# What if Socionics Was Mainstream?



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

What would our world be like? 




- Mass apartheid on the grounds of which type of ethics is valued.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

This may just be me, but even if the theory isn't mainstream doesn't mean that society is any different than it would be if the society was governed by the theory. All it means is that it's implicit rather than explicit.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> This may just be me, but even if the theory isn't mainstream doesn't mean that society is any different than it would be if the society was governed by the theory. All it means is that it's implicit rather than explicit.


Seriously? It's just an amusing thought and for the sake of a few laughs... And people would act different if everybody actually knew about the theory.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Seriously? It's just an amusing thought and for the sake of a few laughs... And people would act different if everybody actually knew about the theory.


Individuals might, but would the differences in aggregated human behavior change all that much?


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

The initial novelty would bring a situation like thatoneweirdguy is imagining, but it would eventually cycle through enough for people to re-balance and reach scelerat's conclusion.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> This may just be me, but even if the theory isn't mainstream doesn't mean that society is any different than it would be if the society was governed by the theory. All it means is that it's implicit rather than explicit.


It would suck. Living in a systematized society may be appealing to those who need established boundaries and explicit rules of behavior but corruption and tyranny invariably become a major problem. Also, it forces people to conform to an archetype or risk being a cast away. Does that sound appealing to you?


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

MNiS said:


> It would suck. Living in a systematized society may be appealing to those who need established boundaries and explicit rules of behavior but corruption and tyranny invariably become a major problem. Also, it forces people to conform to an archetype or risk being a cast away. Does that sound appealing to you?


This would be the struggle that happens in-between the two points of view.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

liminalthought said:


> This would be the struggle that happens in-between the two points of view.


Shutup. The middle way is obviously the best. Unless you enjoy being crooked.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

MNiS said:


> It would suck. Living in a systematized society may be appealing to those who need established boundaries and explicit rules of behavior but corruption and tyranny invariably become a major problem. Also, it forces people to conform to an archetype or risk being a cast away. Does that sound appealing to you?


Corruption and tyranny is already a major problem, we already have to conform to an archetype (just of a different nature) or risk being cast away. It's just arguably a different system, even though there are already statistics on "preferred professions" for a given type, recommended majors for a given type, recommended partners for a given type. So, if it was formalized, it would appear that from a statistical perspective people are conforming nicely already.

I'm also not a huge fan of British fallacies.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> Corruption and tyranny is already a major problem, we already have to conform to an archetype (just of a different nature) or risk being cast away.


Not to me.  Besides, one of the very first things you learn when studying such attempts at social engineering is that some people have very idiotic and unfair definitions of 'corruption' and 'tyranny'. 



> It's just arguably a different system, even though there are already statistics on "preferred professions" for a given type, recommended majors for a given type, recommended partners for a given type. So, if it was formalized, it would appear that from a statistical perspective people are conforming nicely already.


Yes, sure. Everything would go swimmingly well until you have your first tyrant on your hands and politically repress everyone who disagreed with him. It's best to make such a system more of a helpful guideline than a set of absolute rules.



> I'm also not a huge fan of British fallacies.


I'm not aware of any fallacies that I've committed. Would you care to point them out?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

MNiS said:


> Not to me.  Besides, one of the very first things you learn when studying such attempts at social engineering is that some people have very idiotic and unfair definitions of 'corruption' and 'tyranny'.


Then again, Karl Popper said that you should always be willing to engage your opponents using their terminology. 




> Yes, sure. Everything would go swimmingly well until you have your first tyrant on your hands and politically repress everyone who disagreed with him. It's best to make such a system more of a helpful guideline than a set of absolute rules.


As far as I know, that already happens without socionics being mainstream. Hitler, Stalin, Kim dynasty, Tsarism, Non-Han Chinese, etc. 

The point of this and the previous quote is simply to point out that even without socionics being mainstream tyranny, dictatorship, corruption, political repression and so on exist, so if anything adding socionics would just be adding one more category on top of race, religion, gender, political belief, culture and so on. 



> I'm not aware of any fallacies that I've committed. Would you care to point them out?


A British Fallacy is an argument to moderation, which is what you replied to Liminal. The other part of your argument, is arguably a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> Then again, Karl Popper said that you should always be willing to engage your opponents using their terminology.


That's quite foolish then.



> As far as I know, that already happens without socionics being mainstream. Hitler, Stalin, Kim dynasty, Tsarism, Non-Han Chinese, etc.


You should include manifest destiny. It's not just people who are capable of tyranny. 



> The point of this and the previous quote is simply to point out that even without socionics being mainstream tyranny, dictatorship, corruption, political repression and so on exist, so if anything adding socionics would just be adding one more category on top of race, religion, gender, political belief, culture and so on.


Systemic corruption and tyranny is impossible to unroot once it's taken hold without either reforming or rebuilding another. People can be removed but if the system remains then one haven't fixed or solved anything.



> A British Fallacy is an argument to moderation, which is what you replied to Liminal. The other part of your argument, is arguably a slippery slope fallacy.


Do you think it wise to use logic when looking to history is the proper course of action?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> Individuals might, but would the differences in aggregated human behavior change all that much?


I don't know...

Again, it's just an amusing thought which you people are already telling each other to shut-up over.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> A British Fallacy is an argument to moderation, which is what you replied to Liminal. The other part of your argument, is arguably a slippery slope fallacy.


I've never heard of a British Fallacy before. Well, learn something new everyday, I guess.

I'm not sure how I imagine a world where Socionics was mainstream. Depends on how seriously people took it, I guess? Could be treated similarly to astrology, for example. I've seen personality theory compared to astrology before, and while I don't agree with the comparison... I'm not sure if it would go away if it was more mainstream. If people took it seriously enough, it probably could end up as just another excuse for bigotry, indeed.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

MNiS said:


> That's quite foolish then.


It keeps one from dismissing ideas without due process. 



> You should include manifest destiny. It's not just people who are capable of tyranny.


Oh, it's by no means an exhaustive list. Ideas are powerless unless accepted by a number of people. 



> Systemic corruption and tyranny is impossible to unroot once it's taken hold without either reforming or rebuilding another. People can be removed but if the system remains then one haven't fixed or solved anything.


Systemic corruption and tyranny appears a permanent fixture on human life. It varies in extent and effect, but it's always there. 



> Do you think it wise to use logic when looking to history is the proper course of action?


The two are not mutually exclusive. Some of the best ideas had negative consequences, some of the worst had positive consequences. I'm assuming that you're talking about putting people in categories, because like I said we do so extensively already without holocausts erupting every 5 or so years.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Nonsense said:


> I've never heard of a British Fallacy before. Well, learn something new everyday, I guess.
> 
> I'm not sure how I imagine a world where Socionics was mainstream. Depends on how seriously people took it, I guess? Could be treated similarly to astrology, for example. I've seen personality theory compared to astrology before, and while I don't agree with the comparison... I'm not sure if it would go away if it was more mainstream. If people took it seriously enough, it probably could end up as just another excuse for bigotry, indeed.


It's called Argument to moderation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but "British fallacy" is a colloquial term.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Scelerat said:


> It keeps one from dismissing ideas without due process.


Most ideas aren't worth even a second thought except as incubation for further discourse.



> Oh, it's by no means an exhaustive list. Ideas are powerless unless accepted by a number of people.
> 
> Yes, and I think it best to keep Socionics non-mainstream.
> 
> ...


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Most ideas aren't worth even a second thought except as incubation for further discourse.


I don't know, ideas depend on what you do with them.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Nonsense said:


> I don't know, ideas depend on what you do with them.


Well sure, but not all ideas are necessarily good ideas. Some types can spit out new ideas like Tp and you'd be spending the rest of your days just trying to keep up with the generation.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Well sure, but not all ideas are necessarily good ideas. Some types can spit out new ideas like Tp and you'd be spending the rest of your days just trying to keep up with the generation.


Well, which ideas are good is kind of subjective. Right? A lot of ideas aren't very relevant to my interests so they seem useless to me, but they could have a lot of potential for someone else. And maybe I'll find they have potential too if I try to work with them~


----------

