The Ethical Philosophy of Socionics

Studying socionics generally leads to an increased awareness of inborn differences between people and the futility of trying to ignore these differences in one's relationships with others. Socionics has an implied ethical system that I will try to outline here.

Socionics' place among ethical systems

Every ethical system serves a goal or ideal. The nature of this goal determines the nature of the ethical principles that serve it. There are ethical systems that are intended to bring one closer to religious ideals (God), others that are designed to bring about an ideal society, and yet others for personal development. Other goals and ideals are also possible, but these three seem to be most common. While any ethical system can include elements of two or more of these goals, one always takes priority over the others.

In my opinion, the aim of socionics' ethical philosophy is to promote the self-realization of individuals. Thus, socionics falls into the category of ethical systems that promote personal development — above societal relationships or other ideals.

The view of socionics is that through learning about the unchanging (i.e. biologically determined) aspects of types and interaction, one can allow himself and others the room to develop in such a way that brings about the greatest possible self-realization. Socionics sees many perceptual qualities and patterns of information interchange as unchangeable. This sets socionics apart from 1) systems that see the human psyche as being malleable and determined first and foremost by positive and negative reinforcement (e.g. behaviorism), 2) systems that assert the primacy of socioeconomic factors and organizational decisions in determining societal relationships (e.g. Marxism-Leninism), and 3) systems that see personal qualities and relationships between people as being the result of individual will and righteousness or iniquity (e.g. religious systems).

Socionics' ethical philosophy is compatible with those of modern psychology, evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, and many other non-theistic philosophies. These ethical systems recognize the importance of inborn differences between people and do not explain behavior and relationships solely as the result of individuals' good will.

Implicit ethical principles in socionics

Now that we have established the aim of socionics' ethical philosophy, I will try to list the principles implicit in socionics that help promote self-realization — or bringing to fruition the innate potential of each individual. The socionics model is able to describe (albeit in very general terms) 16 kinds of self-realization — a definite improvement over systems that promote only one ideal behavioral model. Here are the ethical principles that facilitate this self-realization:

1. First and foremost, develop your strengths — and allow others to do the same.

This principle is the key not only to success in sports, but to all success in general. Self-realization is not about undertaking a massive storm of all fortresses at once, but about choosing your targets carefully based on what you do best — and which fortresses are less protected. Socionics asserts that people experience the greatest satisfaction when applying and excelling in their strengths. Not only that, but only people who are consistently focused on their strengths are attractive to complementary individuals who can assist in properly developing weak areas. Thus, paradoxically, this principle is both a formula for success and a guideline for overcoming weakness.

Socionics asserts that different people have different psychological needs, and that different people are better able to fill different needs. These qualities are viewed as being biologically determined and unchangeable. Thus, expectations must be modified to match biological reality, and not the other way around.

3. Choose as intimate partners and close friends those who satisfy your needs and whose needs you can satisfy.

Socionics asserts that our deeper needs come into play at a close psychological distance, and that if we artificially maintain a close distance with a person who does not fill our needs, or whose needs we do not fill, constant irritation and mutual dissatisfaction arise. By clinging onto someone despite a lack of satisfaction of one's deeper needs, when these needs could be met by other people, we inhibit our own development and our partner's as well.

This principle is related to the above two. The degree of emotional or psychological intimacy in a relationship should not exceed what is optimal for satisfying partners' needs. In other words, if people share business interests, but do not have the psychological makeup to fill deeper emotional and psychological needs, they should keep their relationship purely businesslike. If people consistently grate on each other's nerves, they should reduce their interaction and increase the distance until the irritation subsides. Socionics asserts that such irritation reflects a shift from focusing on one's strengths to dwelling on one's weaknesses, and that if the irritation is allowed to develop into a day-to-day pattern, it inhibits the self-realization of those involved.

07/10/2007 Stormy
I don't understand:

'Socionics has an extraverted ethical system; the qualities of individuals are seen as determining the relationships between them, and not vice-versa.'

One of the basic premises of Socionics is the existence of the Dual-Relationship, whereby the level of self-realisation (a quality of the individual) is determined by their (attainment of a) particular relationship(s).

08/04/2007 Author
You've got a point there. What I was saying is that in answer to the question: "Why do we have such a poor relationship?" socionics would answer that it is because of the types of the people in the relationship, whereas an introverted ethical system would say that the people aren't treating each other the way they should. In other words, in the socionic paradigm behavior is more of a product of external circumstance (types involved) than of individual intention.

What you're pointing out is that socionics recognizes the influence of intertype relations on the individual's development. This is true, but the cause of the intertype relationship are the types (unchanging qualities) of those involved :-) A truly introverted view would say that people's types change depending on the needs of the particular relationship they are in.