Illusion of Objectiviety

People are attached to the idea of objectivity, whether that is religion, a political ideology, or science. I do believe that there is an objective physical world. People expect objectivity in places where it cannot exist. , and pretending that something is objective when it is not has dangerous consequences. We saw this when people thought religion was the objective truth. Religion was used to control people, it promoted slavery and sexism. People think AI will solve human bias, but a racist AI has already been invented.

Everyone has a bias. A scientist who has worked on a theory for their whole life has a bias towards that theory being correct. If the theory is proven wrong, then all their hard work was for nothing, and that would be a devastating loss. Psychiatrists cannot let themselves be too aware of the fact that the chemical imbalance theory is wrong because their medical debt is too large to abandon their practice and find something else to do. Politicians support policies that benefit them and get them the best vote, not always what is best for society as a whole. CEOs have a profit motive, helping their employees and society is secondary.

My concern for the future, with AI becoming more and more integrated with society is that people will assume these AI are 100% objective when they are not. People still choose the pools of data, and the parameters chosen to make the decision. The parameters will be my biggest concern. If the current average employee isn’t black because of past racial biases, then some AI will pick up that the ideal employee is white, which clearly does not get to the heart of what a good employee is. Similar things will happen with different types of decisions. Turning everything into a math problem is not the answer as math cannot solve human problems.

There is no objectively best society. What benefits one person will often inherently harm another person. Less taxation will benefit a rich person who does not need welfare and most government programs, but it will harm poorer people who need benefits to stay afloat. There is no way to reconcile this. True equality cannot exist. Not everyone can own a house by the beach because there is not enough space, if everyone wanted a house by the beach the government would have to find a way to decide who gets to live there, and most governments use money to decide this. People with more money are the only ones who can afford a beach house, which leaves less competition. Imagine having it be an equal first come first serve basis, then the waitlist would literally last a century, and rich people would probably buy their place in line anyway. Resources are not infinite, so there has to be criteria to determine who gets what. There is no objective basis of who deserves what, it essentially becomes a fight oh who wins. People’s world views will create a scenario that makes their side have the upper hand, even if they lie about wanting everything equal and fair. If something says they want what is best for society they mean they want what is best for their interest group.

Most people assume that their own opinions are the objective truth, and get offended when people don’t share their same opinions. People raise their blood pressure to because other people are wrong. Everyone is incorrect about some things, even you, get over it. People need to be okay with being wrong, you have to be wrong before you become right. It’s important to admit when sources are biased. Everyone has their own agenda. A scientist and the government can say incorrect statements sometimes. I wonder if different people are more likely to believe in different things. It’s just annoying when people attack you for having a different view before listening to your reasoning. Of course you shouldn’t be so open that your brain falls out, but people shut down anything that isn’t mainstream. If you question something like psychiatry, then some people will think you are a delusional freak despite you having solid evidence against it.

Therapy is Artificial

Whenever anyone online or even in real life talks about any emotional problem, you hear tons of people advising you to go to therapy. But how many people can really afford $100 per week just to talk to someone? Of course there is insurance, but then you have to get a diagnosis that could hurt your chance of getting certain jobs or from getting into the military. And don’t forget to mention the stigma certain mental disorders such as BPD and NPD have.

Of course therapy is helpful for people who have suffered deep trauma and need specialized attention, but even then there is risk for abuse. Therapists, psychiatrists and psychologists are in a position of power and no matter how good their intentions, their words have an impact. If the patient says the wrong thing they can even end up being involuntarily hospitalized and drugged against their will. Personally, I do not feel comfortable talking to the therapists with the understanding that confidentiality may be breached if therapists thinks it is for my own good. A therapist can be very wrong about what your own good is. If you are put in a mental hospital without insurance then you are going to go into debt in the spirit of mental health. We all know how how good financial hardship is for mental health. Not to mention how some people could lose their jobs over getting thrown in the psych ward due to missing too many days. Knowing this, it’s just irresponsible to encourage everyone and their mother to go to therapy without knowing and being able to navigate the risks, especially vulnerable people with mental illness.

Therapy is not a natural social interaction. I once called in to ask for a therapist, and one of the first questions she asked was “Are you suicidal?” This should never be one of the first things you say when you meet someone. This question was probably asked for liability purposes, but it is still never okay to ask this in my opinion. Most people will lie due to discomfort of telling a stranger something like this. No human feels comfortable when they first meet someone, so you are basically spending the first few therapy sessions paying a lot of money to see if you can become comfortable with the therapist. This is not the best financial decision to make because people need to get to know someone before they can reveal their vulnerabilities to them, which can take a while.

The real cause of most people’s suffering is lacking in person connection and community, not liking their job, feeling like their life is meaningless, abuse, and bad diet and no exercise. Most people would suffer way less if they addressed these issues first. I think most people go to therapy for personal connection. If you share a problem with your friends, your friends just tell you to go to therapy. It is more natural to have people who you actually know in your life help you. It’s important for the person helping you to share information and struggles in their life so there can be a mutual back and forth. Therapists are encouraged to share as little information about themselves as possible, which puts you in the more vulnerable position without the therapist sharing their vulnerabilities. This makes the relationship have no equality whatsoever.

Of course therapy does help some people, but it is important to explore the negative sides to balance the blind praise therapy constantly receives in our culture. Therapy is not for everyone, and I am sick of people constantly suggesting others to go to therapy without understanding their situation.

Signs you are mistyped in socionics

  1. You relate more to your MBTI type than your socionics type.

MBTI is a much simpler and more inaccurate system than socionics, so for someone well versed in socionics, it doesn’t make sense for you to prefer that type. Many people mistakenly think that MBTI crosses over to socionics, but there is no one-to-one correlation. This causes people to think that socionics is just a weird version of MBTI when in reality they are describing two different types.

2. You make multiple exceptions for why you are a certain type.

It’s easy to become settled on a type, but with further exploration you find many aspects of the type unrelatable. Now, it’s normal to not relate to every part of the type, no one is a carbon copy of each other, but you should relate to a good amount of it(unless you have an insanely warped self image or are delusional). For example say someone types as LII, but then they say they like conflict, and care about efficiency, and makes a lot of quick judgements about people’s character, and just say these are exceptions, but at some point there are so many exceptions that you are no longer the type in question. It’s tempting to try and say those aspects of the type are inaccurate, and the theory is wrong, but why should we overhaul the whole theory because you’re the only person it’s not accurately describing? The reality is that you need to pick which type fits you the best, and if that is not the type you currently identify as, then you need to reevaluate.

3.You become extremely defensive anytime someone questions your type.

Of course it’s natural to want to defend your current typing, but at the end of the day not everyone is going to agree with you and it’s best to accept that. But I’m sure we all know of at least one person who throws a fit anytime someone suggests their current typing is inaccurate. It doesn’t matter how reasonable you are, or how many screenshots and pieces of evidence you send, they still won’t budge on their current self perception. Some can even become aggressive, and accuse you of trying to mislead them. If the mere suggestion that you are another type gets you angry, then it’s time to take a step back and think about why you are having this reaction.

Ego

The ego is one of the most fascinating subjects of psychology. I think it is a vital part of who we are as opposed to something we need to repress like many religions seek to do, after all narcissist’s whole personality was created by trying to protect their ego. It is clearly important.

The dictionary definition of ego is: “a person’s sense of self-esteem or self-importance.”

At first glance this can seem shallow, but it’s not. If someone does not feel important that will cause them not to go after their needs and goals, and even cause people to stay in abusive relationships or not seek to improve themselves. I think a major problem in this world is that many good people don’t look after their own self interest. Now I am not saying we should all go out and be selfish and not care about other people, but pretending that the self doesn’t exist is just not beneficial or even accurate. It doesn’t matter how many spiritual enlightenment books you read, there are differences between each and every one of us.

Freud said that the ego was responsible for the individual’s safety, which really interests me. If the ego is needed for safety then why are people trying to get rid of their ego? Maybe this is why mammals developed consciousness in the first place. When people lose a part of their identity, their whole world shatters, what evolutionary benefit does that have?

Whenever I try to think of purpose everything comes back to ego. Like the Bible says, we need to be obedient and do what God says. Knowing he has a plan for you sounds meaningful, but in a way, it is kind of humiliating. Like many people need to do things that society doesn’t value to keep it working, such as taking out the trash every day, which is one of the most important jobs, but it’s never anyone’s dream job because it’s not what you see in the movies. Slavey is another and more extreme example of this. Slavery benefitted society by providing cheap labor to produce large quantities of crops, and it helped boost the economy. Slaves have done important work, but of course, no one wants to be a slave because it is an inferior position, and brings people zero status or freedom. When people say they want to benefit society they are really saying they want society to look up to them. They are thinking of powerful CEOs, and great scientists and engineers, and philosophers when they think of people who have benefitted society, but they forget the people who do important everyday tasks. People spend their lives doing things to make themselves look superior to others even if it’s painful or has no real tangible benefit.

Many people suffer years through medical school to become doctors, some do it for a desire to help, others cause they are interested in the subject, but I’m sure we all know of at least one med student with the desire to impress their parents and have a high-status job. Becoming a doctor can also give you authority and control over others. Being a doctor is just as important as being a garbage collector, but one brings higher status and the other doesn’t. Of course, what is deemed respectful in society changes throughout time, and people will adapt to that standard.

I do think ego is the main driving force that encourages people to search for a purpose. It’s even a major drive for having children. Dying is the ultimate destruction of ego, but having kids can give you a legacy and the delusion of immortality. Many people feel like they are currently not doing anything important in this current life, but think their kids will end up doing something more important which makes the parents special and important by proxy.

Introverts can’t be Enneagram 7

I know this is a controversial opinion, but I really don’t think that introverts can be a 7.  People will complain about how I’m mixing the systems, but the systems are meant to be mixed. If we can’t mix the systems then we can’t use typology knowledge for any real understanding. It’s like saying that you cannot mix the circulatory and nervous systems. Yes in theory they are different systems with different structures and purposes, but in reality they both interact, and affect how each other perform. The same applies with typology. Enneagram and Jungian cognitive functions are two separate systems that explain different things, one coping styles the other spheres of attention. To say that one system does not affect the other is absurd. If one person has a particular childhood, that will cause them to become a certain enneagram type, and their enneagram type could then have an impact on their other types. Systems and personality don’t exist in isolation since the human mind is complex and everything interacts. Psychologists use the big five for everything, which is a major case of mixing the systems. Even the people who tell me not to mix systems mix the systems because it is impossible not to.

There have been studies on how introverts typically want less stimulation and extroverts typically want more. If introverts want less stimulation then why would they frequently exhibit the behaviors of a 7? It’s surprising how many people in the typology community don’t understand introversion and extroversion beyond how social one is. One person seriously told me that MBTI introversion was just how social you were and socionics was more and they gave me a link describing introversion and extroversion in socionics and it was similar to what we used in MBTI circles. Then later they told me that they didn’t understand MBTI. So people are speaking before knowing what they are talking about, which isn’t all bad since this is part of how you learn, but just keep that in mind for your next internet argument.

Many enneagram 7 descriptions describe 7s as extroverted, and use other words such as spontaneous, versatile, and novelty seeking which are typically associated with extroverts. Now some introverts could have these qualities but are much more common in extroverts and extroverts will have more of these traits. The correlation of extroverts being social is a side effect of neurological differences rather than the core of what being an extrovert is. When reading about the 7 I see running away from oneself, which reminds me about what Jung said about extroversion. He said that extroverts feared their inside world and introverts feared the external world. We can clearly see fear of their internal world in the 7.

I can’t blame people for the misconceptions because we are still learning about what makes up and causes these personality traits, but I think anyone who studies personality should know that how extroverted you are is more than how social you are. That’s typology 101.

 

Socionics Quadra and Economic System

Alpha and Beta – communism

Alpha would be a more friendly, commune type of communism where they have those nice aesthetic houses, and they smoke weed and have deep conversations. Beta would be more of a large scale communism and more focused on an enemy outside of the state where they all band together to defeat some evil.

Gamma and Delta – capitalism

Gamma would be more focused on large corporations and dominating the world. Delta would focus on small business, and create personalized goods and services.

The Fascist Test

The F scale is such a hilarious test to me. It’s not well designed. I tried clicking strongly agree for every question, and got 100% fascist, so it’s pretty easy to game. The wording of the items is just so intense and moralistic, and I seriously pity those who actually think like this. It’s funny because no one really says these types of things nowadays, except Dwight Shrute.

You can take the test here.

Examples of the items include:

“There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents.”

“Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.”

Okay, calm down there buddy.

Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.”


The scoring seemed very complicated, probably unnecessarily so, which is what I like! This test has nine personality variables. Conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and “toughness”, destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and sex. I will go over each of them below.

The Personality Variables

Conventionalism: “rigid adherence to conventional, middle class values.”

Conventionalists are heavily concerned with things such as respecting authority, getting jobs in industry rather than the arts, and just hard work in general. I would imagine that they are judgmental, and have little tolerance for “weird people.”

Authoritarian Submission: “Submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup.”

If you can appreciate one thing about these people it is that they at least complied with leaders, instead of just bossing everyone around with no respect to other authorities. Though I suspect that they only listened to certain people who they deemed worthy, which was probably the ingroup. They believe that everyone should follow the lead of a higher power, political idol, or whomever else they admire. They don’t question their authorities either because if they have to question then that puts them in a weaker position, and the authoritarian personalty wants to avoid any feelings of vulnerability.

Authoritarian Aggression: “Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values.”

Now onto one of the more extreme traits of the authoritarian personality profile, the desire to put “bad people” into their place. It is quite a sadistic trait, and I bet they enjoy seeing criminals hauled off to jail. These people like to pretend to be logical, but they get an emotional high by criticizing and catching those who brake their precious middle class values. It’s also about wanting to punish those who are not normal and “correct” them. I wonder if looking our for wrongdoers gives them purpose in life.

Anti-Intraception: “Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded.”

Fear of the unknown affects everyone, but those with an authoritarian personality take it to the extreme. They don’t like to hear that not everything is right or wrong. I wanted more information on what intraception was, but I think Adorno made it up because I found nothing except for this test. The word introspection sounds similar, though not exactly the same, they are both about the internal, and subjective with no definite end point. If anti-intraceptives are feeling down, they will try to get rid of the emotion instead of delving deep to find the source and actually fix it. Emotionality also contradicts their strict, punitive style, so they want to stay away from that.

Superstition and Stereotypy: “The belief in mystical determinants of the individual’s fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories.”

Adorno decided to group superstition and categorical thinking together because believing in fate is inherently rigid thing as it does not change, which is very attractive to narrow minded thinkers. When you place people into unchanging categories, it becomes easier to see them as the enemy as well as assume they are all the same. Of course we have the 50’s stereotype of the God-fearing Christian, who selectively abide by their book. This is also where racism, homophobia, and sexism come into play.

Power and “Toughness”: “Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness.”

These people are tiring to deal with, always focused on who’s on top, and who’s on bottom, competitive. If you’re a vulnerable person with an obsession then you would be very self hating. Weak people deserve to be harmed in this mindset, therefore one must avoid being weak. This is a very women hating mindset since they often focus on physical strength, and a focus on power can justify their abuse toward their wives. These are the bullies, the tyrants, and sociopathic CEOs who think that might means right. Authoritarians can justify their cruel actions by believing that you must harms others or they will harm you, and thinking that this is just the way the world works, and it can’t be changed.

Destructiveness and Cynicism: “Generalized hostility, vilification of the human.”

An extremely cynical attitude justifies any aggression on their part because humanity at large is destructive, so they must be as well to survive in this world. They think the world has been sullied by degenerates, and people like them must work to purify it. Their righteous indignation makes them feel good about themselves, and is a good way to get their aggression out. It would make since if authoritarians came from an abusive situation or witnessed horrible things (like WWII maybe?), and their personality is now a coping mechanism.

Projectivity: “The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses.”

Authoritarian personalities live in constant fear, which is why they need to either feel like they are in control or feel that the “bad people” are being put in place. If you were to tell them about a new invention, they would assume the worst case scenario. Deep down inside they have overwhelming emotions and urges to hurt people, but they can’t acknowledge that side. Their black and white thinking style cannot understand that people are not perfect and that sometimes you think bad thoughts. If one part of them is bad, then their whole self is bad, which is why it is easier for them to project their negative aspects onto others. Ironically their trust in the governments/leaders falls, and they can turn to conspiracy theories (don’t get me wrong, some are totally true) to help them feel in control and special, like they are in the know.

Sex: “Exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on.””

These are your good Christian homophobes who want to identity the gays, and very concerned with making sure everyone is following their proper gender roles. On the bright side, they hate pedophilia and rape, though that is mainly so they can express their unconscious sadistic urges they normally reject.

Final Words

I don’t think this is the best way to snuff out fascists because it was made in 40s, but I have observed some people both online and in real life who think in this rigid and authoritarian way. Many people nowadays don’t agree with the specifics of this test, but if you used the same attitude with a statement about something more socially acceptable today, then more would score facist. It was difficult to go over every aspect, as there are many components to this test, but I hope I helped give you a deeper understanding of the F scale.

Typology: Benefits and Downfalls

There are so many misconceptions about the Myers Briggs personalty types, or any typological system really. It is like what people say with science: “All models are wrong but some are useful.”  No personality profile will ever match someone perfectly because we are multifaceted creatures. In order to fully capture someone’s full personality we would need hundreds or even thousands of personality systems, and even then we would have to work hard to know exactly how each component interacts. 

I believe that personality systems are tools you can use to learn about and describe yourself. It gives you new language that helps you understand the more abstract parts of yourself. For example, an INTP could have trouble dealing with social rules they find illogical, and you could use the concept of inferior Fe to help you talk about that.

Of course the negatives of this system are that people have the often use it to stereotype people they dislike. People hate on their controlling ESFJ mothers all the time, but they do not realize that Naomi Quenk, in her book Was that Really Me? mentioned how INXJs can be seen as controlling themselves. There must be some projection of the inferior function Se going on. Another problem is that no one is on the same page when it comes defining what MBTI actually is. This is why I think we need to pay special attention to what Jung originally said about each of the cognitive functions, and all MBTI enthusiasts should read his book Psychological Types. I can’t believe some go years without ever opening that book.