typology & prejudice

[baccheion]

They try to control and they eventually misuse, corrupt, and ruin anything that works well, or that people buy into. At one point religion, education, and IQ actually meant something, but now are nothing more than tools helping to proliferate their bullshit agenda. The same will be (or can be) said of Typology and anything else these idiots can get their hands on. I don't understand the infatuation some people have with finding a way to feel like they are better than everyone else, and with misusing/ruining anything that shows promise.

 

[Coriolis]

the actual topic i was trying to [melodramatically] address was typological prejudice in the workplace and in society at large.
_____________________________________________________________
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

so, does the alternative of typological prejudice means mister King got what he was asking for?

To respond to the edited OP: there are many forms of prejudice. Prejudice is simply pre-judging someone, forming a conclusion about them based on some readily observable quality that may have nothing to do with their character, meant here in the moral sense, as I believe ML King used it. This can be things we are born with, like race, sex, culture, etc; or things we choose, like having tattoos, riding a motorcycle, or just living in the "bad" part of town. Discrimination is acting on those prejudices in a way that we exclude (or include) people based on characteristics irrelevant to the situation. If we want to hire a chef, for instance, being black is irrelevant, but if we want an actor to portray ML King, it becomes very relevant.

All this to say, if we are using type codes to make decisions in the workplace, this is just as unethical as any form of discrimination, since it ignores the individuality of people. That being said, certain jobs require certain abilities or qualities, say attention to detail, or the ability to work with people. Some types *tend* to do better at this than others. The key is the word *tend*. If someone of a type that is generally poor at the ability has nonetheless learned to do it well, they deserve the same consideration as anyone else. As long as workplace decisions focus on relevant skills and abilities, one's type code doesn't matter any more than anything else.

 

[garbage]

Half of this thread was salvageable; half of it was absorbed by the Off Topic thread behemoth.


We couldn't stop the Off Topic thread's wrath. But then I guess we didn't really try. ..and also we were the ones who summoned it.

 

[Porsche]

and btw, this is not some dystopian future scenario - typology is used as a means for employment and human resource related decisions right now by a multitude of privately owned organizations and companies throughout the western world.

What places are using typology for employment? US? And other Western countries? I don't think this system is used in the place where I live in but the HR are giving more detailed Psychology questions to the applicant.

But using typology and some Psychology tests to a person is like prejudice enough. And using typology is like giving someone a discrimination based on a person's "preference". Typology does not scientifically prove the 100% accurateness assessment of a person, though it may give an idea of what a person is. Abilities, capacities, and skills might be overlooked, and the person's cognitive functions does not cover them, even the mental state of a person (though I think, detailed psychology exams can detect it and can pre-scan a person, thus it makes for them easier to select which ones are ideal employees and which ones to eliminate).

 

[WALMART]

What places are using typology for employment? US? And other Western countries? I don't think this system is used in the place where I live in but the HR are giving more detailed Psychology questions to the applicant.

But using typology and some Psychology tests to a person is like prejudice enough. And using typology is like giving someone a discrimination based on a person's "preference". Typology does not scientifically prove the 100% accurateness assessment of a person, though it may give an idea of what a person is. Abilities, capacities, and skills might be overlooked, and the person's cognitive functions does not cover them, even the mental state of a person (though I think, detailed psychology exams can detect it and can pre-scan a person, thus it makes for them easier to select which ones are ideal employees and which ones to eliminate).

I was administered a two hundred question psychology test upon employment for a company. I generated interest, if that means anything.

(USA)