Originally Posted by
Noir
While I personally will probably never attempt to type her (I'll explain why in a sec), I do appreciate that you are not assessing a person's capability to do X or Y via Socionics dimensionality. So many people do that, and I've come very close to ranting about it on here multiple times — particularly after seeing it being done to someone else in a particular context that pissed me the hell off. It was used to invalidate and dismiss them, making them unseen/unheard for no good reason. People were abusing a theoretical personality system by using it in a destructive way against someone else. I still haven't been able to get past my anger about that one. Toward me - okay, I can let it go, it's no big deal to me because I can take whatever is dished out. If I defend my ground, there's a reason. When it's done to others that are innocent in the situation, though, and is therefore unjust…I'm inclined to step in on behalf of them, defending them and confronting the situation for them. There is just no telling how harmful things will be to someone else's psyche, and that unjust risk of them being harmed when they don't deserve it pisses me the hell off. That's probably the 8-ness/826-ness in me, I guess.
The reason I will never type her is due to only seeing her in a single, specific, professional, public setting. Those who have gone through uni majoring in psychology are deliberately trained to use very specific language intended to accommodate clients with trauma and other sensitivities. Even psychologists are not supposed to diagnose public figures due to only seeing them in public. It's called the Goldwater Rule. I see typing people in a similar manner, especially when it's known that they are presenting themselves in a specific way that may not align with their personal selves.
Slightly derailed with this post, sorry, just wanted to say that real quick.
Reply With Quote