This thread is dedicated to how we should apply socionics in real life. I have never seen any attempt to develop a working ethic, which is a vital part of every philosophy. Here are a list of questions I feel are important and my answers. If you disagree with any of these, or have you own questions, I invite you to share your own list.
1. Are all the types necessary?
- Yes.
The world is infinitely more complex than any person can understand. To be functional, every person must focus their attention on a section of reality that is simple enough to work with. Once a person focuses their attention, they create unconscious blind spots. Problems attack us from every angle, regardless of if we are prepared for them. Our weaknesses are vulnerable when we are alone, but in society, potentially, we use our strengths to cover for each other.
What types, besides identity, are the most similar? Mirror? Quasi-Identical? Kindred? Business? Duality? Mirage? Benefit? Conversely, which types are the most different? Conflict? Super Ego? Extinguishment? Duality? Mirage? Business? Benefit? Wait, some of those types are on both lists. As I have thought about this, I have realized that I something in common and in opposition to every type in the abstract. If you try this exercise honestly, you will eventually put most, if not all types on both lists. They will all different and similar but not in the same ways, and you will not be able to say which type is the true opposite.
So if every type has a unique perspective, society needs all types, because missing any would leave a society critically weakened and disabled.
2. Are all the type equal?
- Ultimately yes. Situationally maybe.
If you accept my first point, that all type are necessary, the implication is that eliminating any type (if such a thing was possible) would lead to the collapse of society. If you keep this conviction in mind, you can see even the people that annoy you and you want nothing to do with are serving a vital purpose. Killing them harms yourself.
A metaphor I have thought of is, if you had to choose to remove one system in your body, would you rather lose your nervous, circulatory, integument, respiratory, muscular, skeletal or lymphatic system? The question, of course, is absurd - losing any one of these would kill you. The only way the body can exist is with all parts working together.
I also come to this feeling of respect when reversing the intertype relationships. If you are close to someone, think about what they do that you are grateful for, or that annoys you. If you can reduce it to the laws of socionics, then assume the feeling is mutual, and see yourself through their eyes with your emotion. If you look yourself this way, you will realize to your horror that you have just as many faults as everyone else, and to your relief, just as many strengths.
So from both the societal and relational side, I think you have to say all people have equal worth. However, I don't know how to "prove" this, so let's consider the alternative. Let's say we are not equal, who is better than who? You will probably say your are the best and judge everyone else from your point of view. But everyone will feel this way. Nobody will accept that have the right to tell them what to do, they will rightly assume they have the correct perspective for themselves. Then, the only way for you to make people submit to your will is to gain power over them and rule them by force. But a government should exist for the people, if you do not serve them, the people become your enemy, and nothing of value that you accomplish will last after your death, only your power structures will remain. The greater the power structures, the more they frustrate the people's natural development, and the more people must either submit, be damaged and less effective in society, or the more they have to be egocentric, pushing back and imposing their will on the world. In either case, you have either stunted the society or created an atmosphere of narcissism. Good job.
...Will edit and add more later, but I have to go celebrate the 4th of July, USA's Independence day. Here are some more questions, I'm thinking about. I might change them when I answer them.
In what circumstances can socionics be applied?
How do you avoid stereotyping and bigotry?
Should you treat someone differently if you know their type?
Should you make dating / marital decision based on socionics?
If you are married and you believe you have major issues based on clashing personalities, is this grounds for a divorce?
Should you make educational or career decision based on socionics?
Is it better to not share your type with strangers?
And more.
1. Are all the types necessary?
- Yes.
The world is infinitely more complex than any person can understand. To be functional, every person must focus their attention on a section of reality that is simple enough to work with. Once a person focuses their attention, they create unconscious blind spots. Problems attack us from every angle, regardless of if we are prepared for them. Our weaknesses are vulnerable when we are alone, but in society, potentially, we use our strengths to cover for each other.
What types, besides identity, are the most similar? Mirror? Quasi-Identical? Kindred? Business? Duality? Mirage? Benefit? Conversely, which types are the most different? Conflict? Super Ego? Extinguishment? Duality? Mirage? Business? Benefit? Wait, some of those types are on both lists. As I have thought about this, I have realized that I something in common and in opposition to every type in the abstract. If you try this exercise honestly, you will eventually put most, if not all types on both lists. They will all different and similar but not in the same ways, and you will not be able to say which type is the true opposite.
So if every type has a unique perspective, society needs all types, because missing any would leave a society critically weakened and disabled.
2. Are all the type equal?
- Ultimately yes. Situationally maybe.
If you accept my first point, that all type are necessary, the implication is that eliminating any type (if such a thing was possible) would lead to the collapse of society. If you keep this conviction in mind, you can see even the people that annoy you and you want nothing to do with are serving a vital purpose. Killing them harms yourself.
A metaphor I have thought of is, if you had to choose to remove one system in your body, would you rather lose your nervous, circulatory, integument, respiratory, muscular, skeletal or lymphatic system? The question, of course, is absurd - losing any one of these would kill you. The only way the body can exist is with all parts working together.
I also come to this feeling of respect when reversing the intertype relationships. If you are close to someone, think about what they do that you are grateful for, or that annoys you. If you can reduce it to the laws of socionics, then assume the feeling is mutual, and see yourself through their eyes with your emotion. If you look yourself this way, you will realize to your horror that you have just as many faults as everyone else, and to your relief, just as many strengths.
So from both the societal and relational side, I think you have to say all people have equal worth. However, I don't know how to "prove" this, so let's consider the alternative. Let's say we are not equal, who is better than who? You will probably say your are the best and judge everyone else from your point of view. But everyone will feel this way. Nobody will accept that have the right to tell them what to do, they will rightly assume they have the correct perspective for themselves. Then, the only way for you to make people submit to your will is to gain power over them and rule them by force. But a government should exist for the people, if you do not serve them, the people become your enemy, and nothing of value that you accomplish will last after your death, only your power structures will remain. The greater the power structures, the more they frustrate the people's natural development, and the more people must either submit, be damaged and less effective in society, or the more they have to be egocentric, pushing back and imposing their will on the world. In either case, you have either stunted the society or created an atmosphere of narcissism. Good job.
...Will edit and add more later, but I have to go celebrate the 4th of July, USA's Independence day. Here are some more questions, I'm thinking about. I might change them when I answer them.
In what circumstances can socionics be applied?
How do you avoid stereotyping and bigotry?
Should you treat someone differently if you know their type?
Should you make dating / marital decision based on socionics?
If you are married and you believe you have major issues based on clashing personalities, is this grounds for a divorce?
Should you make educational or career decision based on socionics?
Is it better to not share your type with strangers?
And more.