I'm sure we now all agree that the Darwin's theory of evolution correctly explains that things gradually change from one thing to the next, without having any intermediate "gaps" in the transition. The opposite view of this is called saltationism, which is the belief that new species suddenly appear by "instantaneous transition from one form to the next", without the gradual process of having to go through intermediate steps.
The problem of this approach has been explained in such a way:
For example in political philosophy the "quantum jump" is called revolution, and the absurd error is that progress can be made by violently sweeping away existing political institutions and starting from scratch. In the phiosophy of science it is Thomas Kuhn's idea that science proceeds via revolutions—i.e. victories of one faction over another, both of which are unable to alter their respective "paradigms" rationally. In biology the "quantum jump" is called saltation: the appearance of a new adaptation from one generation to the next, and the absurd error is called saltationism.
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25453
The problem is that logically, there will always be something that will intermediate between something, and things don't just "jump" from one thing to another without having that logical explanation. Darwin correctly recognized this, and so did Einstein (the lack of intermediacy in the "force" of gravity is something that actually greatly perturbed Newton, because it seemed logically absurd to him).
--
It seems that Socionics doesn't even have the correct philosophical premise in this regard, as the theory of the progression of the Quadras imply that there's a sudden "jump" in the transition of one historical epoch to another, where one faction violently takes over from another faction, and that's how things "progress".
In Socionics, it is claimed changes in societies and cultures are due to sudden changes in Quadra values, without having an intermediate stage that can explain the transition. So it is claimed that the progression of the human history: "Primitive culture -> feudalism -> democracy -> perfected state" can be explained by the factional takeover of Alpha -> Beta -> Gamm -> Delta.
But for example, there was an intermediate stage that connected between feudalism and the modern democracy that we have today (such as the Magna Carta, and the constitutional monarchy that kept much of the political system from monarchism, but has been improved to make it democratic).
This obviously can't be explained Socionically, as there are no intermediate Quadras. It is claimed that the transition from Fe to Fi and Ti to Te are due to changes in takeovers by "types" or persons, and so there is no gradual process, and they cannot rationally change their views and perspectives. There will always be factional struggles between Betas vs. Gammas for example. But how can the Gammas just "know" when to make it democratic, when all the systems are in place to make it possible to have a large-scale, modern democratic system? The reason why there's a gap in this knowledge is because there is a literal gap due to the absence of an intermediate stage. The intermediate stage between feudalism and democracy was something like the Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy and the French Revolution. Nobody "knew" when was the best time to make it democratic, and nobody had planned it to get democracy going at a specific time. This was a gradual and an organic process. People had to become gradually convinced that democracy was a good thing. It was an evolution, not a literal revolution.
And yet Socionics effectively says that the Gammas are democratic from the start. That obviously doesn't happen in reality, without having an intermediate stage that closes the gap of the sudden leap in knowledge. That would be like the Western countries invading other countries, and saying they should just become democratic after the political takeover without having any previous knowledge or system in place to base it on, or without having to convince the people there that democracy is a good thing (this was exemplified by the invasion of Iraq, which had a disastrous result that didn't suddenly result in democracy).
So there's an obvious explanation of why things gradually changed in this way, that can't be explained by Socionics. The reason is that feudalism is at least better than primitive societies or nomadic cultures, and democracy is better than feudalism and so on. It simply gradually improved from one thing to the next, much like in evolution. And you cannot suddenly "jump" to the modern democracy that we have now, without having some system already in place, such as the political system left over from feudalism.
The problem of this approach has been explained in such a way:
Quote:
For example in political philosophy the "quantum jump" is called revolution, and the absurd error is that progress can be made by violently sweeping away existing political institutions and starting from scratch. In the phiosophy of science it is Thomas Kuhn's idea that science proceeds via revolutions—i.e. victories of one faction over another, both of which are unable to alter their respective "paradigms" rationally. In biology the "quantum jump" is called saltation: the appearance of a new adaptation from one generation to the next, and the absurd error is called saltationism.
The problem is that logically, there will always be something that will intermediate between something, and things don't just "jump" from one thing to another without having that logical explanation. Darwin correctly recognized this, and so did Einstein (the lack of intermediacy in the "force" of gravity is something that actually greatly perturbed Newton, because it seemed logically absurd to him).
--
It seems that Socionics doesn't even have the correct philosophical premise in this regard, as the theory of the progression of the Quadras imply that there's a sudden "jump" in the transition of one historical epoch to another, where one faction violently takes over from another faction, and that's how things "progress".
In Socionics, it is claimed changes in societies and cultures are due to sudden changes in Quadra values, without having an intermediate stage that can explain the transition. So it is claimed that the progression of the human history: "Primitive culture -> feudalism -> democracy -> perfected state" can be explained by the factional takeover of Alpha -> Beta -> Gamm -> Delta.
But for example, there was an intermediate stage that connected between feudalism and the modern democracy that we have today (such as the Magna Carta, and the constitutional monarchy that kept much of the political system from monarchism, but has been improved to make it democratic).
This obviously can't be explained Socionically, as there are no intermediate Quadras. It is claimed that the transition from Fe to Fi and Ti to Te are due to changes in takeovers by "types" or persons, and so there is no gradual process, and they cannot rationally change their views and perspectives. There will always be factional struggles between Betas vs. Gammas for example. But how can the Gammas just "know" when to make it democratic, when all the systems are in place to make it possible to have a large-scale, modern democratic system? The reason why there's a gap in this knowledge is because there is a literal gap due to the absence of an intermediate stage. The intermediate stage between feudalism and democracy was something like the Magna Carta, constitutional monarchy and the French Revolution. Nobody "knew" when was the best time to make it democratic, and nobody had planned it to get democracy going at a specific time. This was a gradual and an organic process. People had to become gradually convinced that democracy was a good thing. It was an evolution, not a literal revolution.
And yet Socionics effectively says that the Gammas are democratic from the start. That obviously doesn't happen in reality, without having an intermediate stage that closes the gap of the sudden leap in knowledge. That would be like the Western countries invading other countries, and saying they should just become democratic after the political takeover without having any previous knowledge or system in place to base it on, or without having to convince the people there that democracy is a good thing (this was exemplified by the invasion of Iraq, which had a disastrous result that didn't suddenly result in democracy).
So there's an obvious explanation of why things gradually changed in this way, that can't be explained by Socionics. The reason is that feudalism is at least better than primitive societies or nomadic cultures, and democracy is better than feudalism and so on. It simply gradually improved from one thing to the next, much like in evolution. And you cannot suddenly "jump" to the modern democracy that we have now, without having some system already in place, such as the political system left over from feudalism.