The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki
Hypothesis: Lenore Thomson's theory explains "politically correct" speech codes and intolerance and the like as Introverted Intuition gone wild, trying to move into the extraverted arena as a basis of social agreement--where it can't possibly work.
Introverted intuition leads you to seek a point of view outside any system, from which to make judgements about that system and see aspects of the system that can't be seen on its own terms. In particular, it leads you to seek a neutral perspective: one from which you can render judgements without bias, especially hidden bias.
A particular form of bias that many INJs especially loathe is the bias that comes from your economic situation: your social class, or who's buttering your bread. If you're from an economically well-off social class, it can be very convenient to believe that you and your friends are better off than the poor people across town because you're smarter, have more drive, better moral character, or some other innate trait that makes you come off looking good and deserving your privileged position. There are winking conspiracies, where people play along with a social myth like "we're the most charitable," lest they be kicked out of their group and lose all the attendant benefits. These convenient myths are never put to a real test, because the unwritten social rules prevent any such test from ever occurring. Instead, there is the ever-present false test: "See, we're better off and we look nicer. If they were better people, they'd be better off, too."
Introverted intuition used for ego orientation leads one to take responsibility for the unintended consequences of decisions and the hidden factors that lurk behind public façades. The felt responsibility is to ensure that all decisions take all these hidden factors into account.
Interest in hidden bias goes too far when the rule becomes, "Make no decision until the criteria for making it are certain to be without any form of bias whatsoever." This cannot be done. When raised to the level of a moral principle meant to bind a society, it simply nullifies all social agreements and offers nothing to put in their place. It turns the fact that you are a living being, eager as any living being to turn things to your advantage and flourish in the world, into a source of shame.
If you are successful in any way, using your talents and social connections as any person must in order to flourish, this is proof of your guilt. It's not enough to achieve, you are only allowed to achieve if you can prove that you did it without any special advantage that someone else did not possess. Even judging something as an achievement reflects bias: other people, raised differently, might not agree that designing semiconductors is a worthy achievement; they might instead value break dancing. Who are you to say that yours is better--or more worthy of funding? And is your valuation an unbiased reflection on what is truly worthy, or a reflection of the fact that you happen to be better at designing semiconductors than break dancing?
The extremes of political correctness come about when every public act that in some way uses or establishes power--which is to say, every public act--is viewed as something that must be put down by force lest it establish an unequal power relationship. So, for example, complimenting a woman on her appearance must be stopped, because it establishes a particular feminine role, a role that the woman might not agree to. Even if the particular woman enjoys it, this is no reason to allow the behavior: her enjoyment of being complimented might not be a truly free and informed choice. It might grow out of a lifetime of seeing that women in this role receive material benefits, and a sense that in order to get along, she must go along; the woman might not have allowed herself to ever imagine an alternative.
It's easy to see how anything can be construed the same way. Isn't it unfair, for example, that so many street signs in the United States are written in English? What about people who are not fluent in English? Don't they get a say? Doesn't the use of English say implicitly that we as a society think that European civilization, with its Latin alphabet and SVO grammars, are superior to all others--and that non-Europeans are therefore second-class citizens? Doesn't the use of money implicitly dub a left-brain, numerical style of thought superior to the right-brain styles still in use among many South American tribes? Doesn't the institution of property itself unfairly favor just one kind of human social organization among many? Aren't we able to do these things--only because we can?
The philosophy of John Rawls would be the ultimate reductio ad absurdum of introverted intuition as the sole basis of social contract.
p. 235-6: "INJs also defend their Intuition by applying their Judgment to institutionalized bias. This is a valid concern, of course, and well developed INJs are often in the forefront of battles involving inclusive language. However, when these types are defeding their inner world against inferior aims, they invariably focus on terms that suggest a Sensate viewpoint--that is, one determined by surface criteria: gender, race, color, and so forth"
"The defensive nature of these efforts is apparent in the laws, charters, hymn books, and classroom agendas that issue from them. The language of these products is not inclusive so much as disembodied. Made to accomodate the INJ's purely conceptual approach to life, the terms don't support every point of view; they reflect no one's actual experience."