Typology Causing Relativism

[Desert Financial]

Have you ever wondered if typology systems like socionics roll out the carpet for relativism?

I recently read an argument from David Wong, an author and proponent of soft relativism, that stated ethical relativism hinges on an explanation for why people view the world differently. For example, we could posit that individuals develop their belief systems under separate social contexts, leading to a plurality of viewpoints. Or, we could argue that individuals develop a variety of beliefs because they have differing neurological makeup.

So, since typology systems like socionics offer explanations for why people prefer different things and think in different ways, do you think that typology can justify relativism?

[Bertrand]

when people start talking about ethics in the context of cause/effect I think its already off on the wrong foot

[Desert Financial]

when people start talking about ethics in the context of cause/effect I think its already off on the wrong foot

It makes it spicier.

[ashlesha]

This forum is an example of how people can accept that others are limited to seeing the world in certain ways and still take action to demonstrate that they don't consider the resultant worldviews or behavior to be acceptable or ethical.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Ethics is naturally relative, because it is subjective.

Matters of fact are not subjective.

[The Reality Denialist]

I suppose relativism works as long as you do not contribute something seemingly noticeable that will have an effect person next to you or far away. We can certainly understand that there are multiple views, however understanding it is not same as accepting it because at some point in time in order to live we have to feed the body and on this very grassroots level we already see multiple views that will fight with each other.

However there are lots of gradients out there that will match better with each other. To understand how to configure closely a perfect match seems quite daunting. [Typology, hah. Seems like nice solution until you figure that there are multiple factors at play.]

If we just could function inside of our own bubble. Let's put on our VR helmets cut the internet access and forget this life.

[Aramas]

Have you ever wondered if typology systems like socionics roll out the carpet for relativism?

I recently read an argument from David Wong, an author and proponent of soft relativism, that stated ethical relativism hinges on an explanation for why people view the world differently. For example, we could posit that individuals develop their belief systems under separate social contexts, leading to a plurality of viewpoints. Or, we could argue that individuals develop a variety of beliefs because they have differing neurological makeup.

So, since typology systems like socionics offer explanations for why people prefer different things and think in different ways, do you think that typology can justify relativism?

Forget relativism. Try nihilism. Strong feelings often convince people that their feelings are objective when they are not. Yes, that's circular logic, but since when have people ever been logical? The universe is non-teleological. The quadras are opposing. Opposite values cancel out. Nothing remains. People like believing in objective values because it's comforting. But life is life, whether we like it or not. And yet, how much easier would it be to get along if we acknowledged that morality is just what we want and desire? Maybe we could compromise then. Instead, we pretend the universe is somehow in agreement with us and us alone.

[Grendel]

GUISE DIDN'T'CHA HEAR?!?!?!?! MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE!!! DENNIS PRAGER TOLD ME SO!!!! HOW COULD GOD DUDN'T REAL IF MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE??!?!??!111? CHECKMATE ATHEISDS!!!!

[Aramas]

GUISE DIDN'T'CHA HEAR?!?!?!?! MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE!!! DENNIS PRAGER TOLD ME SO!!!! HOW COULD GOD DUDN'T REAL IF MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE??!?!??!111? CHECKMATE ATHEISDS!!!!

Morality must be objective, because how else could Prager make money by flapping his trap?

[Exodus]

I find that if you understand socionics correctly, it doesn't promote relativism.

Yes, people place different priorities on different IM elements but this doesn't mean that in a particular circumstance there is no right approach or decision. For example, if someone is literally stabbing you with a knife, is it a good idea to try to be peaceful and reconcile with them? No, you should defend yourself.

Similarly, that kind of violent reaction would be wildly inappropriate in another situation.

Of course, there are other areas where there is more leeway for different approaches, like managing a company, choosing a career, etc.

One thing that socionics theory doesn't currently address is exactly how you are to reconcile opposing elements. If this is done explicitly it will show the "absolute" aspect of the theory.

[Metamorph]

Have you ever wondered if typology systems like socionics roll out the carpet for relativism?

I recently read an argument from David Wong, an author and proponent of soft relativism, that stated ethical relativism hinges on an explanation for why people view the world differently. For example, we could posit that individuals develop their belief systems under separate social contexts, leading to a plurality of viewpoints. Or, we could argue that individuals develop a variety of beliefs because they have differing neurological makeup.

So, since typology systems like socionics offer explanations for why people prefer different things and think in different ways, do you think that typology can justify relativism?

People use typology to make excuses for people's poor behavior all the time, and I'm glad you noticed that. But I don't think people having different beliefs is some dirty idea, or that typology directly causes people to accept literally anything.

[Metamorph]

This forum is an example of how people can accept that others are limited to seeing the world in certain ways and still take action to demonstrate that they don't consider the resultant worldviews or behavior to be acceptable or ethical.

[Metamorph]

One thing that socionics theory doesn't currently address is exactly how you are to reconcile opposing elements. If this is done explicitly it will show the "absolute" aspect of the theory.

It seems like that's the job of enneagram, which is 100% non-absolute. There should be basically no relationship between enneagram and socionics in theory though it seems like there is. You can derive enneagram from socionics and vice versa if you can trisect an angle. Go for it. E6 in enneagram is the center though, not 9, since it's 2 x 3.

[sbbds]

So, since typology systems like socionics offer explanations for why people prefer different things and think in different ways, do you think that typology can justify [people preferring different things and thinking in different ways]?

..

[Number 9 large]

Justify is a big word

[Number 9 large]

Id say rectify

[Exodus]

It seems like that's the job of enneagram, which is 100% non-absolute. There should be basically no relationship between enneagram and socionics in theory though it seems like there is. You can derive enneagram from socionics and vice versa if you can trisect an angle. Go for it. E6 in enneagram is the center though, not 9, since it's 2 x 3.

Enneagram is no more "non-absolute" than socionics: the circular system is an absolute structure that contains all of the types and their differences.

I have no interest in "deriving socionics from the Enneagram" - the Enneagram is a flawed system. But it may be possible to derive something like it from socionics, who knows.

[Metamorph]

Enneagram is no more "non-absolute" than socionics: the circular system is an absolute structure that contains all of the types and their differences.

I have no interest in "deriving socionics from the Enneagram" - the Enneagram is a flawed system. But it may be possible to derive something like it from socionics, who knows.

Not really. All the enneacults seem to be resorting to fractals because the enneagram types seem to only interact with the ones connected to them by adding 5 and 7 like the Sufis did with the original version so you never see the same dynamic twice. On the other hand all socionics types have relationships between each other no matter where they are. I would try to derive socionics from the actual enneagram symbol, not the psychological descriptions and especially not the dumb psychoanalytic versions.

[Exodus]

Not really. All the enneacults seem to be resorting to fractals because the enneagram types seem to only interact with the ones connected to them by adding 5 and 7 like the Sufis did with the original version so you never see the same dynamic twice. On the other hand all socionics types have relationships between each other no matter where they are. I would try to derive socionics from the actual enneagram symbol, not the psychological descriptions and especially not the dumb psychoanalytic versions.

Uh, what? So 1s don't interact with 3s? You seem to have missed my point - they all have a place in the same absolute structure and therefore are related.

The Enneagram symbol should be derived from the symbol of socionics which is the cube.

[WVBRY]

The Enneagram symbol should be derived from the symbol of socionics which is the cube.

Why do you say that?

The enneagram symbol comes from Gurdjieff, who claimed it was lifted off some sufi sect called the "Sarmoung brotherhood" which may be fact or it may be fiction, most likely Gurdjieff didn't come up with the symbol on his own.

[Pearson]

Have you ever wondered if typology systems like socionics roll out the carpet for relativism?

Relativism itself is not only result of typology systems, but sometimes it is also a result of sudden great change in something, whether it one own self, the big outer picture, or both of them.

For one own self, try to contemplate about what happened when someone have sudden great change in life, like existential crisis for example.

For the big picture, let's take example of Genghis Khan. By expanding his own realm at the expense of others, he make great impact. He slaughter many people in other kingdoms while also make great change on many culture. This cause many chaosness everywhere, one of them is great change in people culture which create relativistic condition in people life.

I recently read an argument from David Wong, an author and proponent of soft relativism, that stated ethical relativism hinges on an explanation for why people view the world differently. For example, we could posit that individuals develop their belief systems under separate social contexts, leading to a plurality of viewpoints. Or, we could argue that individuals develop a variety of beliefs because they have differing neurological makeup.

So, since typology systems like socionics offer explanations for why people prefer different things and think in different ways, do you think that typology can justify relativism?

Yes and No toward some extent. When speaking about relativism, it always exist everywhere in our life. Typology like socionics itself actually could justify some relativism on a person or increase it, depend on how people use it and many other real life factors which we don't have control over them.

[Exodus]

Why do you say that?

The enneagram symbol comes from Gurdjieff, who claimed it was lifted off some sufi sect called the "Sarmoung brotherhood" which may be fact or it may be fiction, most likely Gurdjieff didn't come up with the symbol on his own.

It makes no difference whether he came up with it on his own. The socionics cube is the fundamental structure of reality.

The number nine has significance but everything is based on four. Take it from a real Sufi:

"Every fortress has four basic elements, and “There is no god but Allah” consists of four words (in Arabic), so each word is a basic element. When its parts are interconnected, the fortress becomes complete. Just as the declaration has four basic elements in its outer form, it has four basic elements in its inner meaning: namely, the ritual prayer (salāt), the alms-due (zakāt), the fast (sawm) and the pilgrimage (hajj). It is itself the fifth, since “Islām is built upon five (pillars).” This declaration consists of four words, and the letters (in the Arabic spelling) add up to twelve. Particularly significant are the four letters that spell the Name of Majesty (Allah) which occur in the declaration, because its affirmation is the purpose and the intention (of the declaration). The significance of this number “four” is truly remarkable. The elements are four, there are four natural humors, there are four Scriptures, the Caliphs are four in number, and the schools of Islamic law and jurisprudence (madhāhib) are four. Most of things existing in the universe have been formed in a quadrilateral shape. The human being is a rectangular quadrilateral, and so are most of the animals. Houses have four sides, and so do doors. Books are bound in quadrilateral volumes. Mosques are quadrilateral, and it is actually considered reprehensible to perform the ritual prayer in any place of worship that is not quadrilateral (in dimension). The directions are four, and so are the winds. The degrees of nearness (to Allah) are four, they being the degree of the Prophets, the champions of truth, the martyrs, and the righteous. Human subtleties are four in number, they being the mind, the soul, the heart and the spirit. If four is multiplied by itself, the result is sixteen; this number is the sum of the seven heavens, the seven earths, the Throne and the Pedestal."

-Ibn Arabi

[WVBRY]

@thehotelambush to clarify: I am talking about the origins of the enneagram, and thus who came up with it, is the point.

It seems we are talking about two different things, however. It seems you're talking about numerology but the way you phrased the sentence I quoted I wasn't sure what you meant.

[Exodus]

@thehotelambush to clarify: I am talking about the origins of the enneagram, and thus who came up with it, is the point.

It seems we are talking about two different things, however. It seems you're talking about numerology but the way you phrased the sentence I quoted I wasn't sure what you meant.

Sorry, I thought I was still talking to @coeruleum. You can read here for some idea of the significance of the cube.

[WVBRY]

Sorry, I thought I was still talking to @coeruleum. You can read here for some idea of the significance of the cube.

Do we really seem that much alike?

Alrighty, thanks for the link.

[Exodus]

Do we really seem that much alike?

I think it's because you have no profile picture

[Metamorph]

The way I phrased it would be making the two systems equivalent. I don't think either is the ultimate structure of reality. The ultimate structure of reality seems to just be a 5-dimensional version of Euclidean geometry. In order of diminishing "size" of the dimensions, you have width, height, depth, time, and basically imagination. I'm skeptical of theories of everything though. I'm sure there are all sorts of theories of everything but if you grasped one all at once you'd basically be back to having a supernatural experience anyways which is what people are trying to negate, so it's no wonder people can't prove any of them.

[WVBRY]

I think it's because you have no profile picture

Lol, those just drive me nuts, it's like I can't just chose an image that represents "me" so I decided to go faceless.

[Skepsis]

If one looks at the larger picture, typology can only be about the furthest reaches of human cognition, of which we all fall somewhere within. It marks the boundaries. There are some individuals who are representative of these edges, but it is important to note that most individuals fall in between. Most aren't either/or, hot or cold, thinking or feeling, sensing or intuition, but are somewhere in the middle; most are warm.

[Singu]

If one looks at the larger picture, typology can only be about the furthest reaches of human cognition, of which we all fall somewhere within. It marks the boundaries. There are some individuals who are representative of these edges, but it is important to note that most individuals fall in between. Most aren't either/or, hot or cold, thinking or feeling, sensing or intuition, but are somewhere in the middle; most are warm.

You know, I think these supposed "dualities" are merely two separate observations that have yet to have a larger picture explanation.

For example, it might seem paradoxical that human beings are both cooperative and competitive, even hostile at times. Why should someone who would help a total stranger, at the same time go to a war with another country to kill other human beings? How could hostility arise out of general cooperativeness and generosity? That seems to make little sense.

Well it turns out that it's because it's more advantageous to cooperate with those who are close to you, such as your relatives or your immediate social circles, and compete with those who are outside of your social circles. This is basically what created "tribalism".

So it's not as if you're either cooperative or hostile. It's not as if there are "cooperative people" and "competitive people". It's not as if cooperative people "dualizes" with competitive people. There's a bit of both in everyone. And this required a larger context explanation in order to understand why this is such a case.

I think that it's the same for feelings vs thinking. We have yet to have a clear explanation for why should people have both feeling and thinking.

[Skepsis]

You know, I think these supposed "dualities" are merely two separate observations that have yet to have a larger picture explanation.

For example, it might seem paradoxical that human beings are both cooperative and competitive, even hostile at times. Why should someone who would help a total stranger, at the same time go to a war with another country to kill other human beings? How could hostility arise out of general cooperativeness and generosity? That seems to make little sense.

Well it turns out that it's because it's more advantageous to cooperate with those who are close to you, such as your relatives or your immediate social circles, and compete with those who are outside of your social circles. This is basically what created "tribalism".

So it's not as if you're either cooperative or hostile. It's not as if there are "cooperative people" and "competitive people". It's not as if cooperative people "dualizes" with competitive people. There's a bit of both in everyone. And this required a larger context explanation in order to understand why this is such a case.

I think that it's the same for feelings vs thinking. We have yet to have a clear explanation for why should people have both feeling and thinking.

I think yo are on the right track. There are different aspects of our nature that arises in different circumstances. In one environment, a person may use certain parts of their brain more than others, but switch to other parts when in an entirely different environment. This is something that is often left out of the equation when people "type" other people. They are only looking at small point in time, like an expression, statement, or behavior, and assume that this represents the future, present, and past of the individual, which is a really narrow and shortsighted view of individuals. A more accurate representation, which include observations and objective(relatively) assessments throughout one's life, would be more reflective of the variance that exists within each of us, something that dogmatic Jungians refuse to accept.

It is interesting to observe on a forum of self-annointed intuitives that so many blindly accept such binary conceptions of human cognition and cannot see the various shades of grey. I don't deny that they may be "intuitives", just that there is some irony that many are quick to type others as "sensors" or "feelers"(which is code for inferiority) when they aren't all that intuitive or logical themselves, just more so than others on the scale. It all begs the question of what we mean by the terms being used. Perhaps we should all be type X until someone demonstrates something remarkably strong. But what is the point beside establishing some cyber-hierarchy? Why should having a type even matter? I would rather except that each of us are rather complex and variable in nature than pre-programmed robots that follow the cognitive stack in such a robotic, predictable way. Socionics is too neat and categorical and absolute to be representative of human cognition. It would be better that it be used as a language of comparison, like a series of metaphors to draw distinctions when circumstances call for it. A "type" would be contingent on the circumstances, but subject to change depending on the perspective. It should not try to be scientific. It is not a science. It is a philosophical perspective.

[Exodus]

If one looks at the larger picture, typology can only be about the furthest reaches of human cognition, of which we all fall somewhere within. It marks the boundaries. There are some individuals who are representative of these edges, but it is important to note that most individuals fall in between. Most aren't either/or, hot or cold, thinking or feeling, sensing or intuition, but are somewhere in the middle; most are warm.

I don't see the logic behind this. A type is a specialization. Most people are either male or female, not "in the middle". Most people are right-handed or left-handed, and the exceptions are few and far between. Sociotype is like that.

[Skepsis]

I don't see the logic behind this. A type is a specialization. Most people are either male or female, not "in the middle". Most people are right-handed or left-handed, and the exceptions are few and far between. Sociotype is like that.

This is a categorical error. Cognition is much more complex and variable than being right or left handed. The same can be said of gender construction. There is a large overlap between the "male" brain and the "female" brain. What we mean is that men and women, on average, have cognitive strengths. The average male and female brain may be distinct, but a minority of women overlap with the average male, and 50 % of men have a less than average male brain(more feminine) and 50 percent of females have a more masculine brain than the average female. Yet, in actuality, the really masculine and really feminine are the minority. This is because of the guassian distribution of said group of traits.

We no longer have such a black and white understanding of males and females. Our understanding has increased with time.

[Singu]

I don't see the logic behind this. A type is a specialization. Most people are either male or female, not "in the middle". Most people are right-handed or left-handed, and the exceptions are few and far between. Sociotype is like that.

And yet there's no real distinction between right-handed people and left-handed people, so separating people into "right-handed types" and "left-handed types" is pointless:

One thing we do know, though, is that the neurological differences between left- and right-handed people are small, and supposed behavioral or psychological distinctions have largely been debunked.

"The more social the animal — where cooperation is highly valued — the more the general population will trend toward one side," Daniel Abrams, an assistant professor at the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science who helped develop the model, told LiveScience.

"The most important factor for an efficient society is a high degree of cooperation," he added. "In humans, this has resulted in a right-handed majority."

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...-handed-2018-1

Certainly, there are some genuine differences between men and women. But we can't simply say that "A woman did this, therefore it must be a woman thing". It requires a larger picture explanation, like the right-handed, left-handed explanation above in order to truly know whether it's a "woman thing" or not.

Can Socionics offer a larger picture explanation? Well no, because there is no explanation in Socionics, just observations. It still reverts back to separating people into "right-handed types" and "left-handed types", and then attributing certain qualities according to their observations. And we can't say that there's no difference, because "We have observed that they are different, therefore they must be different".

This ends up in knowing what's "not type-related" (because there are explanations for them), but we don't know what is "type related".

So at this point, what is even the point of having an explanationless, observation only theory, when there are already so many other rival theories with full explanations? At this point, Socionics is an extra baggage that needs to be cut off with Occam's Razor.

[Number 9 large]

And yet there's no real distinction between right-handed people and left-handed people, so separating people into "right-handed types" is pointless

The difference between left handed and right handed people obviously implies preference for either hand, are you retarded?

[WVBRY]

The difference between left handed and right handed people obviously implies preference for either hand, are you retarded?

He means differences in the use of the brain (neurological differences) or in behaviors.

[Number 9 large]

He means differences in the use of the brain or in behaviors, as is kinda obvious by the quote he posted afterwards...

Has it ever occurred to him that maybe we dont need "huge brainwaves" to put a distinction between 2 preferences?

[WVBRY]

Has it ever occurred to him that maybe we dont need "huge brainwaves" to put a distinction between 2 preferences?

That's true.

I think there's been some research by Lenore Thomson into different areas of the brain corresponding to different Jungian functions, which I think is great, but even if it doesn't hold up it doesn't mean socionics is bullshit.

[sbbds]

I think Socionics implies that God exists in the same way the banana fitting into the human hand thing does. Especially with the concept of duality.

Or at least some overarching uncannily and serendipitously towards the soul, geometrizing force.

[Singu]

The difference between left handed and right handed people obviously implies preference for either hand, are you retarded?

Has it ever occurred to him that maybe we dont need "huge brainwaves" to put a distinction between 2 preferences?

You didn't even read the article:

It was previously thought that the genetic differences between the left and right hemispheres of the brain determine whether someone is left- or right-handed. But a study published last year in the journal eLife found that the answer could lie in the spinal cord.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...-handed-2018-1

But the point is to demonstrate the fact that the preference for either hand has nothing to do with behavioral differences. The real explanation lies in the fact that a certain evolutionary course has decided the right-handed dominance in favor, by pure chance, for more efficiency and cooperation among humans.

So to seek explanations in "right-handed people and left-handed people are different, we must make distinctions between the two" is to miss the point (because there actually is no difference). The entire reason was purely coincidental and accidental. The real reason and the real explanation for why some people are right-handed and some left-handed, and why there were so few left-handed people, lied in the fact that the more social and more cooperative a species is, the more the general population will trend toward one side.