Working on an article for it. It's mostly done and open for criticism. Note that you'll have to read the "Political type theory and immanence" thread to understand most of the terminology used. (alternatively, you can register at my website and review the wiki).
Consequentialist people (also termed "teleologists") are concordant with respect to the ego and discordant with respect to the id. They insist on concordance between their ego subelements but insist on discordance between their id subelements. Thus they seek to reconcile half of their subelements, and so see the world very clearly with respect to the truths these reconciliations represent, but are blocked from seeing all such truths due to the factor of incoherent premises. They abjure their id's dominant political subelement and refuse to acknowledge its rightful existence, thinking it irrevocably tied to the id's destructiveness. Although they understand well enough what the problems are and what needs to be done to solve them, they tie their own hands away from many of the most effective solutions to the problems before them. Instead they insist on using other, bizarre and often convoluted means to deal with the matters before them. They may feel they are alone in the world, the only people competent enough to deal with its problems effectively. Chiefly, their issue is a matter of the means to an end: having refused to accept all the available options (seeing many of them as unduly destructive), they instead resort to extreme measures to achieve solutions -- measures that to others seem unnecessary or even wrong. They may lack faith in the abilities of others, growing cold and recalcitrant. They may pick fights with people whose methods they find unacceptable, even if the majority (or a super majority) disagrees.
Forms of Consequentialism
Consequentialism manifests differently depending on which belief elements are involved. For each political type, there is a different manifestation of teleology.
Liberal Conseqentialism focuses on the negatives at the exclusion of the positives. It is the disposition to cynicism.
Conservative Consequentialism focuses on the positives at the exclusion of the negatives. It is the disposition to naivete.
Reformer Consequentialism focuses on inconstancy at the exclusion of constancy. It is the disposition to radical, sudden change; a "pathological break from the past", in Jung's terms.
Traditionalist Consequentialism focuses on constancy at the exclusion of inconstancy. It is the disposition to technological skepticism.
These yield, when combined in internal/external pairs?, eight distinct perspectives. Teleologists do not attempt to deny belief elements, but nonetheless see their id's elements as a threat to be overcome by any applicable means. Thus for each perspective, there is an attendant justification for extreme attitudes/behaviors. (NOTE: The justifications are a work in progress -- 11/27/2010)
Liberal Traditionalist Consequentialism asserts that reform never succeeds and as such, is not worth attempting.
Justification: one must stand up against stupid ideas that threaten to transform mankind's meager circumstances into something even more difficult and hellish.
Liberal Reformer Consequentialism asserts that institutions (such as government) are irredeemably unreliable and corrupt, and are a blight on society.
Justification: one should buck institutions at every turn if one hopes to actually make something of oneself and enjoy the good things in life. In one's bid to be free from institutional control, one is absolved of any and all responsibility.
Conservative Reformer Consequentialism dismisses the importance of negative signs, such as poor behavior or malintent. Where others would see a negative, this attitude sees grey, or even a positive.
Justification: Because stasis leads to stagnation, it must be avoided at any and all costs.
Conservative Traditionalist Consequentialism avoids negatives, and hence, fails to acknowledge rationale for reform. It's not that they are against reform; they just never acknowledge the negatives of that which they practice and as such, never see a need for change.
Justification: Silly attempts to placate the undeserving threaten the good things in life. To the extent these attempts are implemented, they may be so catastrophic as to liberate people from ethical normatives in the pursuit of their reversal.
Reformer Liberal Consequentialism asserts the inconstance of everything. Nothing is permanent or even persistent... it's all an illusion, a veneer of order amidst a world of total chaos. Belief in order is itself the source of the world's ills... instead let everything be free and uninhibited, unrestrained.
Justification: ours is a difficult world to survive in. To the extent that the tide turns against oneself and the causes in which one believes, one should use every available means to tip the balance.
Reformer Conservative Consequentialism argues that freedom is the way of the world, for good or bad.
Justification: that the world is free to trend to either the positive or the negative, the positive must be protected at all costs from the encroaching threat of the negative. To the extent that the positive is subsumed by the negative, those who would restore it are alone the determinants of what is right and good.
Traditionalist Liberal Consequentialism avoids chaos, disorder. The world is well-ordered, for the good or the bad. Chaos and unpredictability is not acknowledged.
Justification: existing belief systems are naive. To the extent that a person refuses to see the deeper reality suggested by new ways of thinking, they may be so compelled by all available means.
Traditionalist Conservative Consequentialism believes the world well-ordered under a timeless, well understood set of rules. There are no rules beyond these, thus there is no reason to question them.
Justification: the rules are to be followed without question, and in every circumstance. To the extent that people ignore the rules, any available means are to be exercised to get them back into line.
I need a little bit of criticism with the reformer liberal description... it doesn't seem "complete" (it's the perspective which justifies terrorism in the name of global warming, for example). The others I'm pretty comfortable with.
See anything familiar, many of you?
I suspect consequentialism has a negative effect on certain IM functions (for example, making the weak functions even more suspect and prone to criticism), though it's not immediately clear to me how.
These aren't IM elements. They are belief elements, subfunctions common to each of the socionics functions. See http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...immanence.html
Originally Posted by Vois
I do believe though, that the weak and unvalued elements (in Model A) are the most susceptible to consequentialist arguments and thinking.