What's worse? Specification or Equalization?
I'm sure the majority of the forum members know this is related with socionics. I'd like to find out what is worse between these two modes of placement. First we have to take into consideration that both of these perceptions are extremes. I've found from experience that specification tends to receive a lot more criticism compared to equalization. I personally find that they both deserve equal treatment. In order to avoid my trend of vagueness, I will increase my clarity:
An example of specification: Women can't drive.
This is obviously completely false in the general consensus, but if someone were consequentially to observe one poor driver that is a woman, the individual might actually believe that.
An example of equalization: Everyone is equal.
As pleasing as that sounds that is another false statement. There are individuals that are more superior to another individual for whatever reason. That is not to say that the superior individual should be treated with greater respect because giftedness is not something that was developed, but inherited.
Re: What's worse? Specification or Equalization?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
An example of specification: Women can't drive.
This is obviously completely false in the general consensus, but if someone were consequentially to observe one poor driver that is a woman, the individual might actually believe that.
An example of equalization: Everyone is equal.
As pleasing as that sounds that is another false statement. There are individuals that are more superior to another individual for whatever reason. That is not to say that the superior individual should be treated with greater respect because giftedness is not something that was developed, but inherited.
I would say that the difference in treatment comes from a difference in consequences of carrying specification, or equalizations, as world-view founding principles.
Let's examine specification: if I were to always make universal inferences from a small sample and utilize them in order to interact with the outside world, I would end up with:
1)An high amount of contradictory info
2)An erroneous usage of means (the mentioned specification) in order to attain my ends, which would lead to obstacles in attaining them
Let's now examine euqalization: If I were to always suppose that all individuals are equal in their basic essence...the conclusions, paradoxically, would be coincident with the world itself. Suppose I think that every human is born with the same set of capabilities. Suppose that I get to know 2 subjects, one of which is better at performing task X than the other. Since they were both endowed with the same set of abilties, the only motivation for the differential in ability can be traced to hard work on the skill required to perform X. Therefore, if I were to choose who to call for performing task X, I would still prefer the one with the better skill.
That's why equalization is less critcized: its consequences, on an individual level, are much less dangerous.
Re: What's worse? Specification or Equalization?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
if I were to always make universal inferences from a small sample and utilize them in order to interact with the outside world, I would end up with:
1)An high amount of contradictory info
2)An erroneous usage of means (the mentioned specification) in order to attain my ends, which would lead to obstacles in attaining them
That's true, over-specification with time will become realized among most offenders. However, if the offender has one terrible trait and is surrounded by a poor environment then his/her squeamish beliefs would prosper. Basically, if the offender is gullible or oblivious enough to absorb the information without noticing the holes in the real world. Also, if the offender is an environment that supports his specification then it would be more difficult to attain contradictory info. This is why hate groups exist because of these two reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Suppose that I get to know 2 subjects, one of which is better at performing task X than the other. Since they were both endowed with the same set of abilties, the only motivation for the differential in ability can be traced to hard work on the skill required to perform X. Therefore, if I were to choose who to call for performing task X, I would still prefer the one with the better skill.
I agree with you on this one. However, let's say that those 2 subjects were composed of different abilities and work capability. Let's say subject A was highly talented and could complete a skill with as little work as possible. If subject was B was much less talented and would complete the work with a lot of hard work and deterimination. Who would be the more superior individual in this case?