On the correct understanding of dichotomy Logic/Ethics in Socionics

[xerx]

On the correct understanding of logic and ethics
Trekhov, Tsypin
Original text. http://real-socionics.ru/page19.html

Typical errors in understanding the logic/ethics dichotomy are examined. The correct definition of this dichotomy is given.

-Why do you use epithets? A detective must express himself by verbs and nouns, she said.
"Seventeen Moments of Spring"

-Can [it be], a cunning professional?
-No! A cunning professional would not go into the shelter!
"Seventeen Moments of Spring"


The understanding of the Reinin-Augustinavichiute dichotomies by different researchers can differ up to complete contrast. Furthermore, the abundance of popular literature and the absence of textbooks lead to a poor popular understanding. The authors consider it necessary to rectify the interpretations of the dichotomies of socionics and to give them clearer definitions. We decided to begin a cycle of articles in this vein starting with logic and ethics.

Let us look at how the logic / ethics dichotomy is represented in the socionics literature. "Our psyche analyzes information connected to time (regarding which it resorts to intuition), space (by which sensing is occupied), matter (for which logic is responsible) and energy (which is the constituency of ethics)." [3, p.25]

Here fundamental objections don’t appear; however, it seems necessary to explain the terms "matter" and "energy", to make it possible to correctly understand these terms in connection with socionics. [First the authors examine some myths that surround these IEs]. "Logical thinking is built upon the estimation of the parameters of objects and the correlations of their qualities. There exist laws, rules, norms – this is the strong point of logical thinking." "Ethical thinking has a completely different nature. It avoids cold calculation on the weight of reason (i.e. which is more, which is correct or incorrect). Ethics is guided by the prompt of heart in arranging its estimations. Ethics legalizes for itself right down to subjectivism. Ethics does not burden itself with proofs." [4, p.102-103]

This interpretation is very objectionable in several ways. First of all, how can ethical thinking have a "different nature" if it is, like logical thinking, also an aspect of rational judging? Furthermore, who discovers and analyzes the laws of psychology and social development? There the discussion deals directly with people’s needs and potentials; perhaps this area simply does not fall into the sphere of ethical thinking? Finally, what is this "prompt of heart"? Socionics, after all, is about questions of information processing by the human intellect. What does the heart have to do with any of it? An ethical type thinks with his head like a logical type; he has no other organ for thinking. And both logical and ethical types feel with their heart (not to be confused with the "heart" in the cardiological sense). Other definitions originate from the book of E. Rumyantsev: "Logic is the cognitive function of the psyche of man, which processes information and which makes decisions objectively and impartially." "Ethics is the mental function of subjective judgment or estimation, involving the internal, sincere world of people." [6, p.186-188]

The proof of ethics' "incorrigible" subjectivity is completely unclear. It would thus follow that roughly half of all people -- ethical types -- are unable to think properly (that is, they think subjectively) about all matters. What would happen, then, if an ethical type all of the sudden thought up something objective and of scientific importance? Let us repeat -- ethics is just as rational an aspect as logic, and its subjectivity does not logically follow from anything. In addition, what is the "emotional world of people", and how can someone become involved in it? In what realm does this world exist? How does an ethical type enter it; what exactly does he do? Is he some kind of clairvoyant of "peoples' souls"? This can't be taken seriously!

"The main behaviors of ethical types serve personal motives, but not business interests." [5, p.180] "In logicians reason and principles prevail above relations. In their intentions such people try to rest upon facts and to be objective and impartial in the estimations of the qualities of those surrounding them. [5, p.181]

Here ethics is generally seen as some "gradient of stupidity": And honestly, what else can you call a person who is unable to respect business interests or rely on facts when analyzing reality, and who is always biased? In reality, an ethical type is as much a "man of business" as a logical type; ethics also intensively pursues its business interests and isn’t any more foolish (in the everyday sense) than logic. The difference is in what set of instruments one predominantly uses: logical or ethical. For example, in the search for work or in attempts at promotion, ethics is more inclined to rely on acquaintances and connections in greater measure than its own professionalism (however high it actually is). Any logical type would envy this ability to objectively estimate the real, ethical possibilities of his assistants and familiars. The sanity of one’s judgment does not at all depend on belonging to one of the poles of the logic / ethics dichotomy.

If we return to the last quoted phrase from the book of Meged and Ovcharov, then the contradiction is clearly noticeable: "the estimation of the qualities of those surrounding them" is a purely ethical process, in which it is the logician that gravitates towards arbitrariness and non-objectivity. However, while ethics usually proves itself flawless in "human analysis", it finds it more complicated to work with heartless material objects.

Finally, according to [8]: "Logic is assured that cause-effect connections objectively exist in the world. It senses that a concept is real, but can be absent or present based on each concrete assertion. Thus, it can always distinguish intelligent assertions from senseless ones.

Ethics subconsciously expects that it is possible to change something when there’s a large desire to do so. It simply ignores concrete facts or doesn’t bother to draw from them any conclusions. The main thing is that there should be someone for whom it would be worthwhile to formulate things, rather than the desire to see them working in precise mechanical order.”

A number of questions arise: is ethics not confident in the existence of cause-effect connections? Does it not recognize the laws of physics or biology? Show us a similar ethics! Where is it? It follows from the quoted text that the logician is a sensible person, is normal, reasonable and recognizes objective reality. By contrast, an ethical type is wholly subjective, whatever he does or thinks about. We cannot agree with this.

It is interesting that C. G. Jung correlated the tendency towards objectivity not with logic / ethics but with another dichotomy – vertness.... "Introverted types differ from extroverted in the fact that they are oriented predominantly not on the object and not on objective data, but on subjective factors. In an introvert, between the perception of an object and its own action there is a subjective opinion, which prevents the action from acquiring an objective nature." [9, p.415] "If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extroverted." [9, p. 371]. "As a result of the general attitude of extroversion, thinking is orientated by the object and objective data." [9, p.380] “Feeling in the extroverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values." [9, p.394] "Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extroverted attitude." [9, p.407] "Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor." [9, p.422] "Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious." [9, p.442]

Generally speaking, it is possible to hear from many socionists that only logic is capable of being completely objective, whereas ethics is allegedly doomed to lifelong subjectivity in all questions. Our ideas are completely different.

First of all, the tendency towards objectivity is not solely a socionics factor, but depends on the level of culture, i.e. it is a personal quality, and does not belong exclusively to any TIM. One often meets classic (and very "strong") logical types, whose judgments in any matters are completely subjective.

The attempt to consider ethics as defective in questions of objectivity reverses the discovery of Aushra inside out. The socionic nature of society is expressed in that both poles of any dichotomy are in social demand.

From the point of view of socionics, "the phenomenon of human objectivity" can be divided into logical as well as ethical objectivity. The realization of these different forms of objectivity is connected to differences between logic and ethics, and their objects. Simply stated, a logical type is inclined to be objective, evaluating material objects and characterizing the laws of their existence. The ethical type is in turn, inclined to be objective about estimating the qualities of people (and of other living beings) and in his understanding of the laws of social interaction (and all subdivisions including familial relations). For example, numerous objective psychological laws are built into economic theory -- marketing and personnel management are completely built upon these laws.

Our understanding

It would be correct to generally exclude the word “objectivity” from the lexicon when we speak about this dichotomy. It would be more correct to speak of the differentiatedness of the [[description]]: logic has more than a nuanced understanding of external circumstances, and focuses on questions such as "what?" and "how?"; ethics focuses on internal circumstances and questions such as "why?" We read in [2]: "...that a logical type is occupied by exogenous processes and exogenous relations, but ethical by less objective endogenous processes and endogenous relations. The former study exogenous processes and explain their external circumstances; the latter - endogenous processes and explain their internal circumstances; that is, their inclinations, needs and attractive forces." Let us give a definition: logic is the tendency to appeal to reasoning and data analysis in terms of material (inert, inanimate) aspects of phenomena; ethics is the tendency to appeal to reasoning and data analysis in terms of energy (animated) aspects of phenomena.

Let us give some examples.

A logical type, in relation to some thing, thinks primarily about its effectiveness and functionality. A machine must move, not break down and so on; i.e. a computer must work to carry out its functions, etc. The logician will not change a thing because it has merely gone out of fashion. But for ethics, the prestige of a thing is an argument in its own right. For ethics, changes in fashion are correspondent to public expectations, to which it is usually sensitive. Logic doesn’t proceed beyond an analysis of behavior; the logician will not delve into the motives behind an act. For ethics, however, the motives are very important; they are frequently important by themselves in connection with behavior. Ethics is interested in knowing the reason, even if the act does not concern it directly. This is one of the reasons behind the natural thrust of ethical types into psychology.

Ethics is capable of giving a thorough analysis of the motivation of the actions of people and associations. This form of estimation is irreplaceable in the work of the judicial system (but also in the broader realm of law-enforcement). It is noticeable that ethical types as a whole are much more inclined to self-reflect than logical types; ethical types are highly inclined to mentally putting themselves in the place of others, and to attempt to understand their internal motivations. Logical estimation as a whole is more obvious, since it covers material (noticeable) aspects, whereas ethical estimation requires the confirmation of time to verify its predictions. For example, suppose the matter concerns the estimation of the working potential of a person. Ethics makes the forecast of its results beforehand and only time shows whether it was right. It seems that this "delay" does not at all decrease the value of ethical estimation. Unfortunately, in our times only logical analysis is currently prized, which undoubtedly impoverishes society and even rejects a few of its inherent features in some ways.

[xerx]

Possible confusions

On the basis of our determination it is understandable that logical types feel naturally confident in the sphere of material production, equipment, technology and exact sciences. They frequently creatively comprehend the regularities, which exist in the world of material objects, in inanimate nature, where there is no concept of "motives.” For logic the priority is expediency and effectiveness. To these "sacred cows" relationships with people can be sacrificed. The logician is always a man of matter, impersonal technology; lives in terms of the principle "the aircraft comes first, and the girl comes second!" Ethics, on the contrary, worries primarily about what people will think, because its behavior will be estimated. It is capable of disregarding the interests of a matter in order to receive the positive opinion of those surrounding it.

It is necessary to know how to distinguish socionics logic from the very frequently used concept of "everyday logic". The latter can be presented, by using socionics terms as a trinomial unity [7]:
+ +

The word combination "everyday logic", circulating in society, packs into it the following assertions:

* a person who possesses "everyday logic", must know how to care for himself– to prepare anything, to do some washing, to select clothing and articles of daily life and so on. This is the sphere of influence of .
* the "everyday logician" must examine business and financial questions, be prepared with technology, know how to work in any "objective" rhythm (for example, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.), to be capable of coordinating the activity of other people within certain limits (to say nothing of his own), of being dynamic and quick to mobilize. This is entirely the sphere of .
* finally, a real "everyday logician" must be capable of adequately associating with his surrounding people, to be well-off in interpersonal and collective contacts: sociable, friendly, and knowing how to reasonably compromise, or on the contrary to irreconcilably defend value on the basis of principle. It is understandable that what is enumerated above relates to .

Thus, the individual who has "everyday logic” is not compulsorily a logical type in socionics. But frequently an "everyday logician" happens to have , , , .

Ethics in socionics has little in common with the traditional concept of "modesty" of speech and behavior. The fact is that in socionics, ethical types far from always consider it necessary to adhere to accepted social (or any party’s thereof) standards of behavior, in consequence of which the individual can be shunned by the surroundings as an "unethical" individual. The possessor of strong ethics (in the socionics sense) relates to standards of behavior freely; he is gifted in “inventing" new rules for the community and "new maxims"; therefore he is frequently seen by those surrounding as a cad -- a disturber of etiquette and moral canons.

The typical logician, on the contrary, obeys conventional ethical rules, i.e. strictly observes the unwritten rules of interaction. Why does he do this? Because he feels inadequate in the sphere of interaction with people. The logician fears to do anything incorrect, to give out a careless word for his ethical insolvency; therefore he is caught in the midst of objectively existing norms of contact.

Through ethics, a maximum of information is obtained across nonverbal channels: tracking poses, mimicry, vision, emotions and the respiration of the interlocutor. Logic, as a rule, fails miserably at this; it prefers to obtain information through words, expressed either through spoken or –better– through written language.

Through logic, it is more difficult to understand the connections between people and their associations. It is easier to formulate new natural laws, or invent new technical devices. Ethics, on the contrary, is not friendly to “heartless technology", it is scared of it and approaches it carefully, fearing to cause harm or injury; however, in the sphere of human relations and their associated sciences, it feels more freedom and can even come out as the generator of new ideas, or as the creator of a new theory of social, psychological or economic directivity.

Ethics and emotionalism

"Ethics produces emotional people, but who do not necessarily manifest their feelings outwardly." [12]

With regard to man’s manifestations of emotions and their analysis, the aspect is responsible. The aspect – we want to emphasize this especially – is not connected to emotionalism. It examines such questions as ethical initiative and analyzes interpersonal as well as collective relations; this aspect and psychology are tightly interlaced.

Manifestation of emotions depends on the following factors:

1. The place of in Model A.
2. Temperament (energy) type.
3. Individual characteristics.

Hence it follows that:

1. The most emotional types are and since their is four-dimensional and does not depend on information signals from other functions. However, they have complete control of their emotions (at least in small limits). and are completely capable of holding their emotions within for long periods of time – depending on the presence of an information signal from or respectively. and are also outwardly emotional due to their normative (role) .

Accepting initiates the largest manifestation of emotions, followed by productive.

2. The linear-energetic temperament (EJ) originates the maximum amount of emotionalism, followed by the flexible-mobile (EP), balanced-stable (IJ) and receptive-adaptive (IP) [10], [11]. Emotionalism in the balanced-stable temperament is given more priority than the receptive-adaptive due to accepting and the durability of its energy manifestations.

[xerx]

3. The psycho-energetic special features of a person can be such, that even having weak , he demonstrates, powerful, long-lasting, intensive emotional manifestations. It is also possible for individuals with TIMs or to manifest emotions very modestly for long periods. Let us note that most frequently such personalities have subtypes: intuitive-logical in and sensory-logical in .

Conclusion: the emotional manifestations of people and their analysis are placed in the socionics category "ethics." However, ethics is in no way identical to emotionalism; it is a rational analysis of reality, very indirectly and not always connected to emotions. In particular, Aushra said (according to S. Kashnitsky), having in mind the TIM said: "Ethics is about relationships, not emotions. Clyde is not at all emotional, but he is an excellent diplomat."

The question of identification

During verbal typing it is necessary to keep in mind, that ethics can completely [[упорядоченно]] and logically discuss many things and phenomena in reality, especially those that are associated with people and their interactions . It is even possible to say that ethics is the logic of social contact and social behavior. With regards to this logic, ethical types are always in perfect order. Ethics is completely capable of solving simple problems in the field of exact sciences; however, it never feels fully confident in being occupied by itself, by mathematics or chemistry, say, at the professional level.

Accordingly, logicians find it difficult to understand many special features of the development of society. Because of this, a number of laws governing economic theory (and many other scientific disciplines) pass over their heads at first glance (although, naturally, the logician is capable of being occupied by them at the professional level). It is reasonable to note that logic is the ethics of interrelations in the material (inert) world.

The following fact is interesting and important for identification: logic in ethical types is normative, and therefore they are highly concerned with the “consistency" of their thoughts and behavior. In order to substantiate their behavior, they use the elements of formal logic by referring to authorities, laws, rules and other "indisputable" sources [10]. Let us note that formal logic is the most accessible logical tool, and for this very reason enjoys great success with "sophisticated" ethicists. Aushra wrote: "The logic of all ethicists is normative. They strictly carry out all logical norms, and it is very important that it is scientific or at least generally accepted, because they neither discover nor develop new logical relations or new methods of action. In logical reasoning they are very careful and never assured of perfection. The horizon of their logical interests is wide for the same reason; they read much more than logicians. They are better conveyers of scientific truths. Incidentally, in the region of artistic literature, logicians are often characterized by erudition, which originates from the need to hold on to ethical standards." [1, p.141]

The logician most frequently does not need to heed relatively primitive formal substantiations for his actions; he uses meaningful logic, and relates critically to authorities.

Generally speaking, the identification of this dichotomy is complex, since the majority of more or less intellectually developed people (to a ripe old age) do rather well with the antipode (logicians can use ethics, and vice versa). Out of the entire Jungian basis, logic/ethics is the most diluted during typing and maximally subjected to “operating time” (наработка – Soviet term for the interval between the failures of something, an index of reliability) or partial reprogramming.


Literature

1. Augustinavichiute A. Соционика: Введение / Сост. Л. Филиппов. М. – СПб., АСТ, 1998.
2. Augustinavichiute A. Theory of the Reinin Dichotomies // Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology, №3, 1998.
3. Горенко Е. А., Толстиков В. И. Природа собственного «я». – М.: Армада-пресс, 2001.
4. Кашницкий С. Е. Среди людей. Соционика – наука общения. – М.: Армада-пресс, 2001.
5. Meged V. V., Ovcharov A. A. Характеры и отношения. – М.: Армада-пресс, 2002.
6. Румянцева Е. А. На пути к взаимопониманию: соционика – учителям и родителям. – М.: Армада-пресс, 2002.
7. Цыпин П. Е. Понятие социотипа, соционические дихотомии и типирование // СПиМО, сентябрь 2003.
8. Удалова Е. А. Уроки соционики, или Самое главное, чему нас не научили в школе / Е. А. Удалова, Л. А. Бескова. – М.: Астрель, 2003.
9. C.G. Jung Psychological Types / Пер. с нем.; Под общ. ред. В. В. Зеленского. – Мн.: ООО «Попурри», 1998.
10. Viktor Gulenko Структурно-функциональная соционика: Разработка метода комбинаторики полярностей. – К.: Транспорт Украины, 1999. –Ч.1.
11. Меньшова Т. И., Цыпин П. Е., Лёвин И. В. Секреты типирования. – М.: Доброе слово, 2004.
12. Ekaterina Filatova Соционика для всех. Б&K, 1999.

[squark]

There's much good information in this. Thanks for posting it jxrtes.

[Crispy]

Yeah I learned something new! EXTj's are high up on the "outward emotional scale" because of role function. Badass.

[xerx]

Yeah I learned something new! EXTj's are high up on the "outward emotional scale" because of role function. Badass.

[Crispy]

FUCKING THING SUCKS. Lol, he acts just like my Dad. Lemme guess, Bill's LSE?

[Beautiful sky]

Oh ESTj's can flip out BIG time...lose their temper N ALL.
I just ignor the Fe...lol

He looks LIE to me,
Second ESE
Third LSE

[xerx]

FUCKING THING SUCKS. Lol, he acts just like my Dad. Lemme guess, Bill's LSE?

I think he's LIE but I don't have a strong opinion.