Really, there should be no normative content whatsoever, so even calling all evil things weak ethical should not be done.
You are insisting normative elements should be taken into account by a theory that doesn't try to make normative claims. To me, that would only muddy the waters and worsen the current situation.
I don't buy this. Read the my latest post in the thread.Originally Posted by ouronis
I'm not sure exactly which angle to focus on to resolve your issue, but a question: is it socionics that explains away behavior as relative or its practioners? Another way to look at it might be that socionics doesn't have the power to explain it and people try to use it to fill in gaps anyway like folding dough.
But I understand your concern, at least I think. I won't defend it, I think it's the result of the interference of people's individual emotional calculus with the idea of socionics or mbti or whatever.
I agree with this. I also personally find it to be a good thing lol. Yes a system that fills in all the gaps explicitly for "why" like @Singu always complains about would be really amazing if it could be possible, but I think it would also take out the fun of understanding people for me. It would also have to get into things like presumptions about people's childhoods and explicitly state universal human values, which would make it seem overly humanistically biased and make it be taken less seriously in the general sense. It makes sense that something like pure Kryptonite for social interactions doesn't exist, and you wouldn't want it to anyway. There's so much to explore and discover in life, love and people.
It's for the simple reason that if you can't explain "why", then you have no idea if it has anything to do with it or not.
Saying that there's a "type" is another way of saying that if someone is a certain way, then there's a very high probability that the person will be acting in the same way in the future. Which may be true.
But that's just an assumption that the person will be acting in the same or similar way in the future. It does in no way explain why he's acting in that way. It's just an attempt at predicting behavior and bypassing having to explain things. And a bad attempt at that, since true prediction isn't just expecting the same past trend to continue. Somebody may suddenly change his mind, and then what? The prediction then becomes impossible.
But you can explain why he changed his mind.
Honestly this probably just doesn't bother me because I'm good at theoryweaving about why people are the way they are, in addition to enjoying being given the opportunity to do so. It's like a hangman game where you're given a few hints and get the joy of guessing and testing it and eventually figuring out the answer on your own. It's the blanks in the information that make it fun like a game.
You can also collect information each time you make a correct explanation for some specific individual situation, and add it back into your framework. HMM I wonder, maybe that's how everybody's been using Socionics all along. -.-
Yes you naturally come up with theories, because that's what people naturally do all the time. But Socionics is about removing and expunging all those theories and theorizing from its system.
You may think that Socionics is a theory, but if it were, then it would come up with explanations for why people are the way that they are.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote