe judging you right now" conclusions.

Sorry, that was kind of necessary.

Anyway. Talking about the positive or negative aspects of a given type is totally valid. The unstated assumption that makes it valid is that "people =/= types." So when we say, "SLEs are so cool, they make me feel excited and energized," obviously that doesn't apply to an SLE that just broke into your house and is trying to kill you. "Terrified" would be a more appropriate word there. So it's perfectly fine to make generalizations about a type, so long as you are aware that there are many situational and individual deviations from that generalization. Certainly the racial analogy is not valid, because while culture may have an influence on behavior, race certainly does not. Furthermore, even given cultural stereotypes, the assumption is that socionics functions on a deeper (or at least "other") level than culture. So the generalizations one makes based on socionics have a higher probability of being accurate and seriously influencing your interactions with someone than those based on race or culture.

[Lobo]

I don't like how EIIs use pseudo-statistical data to back up their Fi/Ne "don't judge people, oh except I'm maybe judging you right now" conclusions.

Sorry, that was kind of necessary.

Case in point of what I posted. You have read that I'm EII and now apply a broad generalization... I couldn't care less that you liked it or not, and you don't present any kind of thought process as to why presenting that info is useless. I'm only trying to provide perspective, which I think is valuable info. Also, I'm presenting my opinion on the matter, and I'll ignore that little arrogant sentence you have at the end.

Anyway. Talking about the positive or negative aspects of a given type is totally valid. The unstated assumption that makes it valid is that "people =/= types." So when we say, "SLEs are so cool, they make me feel excited and energized," obviously that doesn't apply to an SLE that just broke into your house and is trying to kill you. "Terrified" would be a more appropriate word there. So it's perfectly fine to make generalizations about a type, so long as you are aware that there are many situational and individual deviations from that generalization. Certainly the racial analogy is not valid, because while culture may have an influence on behavior, race certainly does not. Furthermore, even given cultural stereotypes, the assumption is that socionics functions on a deeper (or at least "other") level than culture. So the generalizations one makes based on socionics have a higher probability of being accurate and seriously influencing your interactions with someone than those based on race or culture.

You make a lot of assumptions here and stating validity, which I can't address or am able to.

[JohnDo]

Are people here truly open to the possibility that they might know diddly-squat about a certain type?

No, I'm not open to that possibility because socionics would be completely useless then. By knowing 16 type descriptions you immediately know very much about every person you type correctly.

Why people sometimes get the impression that knowing the type of a person doesn't tell you much:
1.) There are males and females who are very different even if they are the same type. You might know 7 ESFp men and still wouln't understand ESFp women...
2.) There are young and old people...
3.) There are different cultures...
4.) There are at least 8 different subtypes for every type. If you know 7 Fi-ESTps you still might wonder why Se-ESTps are so crazy...
5.) There are healthy and unhealthy examples of every type. Personality disorders might even make dual relations very complicated...

[somavision]

JohnDo, I am impressed that by using your 8 subtype system that you're an "Expert Analyst", my one concern is how will you top that when you start using 16 subtypes?

[thePirate]

I was thinking about this, in how there might be a significant amount of type discrimination in the forum. Liking or disliking someone does not have to be dictated by their socionics type... It sounds ignorant to say that you don't like people of a certain type, considering how people of the same type can be considerably different. Granted, their communication style and IE preferences might still apply, but their way of "being" cannot be so broadly described using a negative stereotype. These stereotypes might be done out of frustration in arriving to a conclusion, considering the amount of information you need to actually establish a model that can apply to the majority of people is outside the capabilities of anybody here.

Consider these two sentences: I don't like black/asian/indian/white/etc because they smell bad, and I don't like *insert type* because they use *insert function* too much and me don't like. Saying these things promote negative stereotypes and prejudice, and I personally think is a very ignorant thing to say. This also applies to saying how wonderful a type is, since that is subjective as well, and it might be that they make you happy in some way that does not necessarily have to do with type.

I would like to present the probability of knowing someone from a type compared to the total number of people in the world who share the same type, if you haven't thought about this already:

-Estimated number of people you know of a type: let's say 30.
-Estimated total number of people in the world of a certain socionics type: assuming equal distribution... 375 million
-Fraction of people you know of a certain type compared to a rough population estimate of said type in the world: 30/375million = 0.00000008%

Are people here truly open to the possibility that they might know diddly-squat about a certain type? That's something to think about.

no, not at all. I personally think its silly to think like this and it does come down to a difference between Ne and Ni whether you believe it or not.

if something keeps repeating, a pattern, it will most likely keep happening. the possibility exists that you may know nothing about this person, but to hold that as precendence over past experience is nothing short of retarded to me. if anything, socionics tells us this in the theory itself; its a measurement of these patterns. its a measurement of something very real and concrete. it isnt a measurement of nothing; or a 'possibility' theory. its a predictive theory. as john said, there would be no use for socionics if what you propose here had any merit.

also Im going to say that I agree with what chris said, I personally find the kind of attitude you take here incredibly irritating. you state not to judge, yet make this post with judgemental undertones. you attempt to conform people to your own standards as you have deemed it as the 'good' way or whatever it is you have branded it; this is hypocrisy at its finest. people who are genuinely non judgemental are the ones who accept with love. this is not what I see here; and often not what I see in Fi types.

[Lobo]

No, I'm not open to that possibility because socionics would be completely useless then. By knowing 16 type descriptions you immediately know very much about every person you type correctly.

Why people sometimes get the impression that knowing the type of a person doesn't tell you much:
1.) There are males and females who are very different even if they are the same type. You might know 7 ESFp men and still wouln't understand ESFp women...
2.) There are young and old people...
3.) There are different cultures...
4.) There are at least 8 different subtypes for every type. If you know 7 Fi-ESTps you still might wonder why Se-ESTps are so crazy...
5.) There are healthy and unhealthy examples of every type. Personality disorders might even make dual relations very complicated...

I'm not questioning Socionics' usefulness... I should have rephrased that question. I was going for people being sure that they understand a certain type, and are confident that their understanding and prejudices still apply for everyone they know who are of said type.

no, not at all. I personally think its silly to think like this and it does come down to a difference between Ne and Ni whether you believe it or not.

if something keeps repeating, a pattern, it will most likely keep happening. the possibility exists that you may know nothing about this person, but to hold that as precendence over past experience is nothing short of retarded to me. if anything, socionics tells us this in the theory itself; its a measurement of these patterns. its a measurement of something very real and concrete. it isnt a measurement of nothing; or a 'possibility' theory. its a predictive theory. as john said, there would be no use for socionics if what you propose here had any merit.

I'm arguing that to treat a stranger whose type you know with a judgmental attitude based on his/her type is ignorant and discriminatory... I specifically said that their communication style and IE preference might still apply though, so I don't know why you guys are implying that my aim is to discredit Socionics. I'm talking about how I see it being used in the forum.

also Im going to say that I agree with what chris said, I personally find the kind of attitude you take here incredibly irritating. you state not to judge, yet make this post with judgemental undertones. you attempt to conform people to your own standards as you have deemed it as the 'good' way or whatever it is you have branded it; this is hypocrisy at its finest. people who are genuinely non judgemental are the ones who accept with love. this is not what I see here; and often not what I see in Fi types.

Could you explain to me what you mean by judgmental undertones? I don't know what you are talking about... I think that I was pretty explicit in saying what I thought about it, so I'm curious if you found some kind of subliminal message. Concerning the rest, I don't know how you got that impression based on what I wrote... You are talking about accepting people with love and relating what I posted as having to do with what Fi types do, etc. Big time assumptions here about my intentions, and it shows you don't know me well. It always seems to come down to some IE or type, as a way to argue/attack a point. I wonder what you would have said if you didn't know I was EII.

[The Greeter]

I was thinking about this, in how there might be a significant amount of type discrimination in the forum. Liking or disliking someone does not have to be dictated by their socionics type... It sounds ignorant to say that you don't like people of a certain type, considering how people of the same type can be considerably different. Granted, their communication style and IE preferences might still apply, but their way of "being" cannot be so broadly described using a negative stereotype. These stereotypes might be done out of frustration in arriving to a conclusion, considering the amount of information you need to actually establish a model that can apply to the majority of people is outside the capabilities of anybody here.

Consider these two sentences: I don't like black/asian/indian/white/etc because they smell bad, and I don't like *insert type* because they use *insert function* too much and me don't like. Saying these things promote negative stereotypes and prejudice, and I personally think is a very ignorant thing to say. This also applies to saying how wonderful a type is, since that is subjective as well, and it might be that they make you happy in some way that does not necessarily have to do with type.

I would like to present the probability of knowing someone from a type compared to the total number of people in the world who share the same type, if you haven't thought about this already:

-Estimated number of people you know of a type: let's say 30.
-Estimated total number of people in the world of a certain socionics type: assuming equal distribution... 375 million
-Fraction of people you know of a certain type compared to a rough population estimate of said type in the world: 30/375million = 0.00000008%

Are people here truly open to the possibility that they might know diddly-squat about a certain type? That's something to think about.

I completely agree; I feel it's a significant problem in the forum.

I don't like how EIIs use pseudo-statistical data to back up their Fi/Ne "don't judge people, oh except I'm maybe judging you right now" conclusions.

There was no Fi in the derivation of his pseudo-statistical analysis. And, frankly, though it lies strictly in the hypothetical until someone confirms the numbers, it is a very reasonable estimate and argument. Also, this forum has no problem in discussing purely in the hypothetical level, so why scrutinze someone for presenting a hypothetical via numbers. It is especially frustrating that ulterior motives are read because the author happens to be a Fi ego.

Would you have said such a thing if an Ti ego or Fe ego said something similar?

[silverchris9]

Case in point of what I posted. You have read that I'm EII and now apply a broad generalization... I couldn't care less that you liked it or not, and you don't present any kind of thought process as to why presenting that info is useless. I'm only trying to provide perspective, which I think is valuable info. Also, I'm presenting my opinion on the matter, and I'll ignore that little arrogant sentence you have at the end.

...? It was a joke... .

You make a lot of assumptions here and stating validity, which I can't address or am able to.

...that sentence is totally illogical. I only point this out because I feel like we're in an argument now. Shrug. But I'm assuming it means, "I'm not interested in that point, and I don't think it's a good one," which I'm absolutely fine with.

There was no Fi in the derivation of his pseudo-statistical analysis. And, frankly, though it lies strictly in the hypothetical until someone confirms the numbers, it is a very reasonable estimate and argument. Also, this forum has no problem in discussing purely in the hypothetical level, so why scrutinze someone for presenting a hypothetical via numbers. It is especially frustrating that ulterior motives are read because the author happens to be a Fi ego.

Would you have said such a thing if an Ti ego or Fe ego said something similar?

See above. How is that not obviously a joke? You know, someone makes a point, then you directly prove their point by doing exactly what they're talking about... I mean, I do think that Fi egos to tend to use statistics, "objective facts" and such (which is a Te thing) to push ethical agendas, which is an entirely value neutral tendency. But I wasn't entirely serious in arguing that this is an instance of that tendency.

[The Greeter]

if something keeps repeating, a pattern, it will most likely keep happening. the possibility exists that you may know nothing about this person, but to hold that as precendence over past experience is nothing short of retarded to me. if anything, socionics tells us this in the theory itself; its a measurement of these patterns. its a measurement of something very real and concrete. it isnt a measurement of nothing; or a 'possibility' theory. its a predictive theory. as john said, there would be no use for socionics if what you propose here had any merit.

Yes, I can agree to this. But is not obvious from what you just stated how subjective Introverted intuition is? The image, conception, pattern and intuition are purely based on personal experience -- it is real and concrete on a personal level, and this extends to the meta-level as well. That is, not only is the product Ni subjective, though it can be extremely accurate, but so is the process of the synthesis of said product.

[thePirate]

I'm arguing that to treat a stranger whose type you know with a judgmental attitude based on his/her type is ignorant and discriminatory... I specifically said that their communication style and IE preference might still apply though, so I don't know why you guys are implying that my aim is to discredit Socionics. I'm talking about how I see it being used in the forum.



Could you explain to me what you mean by judgmental undertones? I don't know what you are talking about... I think that I was pretty explicit in saying what I thought about it, so I'm curious if you found some kind of subliminal message. Concerning the rest, I don't know how you got that impression based on what I wrote... You are talking about accepting people with love and relating what I posted as having to do with what Fi types do, etc. Big time assumptions here about my intentions, and it shows you don't know me well. It always seems to come down to some IE or type, as a way to argue/attack a point. I wonder what you would have said if you didn't know I was EII.

its discriminatory but not ignorant; socionics IME has done a fine job of outlining the different types of people. if anything, I believe disregarding this information when evaluating someone is ignorant. the theory is solid; people are implying that you are attempting to discredit socionics because what you say here is based on the assumption that socionics may be faulty. the logical reason why someone would not judge someone for socionics reasons despite knowing the theory is that the theory may be wrong in some way. socionics HAS taken differences into account; after all there are 16 types. however, the differences in which are NOT accounted have been unimportant and trivial for the most part.

everyone discriminates whether or not they admit it; discrimination is not neccessarily a bad thing. it has bad connotations sure, but I think its better for someone to avoid their conflictor then attempt to 'make it work' and destroy each other. abit of an extreme example, but you get my point.

I dont know you well, but the way you worded your post, the use of words such as discriminatory and ignorant are 'heavy' words. these are judgements on people who use socionics this way, me being one of them. you say it sounds ignorant, implying that it is an ignorant way of going about things. correct? this is how you see it right?

can you not see how one would take offense to that or feel a judgement from statements such as this? dammit, come on. intuit a little here.

[Mattie]

Overall, I think that (at least on the forum) people are more likely to anticipate good or bad communication with another member based on what type the other person is. I usually think it's more mental, as we have assigned ourselves into groups and it's almost an "us vs them" issue. It makes me wonder how the forum would be without the boards for the separate quadras. In general I believe others will relax and communicate naturally regardless of type, but when it comes to Socionics-related discussion, the types involved become a factor on their own. This is worth being aware of, I don't think it's completely dire, depending on how seriously you take this forum.

[The Greeter]

See above. How is that not obviously a joke? You know, someone makes a point, then you directly prove their point by doing exactly what they're talking about... I mean, I do think that Fi egos to tend to use statistics, "objective facts" and such (which is a Te thing) to push ethical agendas, which is an entirely value neutral tendency. But I wasn't entirely serious in arguing that this is an instance of that tendency.

Okay, I understand the joke.

Joke though it may be, I feel the attitude that you satired is quite prevalent among members of the forum and are taken seriously.

[silverchris9]

Okay, I understand the joke.

Joke though it may be, I feel the attitude that you satired is quite prevalent among members of the forum and are taken seriously.

Yeah, it is. Explaining traits based on how they annoy you for socionics-related reasons is, I feel, an entirely valid method of drawing useful observations from socionics. Obviously, I presented it in an extreme form, but I think overall, there's nothing wrong with statements of that kind as a category.

I suppose I overstated by calling it a joke. It IS a joke. But it is a joke both at my own expense (as a person who would say something of that kind, and statements of that kind are often invalid) and at Lobo's, insofar as I am intimating that such a statement, in a less extreme form, could be valid.

Lobo, despite your protests to the contrary, I think your argument does undermine some of socionics, at least the idea that it has any practical relevance whatsoever. What good is socionics if we cannot use it to inform our behavior? Certainly you're talking about a negative manifestation of "using socionics to inform behavior," but said use of socionics is not an inherently a bad thing to do so at all.

So yes, it is discriminatory of me to say that absent all other factors, I would rather hang out with a confirmed SLE than a confirmed LSE. But it is not discriminatory in a negative manner. It is discriminatory in an intelligent manner. It is merely using my knowledge to inform my decisions. It would be unintelligent, or unwise, of me to prefer to hang out with a murderous SLE than, say, Ryu (who I get along with just fine, despite our being conflictors). But there's a place between the extremes of never changing your behavior based on socionics and basing all of your behavior/choices on socionics. Obviously, we want to be closer to the former, just because socionics is an unproven but interesting theory of social interaction. But there's still a comfortable spot near the middle that is the most wise position to take on the matter.

Now if you're just talking on this forum... notice how I highly doubt/doubted that Shagbag is EII, and have been nevertheless at turns entertained and irritated by him? Heck, I think I like easily as many deltas on this forum as betas.

[Gilly]

Jesse/UDP/Ryu is actually your beneficiary, and, if not, your quasi, so it's not at all surprising that you don't "conflict."

[MatthewZ]

People are unique. No matter how it happens, dividing the world's population into 16 (or even 128 with 8 subtypes) different groups is going to result in a large amount of variance within said group. Regardless of how it may be backed, Socionics is still a hypothesis that has not been tested with scientific rigor. It would be a leap of faith to assume that millions of people are intensely similar based on the implications of a mere hypothesis. Sure, in the realm of that hypothesis divisions are not as arbitrary as, say, race, but they still entail enormous ranges within each division. Patterns form the basis for superstition. It's beneficial for survival to notice patterns, but regardless of that correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, Socionics is a pattern of behavior, but it's not fully capable of predicting behavior. The best prediction that can be made is the rationale a person will use to support their actions, but even that is presumptuous of some circumstances. (such as how adept at using a function a person is, what their past experiences are, etc.) Socionics is a tool, not a god. It needs input to provide any significant output and it can't be applied to everything.

[silverchris9]

Jesse/UDP/Ryu is actually your beneficiary, and, if not, your quasi, so it's not at all surprising that you don't "conflict."

shhhh... I know, that's what many people think, but he's my example for getting along with LSEs, so it's convenient that he is one, or at least represents himself as one. I personally don't have much opinion on the matter. He doesn't seem not-LSE.

[Gilly]

Convenience is a bitch.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Okay I agree with you. I think a lot of people when they make posts and analyziations about another's type, they don't really know what they're talking about. But it's still interesting, so people are going to still do it...

It's sort of like these are how new ideas and insights and original ideas are created and you can't have that if you just always report back things that can't be argued with, ie such in the case of a 'hard' science.

So people will be wrong but I think let them get it wrong , let them continue to fuss about in their maze of neurotic hazy mess until they find a new thought that inspires them to make a difference in their lives and in other people's that's actually positive. Let them take thought beyond that which has been thought before, instead of just accurately regurgitating what they observe in their physical envrionment. That's not quite what humans were meant to do, but we do have to be non-neurotic to not be totally unaware of physical surroundings and the nature of life. We were born however with big enough brains to overcome this, because we can understand it.

And as we hear about their insights we can gently help them with theirs (which are filled with half-truths and neuroticism of our own), and in this way we are all co-creating.....something. Even if it's a huge mess it's still very interesting to me.

[Lobo]

...that sentence is totally illogical. I only point this out because I feel like we're in an argument now. Shrug. But I'm assuming it means, "I'm not interested in that point, and I don't think it's a good one," which I'm absolutely fine with.

See above. How is that not obviously a joke? You know, someone makes a point, then you directly prove their point by doing exactly what they're talking about... I mean, I do think that Fi egos to tend to use statistics, "objective facts" and such (which is a Te thing) to push ethical agendas, which is an entirely value neutral tendency. But I wasn't entirely serious in arguing that this is an instance of that tendency.

Didn't think it was a joke. Like the Greeter said, it's something that doesn't surprise me here. I retract what I said regarding that.

What I meant with that sentence is that you claim things are valid and so on, yet I have no way to prove you wrong.

its discriminatory but not ignorant; socionics IME has done a fine job of outlining the different types of people. if anything, I believe disregarding this information when evaluating someone is ignorant. the theory is solid; people are implying that you are attempting to discredit socionics because what you say here is based on the assumption that socionics may be faulty. the logical reason why someone would not judge someone for socionics reasons despite knowing the theory is that the theory may be wrong in some way. socionics HAS taken differences into account; after all there are 16 types. however, the differences in which are NOT accounted have been unimportant and trivial for the most part.

everyone discriminates whether or not they admit it; discrimination is not neccessarily a bad thing. it has bad connotations sure, but I think its better for someone to avoid their conflictor then attempt to 'make it work' and destroy each other. abit of an extreme example, but you get my point.

I dont know you well, but the way you worded your post, the use of words such as discriminatory and ignorant are 'heavy' words. these are judgements on people who use socionics this way, me being one of them. you say it sounds ignorant, implying that it is an ignorant way of going about things. correct? this is how you see it right?

can you not see how one would take offense to that or feel a judgement from statements such as this? dammit, come on. intuit a little here.

Why am I going to not say something that I find worthwhile saying because people might take offense by it? One thing I should mention is that I didn't mean it like I'm somehow absolved from the ignorance and discrimination. In fact, you can probably look to one of my older posts and find instances where I have done it. But to me, that's independent of the truth of what's going on, and I think it's useful to point it out. To me, the fact is that we are ignorant in the true sense of the word: we lack the knowledge to know how all people of a certain type will behave. You can argue with me on how people are knowledgeable enough already to do so, and that's where we disagree on. Also, type discrimination is "bad" for me, because that just closes you off from acquiring more information to update the model.

Yeah, it is. Explaining traits based on how they annoy you for socionics-related reasons is, I feel, an entirely valid method of drawing useful observations from socionics. Obviously, I presented it in an extreme form, but I think overall, there's nothing wrong with statements of that kind as a category.

...

Lobo, despite your protests to the contrary, I think your argument does undermine some of socionics, at least the idea that it has any practical relevance whatsoever. What good is socionics if we cannot use it to inform our behavior? Certainly you're talking about a negative manifestation of "using socionics to inform behavior," but said use of socionics is not an inherently a bad thing to do so at all.

So yes, it is discriminatory of me to say that absent all other factors, I would rather hang out with a confirmed SLE than a confirmed LSE. But it is not discriminatory in a negative manner. It is discriminatory in an intelligent manner. It is merely using my knowledge to inform my decisions. It would be unintelligent, or unwise, of me to prefer to hang out with a murderous SLE than, say, Ryu (who I get along with just fine, despite our being conflictors). But there's a place between the extremes of never changing your behavior based on socionics and basing all of your behavior/choices on socionics. Obviously, we want to be closer to the former, just because socionics is an unproven but interesting theory of social interaction. But there's still a comfortable spot near the middle that is the most wise position to take on the matter.

Now if you're just talking on this forum... notice how I highly doubt/doubted that Shagbag is EII, and have been nevertheless at turns entertained and irritated by him? Heck, I think I like easily as many deltas on this forum as betas.

I doubt that people go about the intelligent discrimination that you talking about here, lol. I've encountered more of: "XXXx suck and I don't like them because the use Xx." Also during arguments, like "ugh, I can't get along with XXXx, they are all *insert negative qualities.*"

I'm not undermining Socionics... It's just a model, and it requires updates when presented with something new. That's how models work.

People are unique. No matter how it happens, dividing the world's population into 16 (or even 128 with 8 subtypes) different groups is going to result in a large amount of variance within said group. Regardless of how it may be backed, Socionics is still a hypothesis that has not been tested with scientific rigor. It would be a leap of faith to assume that millions of people are intensely similar based on the implications of a mere hypothesis. Sure, in the realm of that hypothesis divisions are not as arbitrary as, say, race, but they still entail enormous ranges within each division. Patterns form the basis for superstition. It's beneficial for survival to notice patterns, but regardless of that correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, Socionics is a pattern of behavior, but it's not fully capable of predicting behavior. The best prediction that can be made is the rationale a person will use to support their actions, but even that is presumptuous of some circumstances. (such as how adept at using a function a person is, what their past experiences are, etc.) Socionics is a tool, not a god. It needs input to provide any significant output and it can't be applied to everything.

I agree.

[Eldanen]

Consider these two sentences: I don't like black/asian/indian/white/etc because they smell bad, and I don't like *insert type* because they use *insert function* too much and me don't like. Saying these things promote negative stereotypes and prejudice, and I personally think is a very ignorant thing to say. This also applies to saying how wonderful a type is, since that is subjective as well, and it might be that they make you happy in some way that does not necessarily have to do with type.

Stereotypes usually have at least a grain of truth, otherwise they wouldn't have become stereotypes.

[FDG]

Using the same reasoning, nobody would be able to say what a rock is. Socionics is an abstract and "general" system, because it's impossible to characterize people in a detailed fashion, and that's probably the only possible objection to the OP. It's also the reason why extensions such as those proposed by user JohnDo, which deal with fine differences between facial structures, quickly become meaningless.

[Aiss]

I'm arguing that to treat a stranger whose type you know with a judgmental attitude based on his/her type is ignorant and discriminatory... I specifically said that their communication style and IE preference might still apply though, so I don't know why you guys are implying that my aim is to discredit Socionics. I'm talking about how I see it being used in the forum.

I doubt that people go about the intelligent discrimination that you talking about here, lol. I've encountered more of: "XXXx suck and I don't like them because the use Xx." Also during arguments, like "ugh, I can't get along with XXXx, they are all *insert negative qualities.*"

You're making two different points here. I think you mean the first - judging the stranger by what type they are is pointless. Mostly because you first have to get to know them to be sure they're of this type and know if it affects your interaction. It might matter much less online, for example.

The examples you give, on the other hand ("I don't like XXX's because they're [whatever]"), are related to a different thing. Eliminating this would lead to MBTI-like sweetening of types' descriptions (which IMO causes a lot of mistyping, along with the interpretation of dichotomies). All types have their negative and positive traits, and many traits which are subjectively perceived as negative/positive by other types. We might argue if they're type-related or not, but forbidding it altogether would be censorship.

I am a Critic; I shall stand by my right to criticize.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[thePirate]

Why am I going to not say something that I find worthwhile saying because people might take offense by it? One thing I should mention is that I didn't mean it like I'm somehow absolved from the ignorance and discrimination. In fact, you can probably look to one of my older posts and find instances where I have done it. But to me, that's independent of the truth of what's going on, and I think it's useful to point it out. To me, the fact is that we are ignorant in the true sense of the word: we lack the knowledge to know how all people of a certain type will behave. You can argue with me on how people are knowledgeable enough already to do so, and that's where we disagree on. Also, type discrimination is "bad" for me, because that just closes you off from acquiring more information to update the model.




I doubt that people go about the intelligent discrimination that you talking about here, lol. I've encountered more of: "XXXx suck and I don't like them because the use Xx." Also during arguments, like "ugh, I can't get along with XXXx, they are all *insert negative qualities.*"

I'm not undermining Socionics... It's just a model, and it requires updates when presented with something new. That's how models work.



I agree.

I dont know how you can say this and claim you still see socionics as valid. the basis of the theory is that behavior IS predictable. you are absolutely undermining socionics. I see your intentions are good, but your notions are absurd.

yes, we do disagree here.

if this is how you really feel though, you should leave this forum. a person who I type as an INFj will not be adept at Se, period. in this sense socionics tells me not to rely on said type for those capabilities and it has been accurate thus far. the knowledge is there, this isnt some kind of intangible or ungraspable subject like you are proclaiming it to be. its something concrete and able to be studied, to be measured. what is unaccounted for, is again, trivial. also, I dont see how discrimination would make it so you dont update the model. I discriminate but constantly update my findings; there is no correlation there. I use what I know as a foundation but keep an open mind.

There are types who do annoy me for certain reasons, and I will generalize. I dont see anything wrong with that. If theres a type that I have deemed compatible I will probably be more open to talking to them initially. So far this has proven beneficial. I think to do otherwise is silly. This is only used to an extent. An example I can think of is huitz, even after I became beta I never liked that guy and I technically should have. I accepted him as ISTj but I didnt like that guy for whatever reason. It only goes so far.

I would continue but I think Aiss and FDG put it well. Living life in that kind of un judgemental state is both impossible and retarded. What you can do is manage your judgements to where it serves you well in your live.

[Lobo]

Using the same reasoning, nobody would be able to say what a rock is. Socionics is an abstract and "general" system, because it's impossible to characterize people in a detailed fashion, and that's probably the only possible objection to the OP. It's also the reason why extensions such as those proposed by user JohnDo, which deal with fine differences between facial structures, quickly become meaningless.

Again, I'm not talking about the descriptive aspect of Socionics... The OP deals with type discrimination: how people apply broad negative behavior to people of a certain type and say that they don't like someone who they haven't even gotten to know just because of their type. Of course, everyone does whatever they want, as well as like whomever they want, but my observation is that it is an ignorant thing to do.

You're making two different points here. I think you mean the first - judging the stranger by what type they are is pointless. Mostly because you first have to get to know them to be sure they're of this type and know if it affects your interaction. It might matter much less online, for example.

The examples you give, on the other hand ("I don't like XXX's because they're [whatever]"), are related to a different thing. Eliminating this would lead to MBTI-like sweetening of types' descriptions (which IMO causes a lot of mistyping, along with the interpretation of dichotomies). All types have their negative and positive traits, and many traits which are subjectively perceived as negative/positive by other types. We might argue if they're type-related or not, but forbidding it altogether would be censorship.

I am a Critic; I shall stand by my right to criticize.

That's not what I mean... Assume you know someone's type, but don't know anything else about them. Then, you reject said person solely on the basis of their type.

Lobo, I always hated some kind of things and some kind of people. The difference is that now I know and can verbalize what I don't like and why.

That's understandable, but to me it should be done on a person by person basis. Sure, you recognize that someone likes to use a certain IE in their communication pattern. You have now have a better understanding of the person.

I dont know how you can say this and claim you still see socionics as valid. the basis of the theory is that behavior IS predictable. you are absolutely undermining socionics. I see your intentions are good, but your notions are absurd.

yes, we do disagree here.

if this is how you really feel though, you should leave this forum. a person who I type as an INFj will not be adept at Se, period. in this sense socionics tells me not to rely on said type for those capabilities and it has been accurate thus far. the knowledge is there, this isnt some kind of intangible or ungraspable subject like you are proclaiming it to be. its something concrete and able to be studied, to be measured. what is unaccounted for, is again, trivial. also, I dont see how discrimination would make it so you dont update the model. I discriminate but constantly update my findings; there is no correlation there. I use what I know as a foundation but keep an open mind.

We can go into another discussion of what you mean by "adept," but I don't see the point in doing that now. I don't believe that types cannot develop their polr in some way.

Anyway, you haven't argued against my statement that it is ignorant to like/dislike someone based on their type alone. Unless your point is that there is enough information to accurately predict someone's behavior based on their type already. However, I'm not convinced that this is the case.

[Aiss]

That's not what I mean... Assume you know someone's type, but don't know anything else about them. Then, you reject said person solely on the basis of their type.

That's a highly hypothetical situation and not what is happening here. Discussion about types is a different thing. Assuming people will act based on what they say about some type is judgmental, IMO.

[Lobo]

That's a highly hypothetical situation and not what is happening here. Discussion about types is a different thing. Assuming people will act based on what they say about some type is judgmental, IMO.

I see that it does happen here, which is what inspired my OP.

[Aiss]

I see that it does happen here, which is what inspired my OP.

I could probably write something about a lack of a priori knowledge related to others types, but I suppose it's pointless.

[The Greeter]

I could probably write something about a lack of a priori knowledge related to others types, but I suppose it's pointless.

One of the problems in this forum is that a lot of a priori knowledge is mistaken for a posteriori knowledge regarding a particular type.

[crazedrat]

all socionics does is keep me aware that it's highly likely the person will annoy the crap out of me. Until they actually do, there's not discrimination.

[DirectorAbbie]

Lobo, you should be thankful for stereotypes and prejudgemental people. If they didn't exist, what would you have to be self-righteous about?

[thePirate]

Anyway, you haven't argued against my statement that it is ignorant to like/dislike someone based on their type alone. Unless your point is that there is enough information to accurately predict someone's behavior based on their type already. However, I'm not convinced that this is the case.

well then, I dont know what to tell you


maybe you just need more IRL experience to confirm this for you

[Lobo]

Lobo, you should be thankful for stereotypes and prejudgemental people. If they didn't exist, what would you have to be self-righteous about?

lol, I don't want to be self-righteous.

[DirectorAbbie]

lol, I don't want to be self-righteous.

You don't? Well, do you want a cause to fight for? They can supply that too.

[Minde]

Again, I'm not talking about the descriptive aspect of Socionics... The OP deals with type discrimination: how people apply broad negative behavior to people of a certain type and say that they don't like someone who they haven't even gotten to know just because of their type.

[...]

That's not what I mean... Assume you know someone's type, but don't know anything else about them. Then, you reject said person solely on the basis of their type.

I've seen this before, too. In myself even, to be honest, as a tendency at times. I think it's related to the same instinct that reduces individual blades of grass and petals to that inconsequential open area to the left as you walk down a street. It's a survival thing, to simplify and filter the information that comes our way, otherwise our brains would get overloaded. I think it's where a lot of racism and partisanship and even patriotism comes from. It's easy, and even necessary at times, to simplify what comes our way and react to the concept rather than the full details of reality.

But, as I think what you're emphasizing, balance is important and it can go too far and end up being more harmful than good, like when you dismiss someone because you've attached a type label to them. Anyway, yeah, I agree with you it's something to be careful of and even avoided if possible.

[Lobo]

You don't? Well, do you want a cause to fight for? They can supply that too.

That is true .

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

who says it's impossible to categorize people using details? It would just be all unique and varied. But then you'd able to see the more accurate lining up of colors in various people. A perfect complement or a perfect clash would be rare but they'd still exist. ahh this thread makes me want to make art. I want to draw my soul.

[Brilliand]

You don't? Well, do you want a cause to fight for? They can supply that too.

Of course, if he's thankful, then he can't fight for the cause anyway.