Dangers of Socionics and its potential evils

[SFVB]

I decided to write this after a thread in one of the discussion topics began to strike fear in me about the potential dangers of a science that seeks to categorize people based on (imo) mostly pre-determined psychological activity. The thread was essentially an attempt by a self-described ENTj to create mathematical formulae for predicting the actions of individuals. While an interesting proposal, he/she was not using just the socionics model to do this, but rather multiple personality theories (MBTI, Enneagram, etc...) in order to accomplish this goal. Since those familiar with both Myers-Briggs and Socionics know that their models are NOT compatible, and in fact contradict one another, this in itself prompted me to respond to this endeavor as being "hasty." Well, that was not received well, and was essentially taken as an assualt on the poster's very being despite the obvious lack of personal attacks in the post. And so, as the back and forth became more and more hostile sounding, I finally lost my temper somewhat, and stated that this individual (clearly seperating him from his self-described trype), because of his lack of objectivity, is the last person that ought to be creating methods for determining people's behavior. Of course, I backed this up with some choice quotes of his from other discussions on the forum. And as I was collecting 10 or 12 of these choice comments of his, I started to feel uneasy. I saw a lot of references to "alphas (those members of the alpha quadra INTj, ENTp, ESFj, ISFp)" vs. "gammas" and various other "us vs. you" comments that made me think back to events in history, specifically the "cultural revolution" in which people will targeted for persecution, similarly, for the type of thinking they did. Well, fortunately, at this stage in the game, socionics and personality theory is still in its adolesence, and one does not have to worry about similar persecutions on the internet.

But, a unified and universally accepted personality theory is not far off in my opinion. Socionics, while not perfect, is damn near close, and with a fair amount of refining by psychologists from all branches of study, it will eventually be perfected. Then what? A science now exists that can explain human society, human relationships, potentially answer questions from "why do people get divorced" to "why do people feel depression?" Those people who spent all their time perfecting the theory and understood all of its complexities, now, no longer have control over it. It is now in the hands of those who wish to see it woven into society's fabric. Now the danger arises, for understanding socionics means removing your personal biases and values from your perspective on those types that are not your own. This, is very difficult to do, if not impossible to do completely. And the INTjs or ENTps that have spent years attempting to do this in the name of scientific objectivity now are faced with people who will not attempt the same. What this results in, is what I have gotten a thorough taste of on this forum, and outside this forum. The result is a division between humanity. A division between those that think one way, and those that think another. It is no new phenomena, but now, there is no longer a way to hide your thoughts, for your personality type "presumably" reveals them for you. Essentially, a more efficient cultural revolution, dictated by those that are able to hold power. Ok, short of rewriting "Brave New World" I will simply end by saying consider both the benefits and evils of any new science. Einstein did this concerning the splitting of the atom, but he was already too late, as those with differenct agendas had their own plans for the new science which gave us the ability to destroy ourselves one million times over. Consider the dangers before release, and perhaps many of them can be avoided.

[Creepy-Dave]

Excellent!
I'm just a lurker here, but I have to say that I couldn't have said it better.

[SFVB]

I sincerely hope that because of the inherent inability of people to arbitrarily change their types (without chemical alteration that is, which is a WHOLE other problem) that many of my fears concerning the potential misuse of socionics for social engineering according to one person's agenda are unfounded. The safe guards in place when looking at the interpersonal relationships between all 16 types, in that there are rings of supervision, instruction, etc...are hopefully enough to ensure that something like this does not happen, at least not on a widespread scale (it is already happening to some extent in corporate america).

NFp- said:

It would be much more easy for many people to psychologically-wound those they dislike. Just target their PoLR, their phobias; and you're done. I'm especially wary of conflictors doing this to each other at workplaces.

You're right, on many levels here, as it is just as easy to bring someone's confidence up through the use of personality theory, as it is to bring it down (as demonstrated by various members of this forum). One would hope, as I stated above, that the natural "safe guards" in place within the structure of the socionics model are enough to limit this to occassional occurences, but your last comment RE: the workplace has already started happening. I suggest you read Annie Murphy Paul's "The Cult of Personality" for a demonstration of this. Although I don't agree with her overall point of view that personality typing is impossible (obviously), I do agree that as it stands, those measurement systems out there are inferior and do more harm than good, and it is not far-fethced to believe that an imperfect socionics model could result in the same on an even larger scale.

Dave said:

Excellent!
I'm just a lurker here, but I have to say that I couldn't have said it better.

Thanks for the kind words.

[Waddlesworth]

Very nice an well phrased remarks, SFVB. This may not totally fit the context, but I couldn't help but get a Jeffersonian impression from you.

Now, of course, the posts in question represent the opinion of one person with a very "extravagant" personality. We all know what this extravagance means, so there is no need to feel threatened by that.

My primary concern about the style of thinking was that it was based upon incomplete understanding and seemingly instantaneously devised borrowing terminology, without any proper data to confirm speculations, from a clever sort of nomenclature found in a difficult to understand(due to poor translation) article found here:

Now from an intuitive perspective some of these ideas(made by the forum member) made some sense at first. But closer evaluation caused a great deal of skepticism about their practicality and validity. They all deal with temporal aspects of personality, which is in itself the essence of one(from what we know, which is limited as it is) function, intuition. It applies this temporal outlook to all types which sort of makes the idea sketchy in itself. It is an impressive show of magician-like Te, but it is in no way something for any Ti type to waste their time trying to grapple, in my opinion. I am not saying that there is not something there which can be distilled and analyzed by someone curious enough, but the showmanship invovled in pushing this idea does not reflect the true value of the thinking, which is a pathological mental shortcut floating in some cloud somewhere. It is interesting, but fuel for a naive following.

So my opinion on this matter is that everyone should be welcome to contribute their ideas and opinions of socionics on this forum. Of course, when ideas are created the individual coming up with them should state that they are an amateur and that the conclusions are unscientific(if so).

This is a fun place to visit and one I enjoy alot. It is a fascinating science with undeniable power. It has changed my life. But we must also be cautious in our speculations and with our energy. One false idea can turn us on a very crooked path of logic which will waste our time.

Here is some stuff to bring to notice:

1. We are amateurs.
2. We do not have enough information available to fully understand the science technically.
3. Socionics is a theory
4. With the exception of Lytov, no one on this forum has a degree in psychology.
5.There is alot of power in suggestion. Suggesting something to someone can convert them even though there is no real rational explanation, such as "you are an unattractive person" or "no one likes you" or something to that effect. Just because it sort of looks true at the moment does not mean it is real.

I noticed some talk on the thread in question about it being "gamma's turn". Now this is extreme! Where are the expert Socionists on this board which approved of this idea? where are the credentials, the years of experience, the fundamental and structural understanding? There is very little of that, and perhaps for good reasons. Perhaps Socionics is deliberately conservative in the amount of knowledge that trickles out to us, perhaps not, I do not know.

So for anyone new to this forum: We are amateurs. Some of us are trying to understand this science, some of us enjoy discussing it for fun, and some of study it to help themselves solve relationship troubles. There are also some of us that are trying to piece together and explain the framework and technical aspects, where there are others that are attempting to overhaul or develop the theory with insufficient understanding. We are an odd bunch, but we have fun doing what we do.

But just keep in mind that not everything that looks real is so.

Well I strayed off topic, but I think that the points are still valuable. I agree that socionics has the power to restructure society. I also believe that bad things can come out of this. There is also a potential "biotech" revolution oncoming. Those with the most money will be the ones which will be able to savor the benefits of this new era, which is terrifying.

There are many changes bound to come in this world, some very terrifying and which i do not want to experience in my lifetime. Perhaps there is purpose in it all, perhaps not. But the orwellian idea of the freezing of time by those in power, or Huxley's view of creating a social hierarchy based upon capacity are real. The are coming about right now, and they are sure to be in full swing in he coming centuries. Again, perhaps there is purpose to it all, perhaps not.

[diamond]

Thanks for those important thoughts, SFVB. And I do think they are important.

Unfortunately, there will always be those around ready to scoop up a cutting edge invention and use it for their own nefarious purposes, at least on the face of things.

I'll go out on a limb here, but it's kind of like The Pill. The primary agenda of the person who invented the pill (can't remember her name) was to save women from multiple unwanted pregnancies. This was in the days of women having 10-12 children due to no reliable birth control. The thing which she didn't expect, but which happened, was how The Pill opened the door on sex for women who until that point, were simply not having sex. So the Pill became the thing that liberated everybody sexually and with that liberation came all the well known consequences of increased sex i.e., sexually transmitted diseases, changes in gender dynamics and its effect on marriage and divorce, etc. The Pill's inventor never expected any of that - she was just trying to save women child-bearing hardship.

When something revolutionary is invented, it runs along a life course of its own! Kind of like Jurassic Park, no? It changes things in unexpected and not always welcomed ways. And these changes in large part cannot be controlled.

Tsk tsk, we alphas, and I include myself, are naive. We don't always think about what the brass will do with our wonderful inventions.

Socionics, by being explicit about relationships dynamics, can make exploitation even easier for those who are into that kind of trip. Makes me NOT want to tell my entj CEO about socionics. Who knows what she'd do once she got her hands on that information?

When socionics gets to it's Gamma stage, how will the theory be "perfected" and for whose benefit?

[SFVB]

Waddlesworth wrote:

Very nice and well phrased remarks, SFVB. This may not totally fit the context, but I couldn't help but get a Jeffersonian impression from you.

Thank you for the sentiment. I will add that your comments were substantially profound, and to have an individual with insight on this forum like yourself and others only proves the importance of developing ideas thouroughly and completely before unleashing them on society. So much good can come from those that wish to perfect and unify theories solely in the name of the truth.

Waddlesworth wrote:

I am not saying that there is not something there which can be distilled and analyzed by someone curious enough, but the showmanship invovled in pushing this idea does not reflect the true value of the thinking, which is a pathological mental shortcut floating in some cloud somewhere.

Truly well said, and not without a poetic flare if I do say so myself.

So my opinion on this matter is that everyone should be welcome to contribute their ideas and opinions of socionics on this forum. Of course, when ideas are created the individual coming up with them should state that they are an amateur and that the conclusions are unscientific(if so).

I absolutely agree. Its important that everyone here realize that years of research in a stable and academic environment are needed in order to achieve a truly accurate and solid theory. I myself am going to spend the six years getting my Ph.D because of the importance of having that environment to flesh out the numerous ideas. And until I've spent those years, and many more, I will always refer to myself as an amateur with nothing more than life experience, which everyone here has.

Waddlesworth wrote:

It has changed my life. But we must also be cautious in our speculations and with our energy. One false idea can turn us on a very crooked path of logic which will waste our time.

As it has mine, and I plan to spend the rest of my life trying to contribute to it. And I have learned, often the hard way, that speculating outside of an environment safe for doing so can result in much damage that was never intended. Indeed, many before us have been corralled down that "crooked" path of logic, and its consequences are undeniably devastating.

Waddlesworth wrote:

I noticed some talk on the thread in question about it being "gamma's turn". Now this is extreme! Where are the expert Socionists on this board which approved of this idea? Where are the credentials, the years of experience, the fundamental and structural understanding? There is very little of that, and perhaps for good reasons. Perhaps Socionics is deliberately conservative in the amount of knowledge that trickles out to us, perhaps not, I do not know.

I've often thought the same, that perhaps there are inherent safe-guards in human psychology itself to prevent us from developing it too quickly. And as for approving "gamma's turn," I too, did not get the memo.

As for the rest W-worth, well said. There is nothing that I disagree with, and I only hope that those who seek to understand socionics and implement it will adopt a measured and well-considered approach.

Blaze wrote:

Unfortunately, there will always be those around ready to scoop up a cutting edge invention and use it for their own nefarious purposes

Unfortunately, all too true. This will, as we have seen with the advent of other scientific breakthroughs, always be a threat, and perhaps people will learn from their previous mistakes through similar scientific breakthroughs and prevent those individuals from hijacking a beautiful thing.

Blaze said:

I'll go out on a limb here, but it's kind of like The Pill. The primary agenda of the person who invented the pill (can't remember her name) was to save women from multiple unwanted pregnancies. This was in the days of women having 10-12 children due to no reliable birth control. The thing which she didn't expect, but which happened, was how The Pill opened the door on sex for women who until that point, were simply not having sex. So the Pill became the thing that liberated everybody sexually and with that liberation came all the well known consequences of increased sex i.e., sexually transmitted diseases, changes in gender dynamics and its effect on marriage and divorce, etc. The Pill's inventor never expected any of that - she was just trying to save women child-bearing hardship.

Good comparison. It is much the same.

Tsk tsk, we alphas, and I include myself, are naive.

I also include myself in that, and that's why I am trying to remedy that situation for myself, as much as any "simple" minded INTj can.

Blaze wrote:

Makes me NOT want to tell my entj CEO about socionics.

Yes, I've often decided to NOT get into too much detail with people who I suspect would use it immediately for selfish purposes. In some ways, even though I'd run into similar, but less intense reactions in the past, my experience on the above mentioned thread has only made me more resolute in my belief that socionics should be introduced slowly (if at all) to a person who has an interest.

Blaze wrote:

When socionics gets to it's Gamma stage, how will the theory be "perfected" and for whose benefit?

I think, confidently, that it is not for anyone other than ENTps and INTjs to perfect the theoretical part of the model. ENTjs and INTps, if given a complete and accurate theory will implement it on a large scale, hopefully to the benefit, rather than detriment of society. But the theory itself (imo) lies strictly in the domain and natrual abilities of the INTj and ENTp.

[SFVB]

Pedro-the-Lion wrote:

This is why I suggested the evalutation of the idea via a simple excel spreadsheet. I think if you do it you will get some useful information but not super useful information like A = A or something. I don't like how this is turning into a Alpha vs. Gamma thing, who cares where ideas come from?

I think you meant to post this on the other thread, this topic relates to the dangers of individuals with intense biases and questionable agendas attempting to apply socionics.

But the point is we shouldn't be whining about how it "can't be done" but merely display our objections and then let the realization of them dawn upon the person hearing them.

The issue isn't whether it can be done, but rather whether it should (and no one is whining). I have no doubt that mathematicians will eventually take over socionics and develop various equations for predicting people's actions, but my issue comes from the problem of whether this theory is complete and ready to have this done. I also question the motivations of ANYONE with strong biases toward one particular group, in this case psychological. I don't WANT to be referred to as an "alpha," nor do I care to refer to anyone else as such. Unfortunately, on this forum, it has become commonplace to do this,

Then we can work together and overcome the obstacles instead of not participating and having our views excluded by default thus causing an inferior state of affairs.

As for worrying about having my views excluded on an internet forum's half-baked attempt at inventing a new system, I don't. It is quite commonplace for people (regardless of type), to want to circumvent the natural order of things and put their two cents in where it doesn't belong, but that inevitably results in crappy results (read Annie Murphy Paul's "The Cult of Personality), which disappear (sometimes slowly, regrettably) into history. My fear is not for the current state of affairs on this forum...which, is irrelevent to the world at large, but rather for the window into what is possible much further down the road.