Honor
girl with a pretty smile
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
- MBTI Type
- ?
- Instinctual Variant
- so
I think we actually agree on many things, but we're having a lot of analytical dissonance simply because we value different types of analysis. For example, I agree with you that a person's value doesn't come from whether they are "intelligent" by someone's standard. I also don't believe that a person's worth is determined by how much they make, what type of work they do, and the myriad other criteria that our economic system (and thus, our society) uses to determine how useful a person is. I think all of that is absurd, really. I have a feeling you agree.Oh, I mean the other way around, like how the public generally takes "smarter" to be "better". Perhaps it means more able, but better is a subjective, personally-determined value thing. Like let's say you are looking at partners... do you want a partner who is smart? Yes, of course, the vast majority does. But do you want a partner who is good at math? Well, you might not care, really. That sort of thing. The idea that "intelligence" is particularly linked to being "better" in general, while many other variables that are part of what we generally consider intelligence come out being less linked to worth when they are isolated.
I do agree of course that Js probably have an advantage in capitalistic systems... I think Ss have it better in basically any situation that requires being observant... Ts of course are better when dealing with rigid logic systems... and so on...
It just bothers me how much crossover there is between classification, like typology, and individual worth. It seems to me we should start out assuming that all people have worth because they are humans too, and take it from there.
However, here's where I do think we clash: I don't think that we should limit analysis simply because of how people will use the output of that analysis. I do think it's very important to consider that people decide who to value and who to put down based on labels like "intelligent" or its opposite. I think it's important to consider that those labels are often assigned incorrectly and that the resulting actions are often unethical. All of that said, I don't think that means the problem is that "intelligence" has not been defined, is not defined correctly, or is not a valuable concept. People will always take information and appropriate it into inappropriate circumstances. (In other words, even if we withheld evaluation of "intelligence" in the way I think you desire, people would still find ways to keep the exact same people from holding social or economic power.)