User:Admin/Philosophy
From Wikisocion
< Back to Rick's Writings at Wikisocion
I have some very general ideas and observations that I would like to eventually develop into a system (not necessarily a classification). If you have something to contribute, please comment on the discussion page.
[edit] Societal forms mirror psychological characteristics
Among any human population are found a wide range of psychological traits. The larger a community or society becomes, the more these diverse traits tend to form concentrated clusters with ever clearer contours. In a large and complex society, concentrations of psychological traits coalesce into organized behavior and even entire social institutions. This process is led by those with particular high levels of a certain psychological characteristic. For instance, people who are highly physically combative organize various forms of physical combat according to certain sets of rules that allow them to express their trait in a sustainable, organized way. People with a highly sensitive sense of taste form pockets of culinary discipline where they can stimulate their senses the way they need.
Behind every formal or informal social institution are specific psychological traits which are being expressed, and these traits are distributed unequally among the population. For example, all societies have a need to remember their dead and have developed traditions for satisfying this need (visiting the cemetary on certain holidays, having family gatherings on the anniversary of relatives' death, praying for the deceased, etc.). However, the need to remember the dead is much stronger in some people than in others, and in general it grows stronger with age. Thus, it is old people with an innate strong psychological link to the past and to their ancestors who are the real engine behind the maintenance of these traditions. Countless other people "go through the motions" without really feeling anything, or because they like some narrow aspect of the traditions (for example, seeing relatives and eating good food). Such is true of other social institutions. The "engine" of each social institution or organized behavior pattern are people with a particularly pronounced set of psychological or physiological characteristics that are expressed through the institution.
[edit] Gravitation of social instutions or systems to an unseen 'mean'
Behind these big words are simple ideas that I believe can be used to describe cultural development in a very interesting way. Basically, different functions or systems in society naturally gravitate towards domination by certain archetypes that can be described easily in socionic terms. Individuals enter these systems and try to "make a difference" by trying to bend the system to their own personality, but ultimately the pendulum always swings back to the central point where the system is most stable. This process takes place on all scales and all levels of society. "Cultural evolution," fads, and periods where different schools of thought dominate can be viewed as deviations from the unseen "center" to which the social system inevitably returns.
Now for some examples.
[edit] Politics
I am convinced that politics in all its forms and varieties is essentially about power and control of territory. Hierarchies in animal communities are based on power and territorial domination, and human societies seem to have the same underlying structure. People who are drawn to politics are those who identify unusually strongly with their particular political territory and who for some reason believe that this territory belongs to them in some concrete or abstract sense.
Because the central task of politics is related (in my opinion), all variaties of political systems are just temporary instances or deviations from the theme. In autocratic systems power (the right to coerce other people/systems to do things) is controlled by a single group. In representative systems (like the U.S.) limited power is held by a number of competing groups whose unspoken goal is to obtain absolute power and make other groups submit to their rules.
Power is always directed against some rival force. Territory that has no power hierarchy of its own is not able to withstand external pressure and succumbs to invasion and aggression. So power hierachies must exist as a deterrent to invasion, even if they serve absolutely no "useful" purpose within their own territory and even interfere with the peaceful, day-to-day activities of people living there. Political power can take on peaceful (normal political dispute) and violent (warfare) forms, but its basic nature doesn't change. In times of war and calamities power becomes more centralized (weaker competitors hand over power to the strongest leader), and in times of peace and stability it becomes decentralized (the leader becomes superfluous and gives up power to local authorities).
By viewing politics through socionic lenses, we can see that attempts to create political systems that ignore many people's lust for power are hopelessly naive, as well as the romantic view that "some day" power will become completely decentralized, or that all nations will unite, etc. You cannot base political power on non- principles for long. Why? Because even if you radically change the nature of political power, people with the same old power-sensitive personality traits will continue to be attracted to the system, and when you leave or die or lose influence, etc., they will come to the forefront again.
People have always complained that politics is a "dirty game" where the truth is hidden from view. This is a by-product of dominant . You cannot have control of territory and a truly free circulation of all information at the same time. Such information would expose your weaknesses and allow competitors to exploit them. Politics cannot be based. There is another based system that has always been antagonistic to political power — journalists. Journalists have all the information but very little power (and they gloat over their ability to exert a subtle influence on events through enormous effort, whereas a political leader can achieve the same effect through a single decree).
The central question of politics is an one: "who is stronger?"
[edit] The Green Party
and dominated party. Extremely clear concept of the future and of the long-term consequences of our way of life. A focus on changing lifestyles and habits , on de-emphasizing production, and on de-centralizing power.
[edit] Journalism and reporting
As mentioned above, journalists seek out high-impact information but lack material assets and decision making powers. They are in constant opposition to centralized decision making that takes place behind closed doors, as well as any manifestation of "brute force." In some authoritarian states centralized power manages to repress journalism, but it then manifests itself — as in the Soviet Union — through underground information channels (e.g. samizdat), political dissention, and hidden activities that become ever more attractive as the regime loses its popularity.
[edit] Science and subjective reality
With the growth of scientific paradigms — such as Darwinism — many scientics and thinkers have become enthusiastic about the prospect of replacing "religion-based" worldviews with scientific paradigms. I personally have read a book that tries to apply Darwinism to the field of ethics. There is nothing wrong with this, but ethics will always be dominated by a different kind of thinking than what the author was proposing. The "problem" with science from a human standpoint is that it cannot tell you what to feel about things. Socionic logic cannot overrun the realm of socionic ethics. If I read all the scientific studies available on the subject, I still cannot know based on studies alone whether I should try to like someone or not. A huge amount of our day-to-day behavior and sentiments is completely based on emotions and attachments whose subjective basis cannot be effeciently analyzed scientifically. For instance, try saying "I wish you would leave me alone" in the language of socionics logic. Even if you beautifully reduce this sentiment to the neurochemical level and convey the psychological event with total factual accuracy, the amount of words and effort necessary to convey the same meaning will be far greater than the original, "quick and dirty" phrase. Because of this, science can never overrun the field of human-to-human interraction. We might have a period right now where logical formulations of ethical reality are in fashion (especially in the U.S.), but this cannot last forever.
Even if scientific thinking is able to successfully reduce all phenomena to the language of facts and systems, people still won't use it in vast areas of their lives. Ethics (socionic ethics) is far more concise and efficient.
[edit] Anthropology and sociology
Underlying principles behind social relations = focus.
[edit] Culturology
Forms of expression of cultural identity and their development over time = focus.
[edit] Literary theory
Hidden meanings and connections, modes of authors' self-expression, development of storylines = and focus.
[edit] Morals and ethics
Morals and ethics are primarily about . Sure, logical types come in every once in a while with a 'new' approach to interpersonal and societal ethics, but their views rarely if ever become dominant. The "street language" of morals and ethics is no matter what philosophers write on the subject.
Morals — codes of conduct — is more the realm of the , whereas ethics — idealistic principles — is more the realm of the . Other perspectives to these areas are interesting, but they don't get at the heart of morals and ethics, which is a concern for the feelings of all parties involved. For instance, : what conduct is effective and isn't, : establishing a system for correct conduct.
[edit] Technology
Technology is fundamentally a field: "what works" is the main question asked, and the main criterion for success. Each new bit of technology introduces a small revolution. However, techie types tend to take technology too far (like the Ts in this phrase), building complex gadgets simply because they can be built. But do they need to be built?(a question, perhaps)? Do they really satisfy people's needs? This is where the combination (LSE and SLI) makes its main contribution; technology should be used to satisfy people's real needs.
And then along comes an EIE like Steve Jobs and produces technology for the non-techies who had been groaning under the weight of ever more complex and incomprehensible -oriented products. "Technology should be standardized and made simple to use (role ) and should be fun (leading )," he says. And he strikes it rich, because technology had gone too far in the direction. His market share grows, but he never becomes the leader... Because technology is inherently a dominant field and cannot be fully standardized and simplified as long as there are new innovations continually being made available to producers. Jobs' approach is a winner for now, but he will never be able to submit the entire field to his rules.
Backpacking equipment production
In another very narrow field that I happen to know most everything about — ultralight backpacking — the field's main impetus was given by types like Ray Jardine (my opinion) who took a radically unconventional and independent look at the existing outdoor gear, isolated the basic principles behind effective backpacking equipment, and turned conventional wisdom upside down. Jardine's main interest was philosophical and ideological; he wanted to get his point of view across. He was not a Man of Production. In fact, his business of making and selling low-cost sew-it-yourself kits to ultralight backpacking enthusiasts is barely economically viable, and he has applied unusual business practices such as restricting people's access to his site for unclear reasons, threatening to close down his business, etc. On the other hand, his book is unusually expensive — showing that he feels good about asking a lot of money for his ideas, but can't make himself charge a good market price for his gear kits, which are excellent.
Now, 5-10 years after his landmark book came out, the new field of ultralight backpacking equipment production is sliding back into a normal mode, which involves mass-production to cut down costs and man-hours spent per product, and also making profitable business decisions. A range of ultralight gear producers have cropped up to reap the economic rewards of a field originally created to fight the control of companies such as themselves over people's thinking. In the end, Ray Jardine's ideas will live on, but his business model will be forgotten, and people will go back to buying gear offered to them by mass producers without doing their own thinking 90% of the time.
[edit] Detective work
Detective work is an area that is fundamentally : "what happened?" "Did he or didn't he do it?" This is one area that emotion-based thinking will never overrun, and where intuitive guesses will always be secondary to the ability to ascertain fact. Anywhere where the central question asked is "what happened?" or "what works better?" is going to be dominated over time by type systems.
[edit] Clothing and fashion
Depending on the climate of the location, the central task of clothing may be — what works best? — or / — what stimulates the senses in the right way? Other emphases seem to appear only as fleeting fads. In warm climes — where homo sapiens evolved in the first place — the role of clothing is more decorative and social than functional. In traditional African dress (think Nigeria), sensing and ethics seems to dominate.
[edit] Religion
Religions and spiritual teachings come in many forms that can be described by any of the 16 types. Yet we can still find permanent and situational forms of religious behavior from among these. For instance, each church has a power structure and can be likened to a political entity, but the central question of religion is not "who is stronger?" Some religions have a heavy emphasis on study and mastery of teachings, but the central problem of religion is not "what is correct?" I personally can't decide whether religion is mostly a or a sphere. Clearly the moral aspect of religion has always been central: "how should I treat others?" (). But other central questions of religion — "what should I believe in?" or "what is my place in the scheme of things?" — seems more in nature (note that neither of these questions can be satisfactorally answered through factual science, which can only say "irrelevant" or "unknown" in response to these two questions).
It is possible that religion and some other realms can gravitate to different information aspects in different countries — for instance, in the West and in the East (just a hypothesis).
[edit] Chess
I believe chess is fundamentally a game:
- you have a gameboard with a clearly delineated territory (its uniform delineation gives more of a focus — especially when compared to games like Risk where different countries have different numbers of borders and vastly different strategic positions)
- everything on this territory is clearly in view (as opposed to, say, Stratego where you do not know the other person's pieces)
- there are no unknowns and no random factors built into the game itself (making it different from the vast majority of games, actually, which use dice, drawing cards, and other tools to introduce random variation)
- each piece covers a certain territory that must be closely monitored
- compared to other games, chess (at a high level of play) requires the ability to visually monitor a large number of pieces and not let one's concentration down
- in chess, one wrong move spells defeat (by the way, I think this is a sure-fire sign of a dominant spheres, especially when compared to a system), unless your opponent happens to make a mistake of similar magnitude directly after your mistake
- there are just two players (one-on-one combat), so it is a totally objective measure of combatants' strength (as opposed to, say, Risk, where players can play political games and sic other players on each other)
- the game always starts the same, and new elements start to creep into the game only after several moves have passed (compare this with most other games, which have a different starting situation each time)
[edit] Science
Science in different countries can be based on different information aspects. It may well be possible, for instance, that science in the West is fundamentally a enterprise, whereas in Russia it is a enterprise. In highly industrialized countries with market economies, scientific advancements are materialized relatively quickly in production lines and turned into tangible goods and technologies. In less industrialized or less capitalistic countries where economic output is not so much the "main goal" of production activity, scientific research may develop into a more academic or theoretical pursuit where much thought and few resources are invested. Scientists may find they have more time to think and less pressure to "produce," but at the same time lack many of the resources that would help them pursue their disciplines better, or that no one is interested in implementing their mental creations.
[edit] Health and well-being
It would be too easy to lump all of health (which includes healthcare, surgery, medical research, scientific studies, etc.) into one category, but the day-to-day discussion of health and what one is doing to maintain and correct it is clearly oriented. The real solutions very often can be found only by examining one's sensations, observing one's reactions to different physiological irritants, and studying one's bodily processes. That's an focus, even if not all dominants specialize in healthcare.
There are aspects of healthcare that seem to be more focused — for instance, surgery. Surgery represents a 'forceful' intrusion on one's personal space to cause a particular effect that cannot be produced by the patient alone. While personal health seems to be a focus, surgical intervention seems to be a mostly field. People with poor personal health skills often end up under the ruthless scalpel of Mr. SEE or SLE :)))
Editorial on healthcare
Health is an intimate aspect of one's life and is largely manifested within the walls of a person's home where one rests up, treat minor aches and pains, complains to family members, etc. The concept of a "government healthcare system" really is antagonistic to the basic nature of health. Because of this, many people are very reluctant to go to the doctor or take a necessary trip to the hospital. These activities do not fit the state of mind of an ill person. Ideally, a local family or community doctor would come to your home and take a look at you him or herself in your natural environment where you are most comfortable and your illness is most clearly manifest. If this were possible, more people would be seeing doctors at earlier stages of illness. A sick person should not have to go to a government institution to receive care for an intimate health problem. He should not have to talk to a bunch of strangers on his way to see the doctor. All this is incompatible with the nature of health concerns.
In some countries, such as Ukraine and Russia, there are official and unofficial healthcare channels. The official channel is excessively structured to the point of absurdity (a holdover from the based Soviet system), while the unofficial one is based on self-treatment, gathering health tips from friends, and unofficial visits to individual doctors who have been recommended by trusted others.
With the advent of the Internet, healthcare has the chance to become more informal and based once again, with people exchanging personal information, tips and health stories, and getting recommendations from trusted specialists online without having to fill out forms, drive across town, talk to the insurance company, or listen to crying babies in lobbies.
[edit] Fantasy, etc.
There is a whole world of out there that deserves a name, but I can't find it. It basically includes all the things the people do to escape the pressing reality and rhythm of the outside world and be carried to a different reality. These things include:
- fantasy as a literature and film genre
- fantasy games where the player is taken to a different time and imagines himself to be a different person
- music and art that is not created to serve a practical or external purpose (for instance, a military march is created for marching, and dance music is designed for dancing), but to carry the listener to "another world"
[edit] Antique collecting
Another dominant field. The time period and history of the object becomes its main value rather than functionality or aesthetics. Many dominant types like to wear and use items that have a special history to them even if they lack other qualities, and this trait — when concentrated and distilled — gives rise to the field of antique items and collections.
[edit] Gossip
I was going to broadly label gossip as an ethical phenomenon, but I checked the definition and noted that gossip can be about nearly anything the people are doing — not just their relationships or "what so-and-so said." One can gossip about "do you know what so-and-so just bought?" — which could be construed as a different type of focus. However, the purpose of gossip is mostly ethical (in the socionics sense of the word), and the subject matter is also most frequently ethics — relationships, what people said to each other, how people are doing, etc. Obviously, the focus of gossip is not to talk about mechanisms or systems (which is what a logical focus would entail).
I think gossip comes in both and varieties. gossip: "did you hear that Jenny is going out with James?" (the external manifestation of relationships). gossip: "I don't like her one bit — she's so rude! Don't you think?" (the internal manifestation of relationships).
[edit] Relationships
For the same reasons as "gossip," relationships are primarily the realm of and . Even in the U.S. and other logical cultures where there is a tendency to often talk of one's feelings in a distant, abstract way (um, compare that to Italians, Spaniards, or Latinos).
[edit] Pickups and seduction
The primary goal of "picking up" someone is to 'get' an 'object' — a goal. The clever emotional manipulation tactics and charm that are an integral part of pickups, and the fact that the seducer is pursuing a human relationship rather than organizational goal, add a secondary emphasis. That makes SEE. Virtually all literature on the subject (well, of the little I have encountered) seems to be framed in an SEE mindset.
[edit] "How to get rich" literature, MLM, etc.
A gamma philosophy that combines (amassing wealth), (methods and algorithms), (shaping personal attitudes), and (speculation; doing as little as possible). This approach invariably ignores the fact that there is a finite amount of resources at any given moment and that not everyone can be rich at the same time, as well as the fact that many people are not capable of being rich because of their nature, or that focusing on getting rich would be detrimental to many people. Perhaps in its effort to "be nice" ( here?) and leave the door open for everyone, the "get rich" gurus suggest that anyone can get rich, that it is simple and can be mastered by anyone, but just takes hard work, and that getting rich is always desireable. "Everyone would like to drive a Porsche, right?" Actually, no, not everyone, but this possibility is overlooked by most "get rich" writers.
MLM (multi-level marketing) is the embodiment of the above. Everyone — theoretically — can get rich in the system, if only they can get X amount of people to work for them. At some point in time, the hard work of recruiting other salesmen begins to pay off, and the individual can sit around and do nothing for the rest of his life and let the "system work for him." From an Alpha point of view this work activity is incredibly un-stimulating (do the same boring thing over and over again, attend meetings, wear suits, and count dollar signs), and from a Delta perspective it lacks intrinsic value because nothing worthwhile (i.e. that satisfies an actual need) is produced by the system. It is actually a clever system that feeds the top 5% and wastes the time of the bottom 95% while giving them a false hope (though theoretically possible) that they, too, can become "successful."
[edit] Wikipedia
Wikipedia is inherently an and project, the product of a Delta mind (specifically, IEE). The aspect is the goal of accumulation of factual knowledge. The (and ) aspect is inherent in the wiki model itself, which brings together people who share a common purpose, have no material interests influencing their contributions, and are treated identically regardless of their positions in other communities.
The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, is in my opinion an IEE. Hear him speak on Wikipedia here.
[edit] Sort of a conclusion
It would be interesting to actually map out the cultural evolution of a single area of society and show how the pendulum has swung in all directions around a central point, to which it always returns.
Each person, when expressing his or her views on various topics, inadvertently suggests that many or even all societal systems should conform to his own type of information metabolism. For example, "I don't like (some politician) because he seems secretive and authoritarian," or "I can't take him seriously because he's overweight."
User Thehotelambush has been developing a similar list that I pretty much agree with.
