True/false questions about logical and ethical types

[marooned]

These are meant to be true/false questions. I was hoping people could answer some or all them (and say why they answered as they did). I don't have the "answers" and it is more about discussing the differences anyway.

1. Ethical types are better at controlling and/or regulating their emotions than logical types.
2. Logical types are more likely to try to control their emotions than ethical types.
3. Not all ethical types feel comfortable with emotional expression.
4. Logical types are more likely to feel emotionally insecure than ethical types.
5. Ethical types generally feel they understand how others are feeling and feel comfortable with that more so than logical types.
6. A person's ability to understand her or himself isn't particularly related to whether s/he is an ethical type or a logical type.
7. Logical types are more likely to isolate themselves from others than ethical types, especially if they are also introverted.
8. Ethical types are generally better at managing their own stress and emotional upheavals than logical types are.
9. Logical types are more likely to take things "personally" than ethical types.
10. Ethical types are more likely to get lost in their emotions (even to their detriment) than logical types.
11. Logical types are prone to analyzing humor.
12. Ethical types tend to use emotion in a deliberate way and are unlikely to fly off the handle.
13. A person's capacity to care for others, to feel sympathy or compassion, or to empathize with others is largely unrelated to whether he or she is a logical type or an ethical type.
14. Logical types do not like to feel emotions and may wish they didn't have to.
15. Ethical types are bad at logical reasoning.
16. Logical types feel less than ethical types do.
17. Ethical types are more idealistic than logical types.
18. Logical types struggle with morality and may have difficulty differentiating "right" from "wrong," or may feel that these are just societal norms that came about rather arbitrarily.
19. Ethical types think in terms of "right" and "wrong," but logical types don't.
20. Logical types are more likely to overreact than ethical types.
21. It isn't possible for an ethical type to "feel too much," but a logical type will become very unbalanced if s/he has to be emotional for too long. Conversely, ethical types become unbalanced when they have to think for long periods of time.
22. Ethical types think that logic is irrelevant.
23. Logical types are blind to the motivations behind people's actions if those motives are not logical. They are then more susceptible to emotional manipulation and may even think that others are often trying to manipulate them emotionally.
24. Ethical types exist to provide moral support for logical types. They need not fulfill any other role, and will often be content with simply supporting others emotionally.
25. Logical types are generally more paranoid than ethical types.
26. Most ethical types are adept at helping others with their emotional problems.
27. Logical types are more likely to have emotional problems than ethical types.
28. Ethical types are more likely to be religious than logical types.
29. Logical types are prone to feel under confident about their intellectual abilities when depressed or under pressure.
30. Ethical types are more likely to act rashly off of their emotions than logical types.
31. Logical types are more likely to have sadistic thoughts than ethical types.

Edit

32. Ethical types are more manipualtive than logical types.
33. Logical types tend to be more honest than ethical types.

[aestrivex]

These are meant to be true/false questions. I was hoping people could answer some or all them (and say why they answered as they did). I don't have the "answers" and it is more about discussing the differences anyway.

false 1. Ethical types are better at controlling and/or regulating their emotions than logical types.
false 2. Logical types are more likely to try to control their emotions than ethical types.
true 3. Not all ethical types feel comfortable with emotional expression.
false 4. Logical types are more likely to feel emotionally insecure than ethical types.
probably true 5. Ethical types generally feel they understand how others are feeling and feel comfortable with that more so than logical types.
true 6. A person's ability to understand her or himself isn't particularly related to whether s/he is an ethical type or a logical type.
false 7. Logical types are more likely to isolate themselves from others than ethical types, especially if they are also introverted.
false 8. Ethical types are generally better at managing their own stress and emotional upheavals than logical types are.
false 9. Logical types are more likely to take things "personally" than ethical types.
false 10. Ethical types are more likely to get lost in their emotions (even to their detriment) than logical types.
false 11. Logical types are prone to analyzing humor.
false 12. Ethical types tend to use emotion in a deliberate way and are unlikely to fly off the handle.
probably false 13. A person's capacity to care for others, to feel sympathy or compassion, or to empathize with others is largely unrelated to whether he or she is a logical type or an ethical type.
false 14. Logical types do not like to feel emotions and may wish they didn't have to.
false 15. Ethical types are bad at logical reasoning.
false 16. Logical types feel less than ethical types do.
false 17. Ethical types are more idealistic than logical types.
false 18. Logical types struggle with morality and may have difficulty differentiating "right" from "wrong," or may feel that these are just societal norms that came about rather arbitrarily.
false 19. Ethical types think in terms of "right" and "wrong," but logical types don't.
false 20. Logical types are more likely to overreact than ethical types.
false 21. It isn't possible for an ethical type to "feel too much," but a logical type will become very unbalanced if s/he has to be emotional for too long. Conversely, ethical types become unbalanced when they have to think for long periods of time.
false 22. Ethical types think that logic is irrelevant.
false 23. Logical types are blind to the motivations behind people's actions if those motives are not logical. They are then more susceptible to emotional manipulation and may even think that others are often trying to manipulate them emotionally.
false 24. Ethical types exist to provide moral support for logical types. They need not fulfill any other role, and will often be content with simply supporting others emotionally.
false 25. Logical types are generally more paranoid than ethical types.
false 26. Most ethical types are adept at helping others with their emotional problems.
false 27. Logical types are more likely to have emotional problems than ethical types.
probably false. 28. Ethical types are more likely to be religious than logical types.
false 29. Logical types are prone to feel under confident about their intellectual abilities when depressed or under pressure.
false 30. Ethical types are more likely to act rashly off of their emotions than logical types.
false 31. Logical types are more likely to have sadistic thoughts than ethical types.

Edit

false 32. Ethical types are more manipualtive than logical types.
false 33. Logical types tend to be more honest than ethical types.

[Ezra]

I think niffweed has that wrapped up nicely.

[marooned]

So are any of these statements true?

Ethical types are more likely to take things "personally" than logical types.

Logical types are more likely to get lost in their emotions (even to their detriment) than ethical types.

Logical types tend to use emotion in a deliberate way and are unlikely to fly off the handle.

Ethical types are more likely to overreact than logical types.

Ethical types are more likely to have emotional problems than logical types.

Ethical types are prone to feel under confident about their intellectual abilities when depressed or under pressure.

Logical types are more likely to act rashly off of their emotions than ethical types.

probably false A person's capacity to care for others, to feel sympathy or compassion, or to empathize with others is largely unrelated to whether he or she is a logical type or an ethical type.

Why?

[Ezra]

probably false A person's capacity to care for others, to feel sympathy or compassion, or to empathize with others is largely unrelated to whether he or she is a logical type or an ethical type.

Why?

Because ethical types make decisions based on people's feelings, and thus this applies to them, whereas logical types make decisions based on logic, precisely because they do not feel as much sympathy, empathy or compassion for others.

[aestrivex]

So are any of these statements true?

Ethical types are more likely to take things "personally" than logical types.

Logical types are more likely to get lost in their emotions (even to their detriment) than ethical types.

Logical types tend to use emotion in a deliberate way and are unlikely to fly off the handle.

Ethical types are more likely to overreact than logical types.

Ethical types are more likely to have emotional problems than logical types.

Ethical types are prone to feel under confident about their intellectual abilities when depressed or under pressure.

Logical types are more likely to act rashly off of their emotions than ethical types.

not remotely. these are all just absurdly broad generalizations.

probably false A person's capacity to care for others, to feel sympathy or compassion, or to empathize with others is largely unrelated to whether he or she is a logical type or an ethical type.

Why?

[/quote]

things like sympathy, empathy, compassion: are these totally unrelated to type?

if you had said "logical types are incapable of feeling empathy" or something like that i would have said it was false in a heartbeat. but are they related? of course; traits like these are not the pseudo-dichotomic T/F nonsense that most of the other questions seem to be portraying. it would make sense that characteristics like these are more closely related to type than something like "logical types can't control their emotions," which is likely to vary very strongly by the individual.

[marooned]

things like sympathy, empathy, compassion: are these totally unrelated to type?

if you had said "logical types are incapable of feeling empathy" or something like that i would have said it was false in a heartbeat. but are they related? of course; traits like these are not the pseudo-dichotomic T/F nonsense that most of the other questions seem to be portraying. it would make sense that characteristics like these are more closely related to type than something like "logical types can't control their emotions," which is likely to vary very strongly by the individual.

All right. I guess my question then would be just how much are they related to type (?). If ethical types have a greater capacity for empathy, sympathy and compassion on average than logical types, then how much greater of a capacity is that? All things being equal every human being should have an equal capacity for these things, but all things are not equal. So in the context of type, how unequal are they? I tend to think that compassion transcends type... but it's hard to explain why I see it that way (and I could just be wrong). As for empathy and sympathy, that's a bit different... Empathy at least can be tracked scientifically, and is IMO a form of "intelligence." The component of it involving perceiving the emotions of others involves a cognitive process of being able to match up patterns in people's expressions, behaviors, gestures, tone of voice, idea expression, etc. with an emotional state. But empathy also involves being able to care about that as well, which may tie back into compassion. I would never want to say that on the whole ethical types are better at this sort of thing than logical types although both are readily capable of it (as they are human), but that is not what you were saying... you were only saying that it's related... It could work to say that these things are just the first priority to an ethical type, but may be secondary to a logical type... As a sequence, it seems to make more sense. The problem seems to be finding something of significance in the sea of everything that seems too general to pin down.

@ Ezra: I think that makes sense.

[aestrivex]

i don't think it's something you can quantify, nor is it something that type can describe with exactitude. something like "ethical types are more empathic than logical types" might be valid, but these sorts of things will vary between individuals of any type.

The problem seems to be finding something of significance in the sea of everything that seems too general to pin down.

you are looking in the wrong bodies of water. what may be true in one pond in minnesota is not necessarily the case in the ocean.



if you want to look in the ocean, you will find a vast mesh of unrelated different types of fish (excuse the bad metaphor).

in a pond, there may be a much lesser amount of fish that share the same general characteristics. it is in the pond where you interact with the ocean (by way of a river, of course), and not in the ocean itself.



edit: ok, this metaphor is getting way too complex and unrealistic. i tried.

[marooned]

I like this idea ... it not being about capacity; just about what takes the front seat in your mind in your reaction or approach to things. (In ethical types, ethics predominates; in logical types, logic predominates.)

Plus if you're talking to someone you can't exactly focus on everything at once... you have to prioritize... at least I think...

[aestrivex]

I like this idea ... it not being about capacity; just about what takes the front seat in your mind in your reaction or approach to things. (In ethical types, ethics predominates; in logical types, logic predominates.)

even this is too general to be useful.

[Creepy-bg]

I'd go get a big bowl of food and leave it for the kitties. (how old of kitties are we talking about here BTW?) I might just end up feeling shitty about it and walking past, trying to repress the memory. I wouldn't think about why they're there or who could do such a thing I don't think.

I most likely would find the runt and take it home as my new kitty.

(sorry for off topic )

[aestrivex]

It's like, a logical type can feel sorry for the poor little kitties that were left in the gutter by some heartless person, but their predominate action is often going to be something like "Why did this person leave them there?" or "What should I do now? Call the vet? Call the animal shelter?" or "Do I know anybody who could look after these kitties?"
--- their actions will be predominated by thought

Pfft, but I don't know what it's like to be an ethical type ... would their reaction/actions then be the mirror of this (ie: be able to think logically or factually about the problem but be predominated by feelings or ethics); or would their reactions/actions be the same? (I just thought it would be the mirror.)

too general. not all logical types will do this.

[marooned]

~Translation/elaboration to self~

What I am looking for: a clear understanding of the functions (among other things), though the functions are currently the priority because they are the pieces I can work with...

Where I am looking: in a vast sea of generalities encompassing qualities within humanity... I am essentially sorting "fish," sorting what is type-related from what isn't. The problem with this is it takes too long. A different approach may be needed. But I am waiting on association to do it for me...

Why I am doing this: because if I can't reconcile a smaller picture with the large picture, I may not believe in the validity of the small picture. What Ezra said, I think was quite clear... but for some reason it is not enough.

What I can't find: the river between the pond and the ocean... and hence I can't find the pond(s). I can't find the interconnections. They are the means of reconciliation between the large picture and the small picture. They are also the passage into the small picture. There are pieces that overlap, that do not fall into place, that re-shift and again do not fall into place. I don't know why association isn't working... it always works. I think the difficulty is the involvment of the self in this... the overlap between the self, others, and the theory. The theory cannot be separated from the self and others... self-confusions then hinder an understanding of the theory moreso than they would in something not so tied up in the self.

What I have noticed: a tendency to over-generalize... a difficulty in finding the extent to which over-generalization has occured. I am outside the box, not in it. This happens to me frequently. I sometimes need others to point me in the direction of the box I'm supposed to be thinking in.

ok, this metaphor is getting way too complex and unrealistic. i tried.

I think I may have made it worse. :wink:

[aestrivex]

finding "rivers" in the form of generalizations like "logical types do not control their emotions" is not going to work very well.


socionics has a built in system of rivers in the form of information elements. as far as socionics is concerned, these are the biggest rivers; if any other rivers actually approach the correct destination, they will be smaller and less important.

[marooned]

sigh... I don't think we're on the same page...

[FDG]

It's like, a logical type can feel sorry for the poor little kitties that were left in the gutter by some heartless person, but their predominate action is often going to be something like "Why did this person leave them there?" or "What should I do now? Call the vet? Call the animal shelter?" or "Do I know anybody who could look after these kitties?"
--- their actions will be predominated by thought

Pfft, but I don't know what it's like to be an ethical type ... would their reaction/actions then be the mirror of this (ie: be able to think logically or factually about the problem but be predominated by feelings or ethics); or would their reactions/actions be the same? (I just thought it would be the mirror.)

Just an example of the typical ethical/logical divide which is ingrained in the female/male stereotypes.

A girl complains about something. His boyfriend starts to list all the options she has to make the situation better and removing the problem. The girl complains that all she needed was just a pat on the shoulder and "everything will be allright". (here, the boyfriend is T, the girl is F)

[munenori2]

It's like, a logical type can feel sorry for the poor little kitties that were left in the gutter by some heartless person, but their predominate action is often going to be something like "Why did this person leave them there?" or "What should I do now? Call the vet? Call the animal shelter?" or "Do I know anybody who could look after these kitties?"
--- their actions will be predominated by thought

Pfft, but I don't know what it's like to be an ethical type ... would their reaction/actions then be the mirror of this (ie: be able to think logically or factually about the problem but be predominated by feelings or ethics); or would their reactions/actions be the same? (I just thought it would be the mirror.)

As an INFj, the first thing that the situation would present to me would be trying to comprehend the person who left the kittens there and how they would justify doing it. As an internal process, this is usually when I try to put myself into the person's shoes and try to walk through the decision they made. This would end up making me angry, as anyone who had decided to go ahead with it might be getting rid of a perceived 'problem' or 'burden' but in doing so were willing to purchase it with the real suffering of others. For me, this is something intolerable: a violation of dignity, or worse yet a stripping of the inherent value which belongs to all living things. In more plain terms, anger that such a person would deem the kittens to be so worthless that their lives could be discarded without another thought.

Parallel to this line of thinking is the problem of the abandoned kittens themselves. Most important of all, this problem presents itself as a Moral problem (the capital-letter emphasis is perhaps deserved for my type). My intuitive functions make it pretty easy to visualize the remaining lives of the kittens if they aren't helped. Thus, the kittens MUST be helped. From here, the question of what to do would be motivated purely by what was the best for the kittens. Interestingly enough, I would have second thoughts about taking them to the animal shelter because, depending on the specific shelters (where unadopted pets may be euthanized within a few weeks), I would be very worried that I was putting them right back into the same type of situation. As a result, I'd probably try to give them away myself and if there were no takers, probably end up keeping them.