Then we'd be better off calling them Quadra Hypocrisies if that's the case?Originally Posted by Luminous Lynx
Eh, I'm trying to address this vis-a-vis Socionics… but I can't get away from the fact that it sounds like a fairly typical view for Millennials and younger re: free speech in this foul year of our lord 2019.If I understand Ragdoll correctly, an example of this could be an Alpha individual saying that "Free speech is ideal but should have reasonable limits" (eg: 'offensive' speech), yet would be tremendously resistant to and offended if you were to silence them. That is to say, 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. I'm not saying Alphas commonly do this, nor am I saying they are alone in this, it is simply an example of what I understood from Ragdoll's point.
Or, we could leave quadra-specific socionormative prescriptions behind altogether. And evaluate whether it's more the thematic style of one's valuational outlooks that's quadra-indicative rather than the particular content or moral assertions thereof.Technically, I could see how one could make the argument that what constitutes most 'societal values' is simply a bunch of individuals asserting their own needs and desires, but I still thought what Ragdoll said was a worthwhile distinction, as it permits for ostensible incongruities in Quadra stereotypes on the individual level (someone not fitting the expected mold), while also explaining how certain concepts nevertheless apply at the individual level.
Socionics pertains to information metabolism (as opposed to information processing). So I find a qualitative approach more illuminating.
Reply With Quote