What's worse? Specification or Equalization?

[Raver]

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.

[FDG]

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.

[Kristiina]

I have thought about it in the context of socionics.

Some Fi-types (who value individuals) say, that socionics is evil, because people will use it to for specification: "you can't say that ISFps have weaker logic. That's stereotype!" (even if ISFps do have Te-PoLR). Because of socionics, people will be judged by their predispositions, and not for what they could accomplish if they tried.

People, who know very little about psychology, but who value individuals, will end up doing something much worse - equalize. "Everyone is just as skilled at painting if they try." This ignores the predispositions completely and causes attitudes like, "Why wont you just finish the task? Everyone else finished it! Are you stupid?".

Equalization is much worse than specification.

[FDG]

People, who know very little about psychology, but who value individuals, will end up doing something much worse - equalize. "Everyone is just as skilled at painting if they try." This ignores the predispositions completely and causes attitudes like, "Why wont you just finish the task? Everyone else finished it! Are you stupid?".

There is a step here that is missing and that you have not specified which is essential:

The child which is slower at painting has been forced to complete the task by the person which believe in equalization; however, this would be logically inconsistent with his world view, since if he prefers equalization he would not force the child to do tasks since the children are equal to him and therefore he cannot have any authority on them.

[oyburger]

People, who know very little about psychology, but who value individuals, will end up doing something much worse - equalize. "Everyone is just as skilled at painting if they try." This ignores the predispositions completely and causes attitudes like, "Why wont you just finish the task? Everyone else finished it! Are you stupid?".

There is a step here that is missing and that you have not specified which is essential:

The child which is slower at painting has been forced to complete the task by the person which believe in equalization; however, this would be logically inconsistent with his world view, since if he prefers equalization he would not force the child to do tasks since the children are equal to him and therefore he cannot have any authority on them.

I see where you're going, but realistically even the person who believed most stringently in equalization would understand that child is not equal with an adult on all levels.

[Kristiina]

IMO, equalization is not about everyone being equal in:
1) all ages. (no one would expect a 6 y.o. to be able to discuss politics or 1,5 y.o. to eat without getting all dirty.)
2) in hierarchy. Equalization is not communism (although communism is about equalization).

Equalization IMO is the idea that all people are equally good at anything they try to do. This is the idea that all people would be equally talented writers/mathematicians/painters, if someone taught them do do those things. (and if they all put just as much effort into it.)

FDG, this means that the a person who believes in equalization might easily force their child to paint good pictures, because "your brother was very good at it when he was your age, why are you so incompetent to paint so poorly?!". I'm very glad my parents didn't believe in the idea of equalization.

[Raver]

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.

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?

[science as magic]

I do not believe an accurate portrayal of equalization is to be found here. It implies a complete lack of delineation between anything. It is the juxtaposition/superposition of all. It allows for the equation of tungsten with flowers, ontological monism, with , with this. It is absurdity and nonsense. It is an inherently superior form of thought in that it is not subject to validation, confirmation, contradiction, or hypocrisy. It is VERY dangerous and VERY powerful.

[Raver]

HOLY!

[stefana]

.......

[science as magic]

the animal depicted in the photo is indeed what stefana noted it to be

it is not "that" however

[Raver]

the animal depicted in the photo is indeed what stefana noted it to be

it is not "that" however

Here is a link that explains the boar's fate:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english...ent_499459.htm

EDIT: Might be a different boar. The article is still interesting nonetheless.

Reading what you wrote formulated a lot of symbols and thoughts in my head, but I didn't come to any definite conclusions.

I've realized a flaw that I made when I posted ealier and should of included more terminologies. The opposite of equalization would be diversification and the opposite of specification would be generalization. Generalization and diversification do appear to be positive on the surface, however I'm not completely sure and these terminiologies can be extreme automatically labelling them as negative. However, the word extreme shouldn't be hastily labelled as negative.

[science as magic]

in my opinion the whole matter is not of much substance once you realize that it is impossible to maintain anything other than a floating point of reference (at least from a particular point of view)

/edit

i believe they are different animals. i searched google for "dead pig" after other search criteria came back with inadequate results

[SLeo123083]

They're equally worse, although because I'm Liberal I tend to loathe Specification more.

It's just that a lot of stereotypes turn out to be very true and the people you meet in life seem to fit every stereotype in the world. =/ Then, even when you don't meet somebody that's sterotypical, it seems like that person is trying to be somebody they're not just because you know so many stereotypical people.

You could argue then that people are too culturally conditioned. But I think that they just stand out like a sore thumb.

Most of the gay guys I know talk kinda feminine and like girly music. Most of the straight guys I know are smelly and bull-headed. Most of the black girls I know are rowdy and in-your-face. Most of the white people are know are kinda trashy and lame. Most women I know aren't as good of drivers as men. Most men I know have horrible social skills compared to women.

::Shrugs:: What are ya gonna do? I dunno...