Logic and Ethics

[Megan]

It seems to me that on this forum, quite a lot of people associate being a logical type with having sound reasoning and intelligence and being and ethical type with being in possession of what is widely considered good morals and being an emotional person .

Examining feeling(ethics), Jung in Man and his Symbols wrote that feeling as a rational process is often confused with emotions, emotional volatility and affect.

He wrote that feeling (as a function in psychological theory)can give rise to emotions but only when the feeling is powerful enough to trigger neurological changes. The same kind of emotionality, particularly anger, can erupt in thinking types if they think something (idea, system etc) is wrong enough. Jung believed that the feeling function could be seen as separate from emotionality if it is viewed as an more of an evaluative function concerned with whether something(object, idea etc) is agreeable or not.

If one considers the implications of this, it could mean that an ethical type could very likely be a contract killer if they are able to justify such a role according to their own personal (not necessarily what society/bible etc says)evaluative system.
My experience is limited of course, but in the course of my life, I have seen that some of the most "unemotional", "morally bankrupt", "criminal" people have been ethical types.

To read some parts of this forum one could get the impression that ethical types are either out planting lovely flowers, crying their little heads of over there latest infatuation/obsession, giving unselfishly to others or just out being darn emotional.

I wish some people would stop equating ethics (socionics) with warmth, better morals, emotionality and a lack of analytical ability.

And though I do not have time/space to address this now myself, does being a logical type really mean that one is intelligent and in possession of good reasoning abilities? I often get the impression that some logical types automatically presume themselves to have superior intelligence to ethical types. Quite possible a disservice to themselves, others and socionics.

[Megan]

That was me above logged out.

[Angel von Himmel]

All types use logic and ethics, it is that they are manifested diffrently in the various types. For example, both ESFps and ESTjs use as a primary form of logic, but the ESTj suppresses usage of and places more confidence in it than the ESFp while the ESFp typically perfers over over a matter of guilt. All types use all of the functions, but not in the same way; being an ethical type or a logical type does not mean there is no logic or ethics manifested in some form.

Anyhow, I sort of agree with you that it may seem that way about the types, but from a functional standpoint the functions are manifested much diffrently than the stereotypes you mentioned.

[Angel von Himmel]

The statement I made above can be demonstrated in the chart below ...

[Olga]

To Megan,
Type is not a rigid structure but a shape where the contents is yours. While you can not change the shape completely as you can not change your genetic code, you can improve it and achieve certain degree of freedom. For example, knowing your weak functions you can work on them more effectively and your stron functions are the key to success.

I relate to what has been said by Meganand see that she have read my topic -spiritual matters. Any type can be good or bad because good or bad - is a spiritual realm and not psychological in terms we use to understand it. (It seems to me that you are from forensics?)

The difference between the types is that they have an extra abilities in their field of thier knowledge (ethics or logics) and potentially can be experts but this is not a neccassary condition. Thei ideao of going through the life expereinces is to strenghten your week functions to be a more balanced person. You can't do it on your own - you need help from those who are experts in their fields - opposite types. That is why socionics put it as ideal match. And if we look globaly at groups of people - no one quadra is good on it'e own - it is stagnation and change of quadras - is a dynamic proccess of evolution. You can choose to think in spiritual terms or not but... they are there. Socionics would be worth nothing if it would be directed in learning better about people with the idea how quicker to destroy them or to underline superiority of any type.

The basis of socionics is that we need to know each other better in order to promote a better understanding and acceptance of each ohter - LOVE!

To rmcnew,

I didn't grasp the idea about logics in sensorical types. Can you please bring more light on how the logics express in those types and what is the difference in and means for them. I am a sensorical type and logic is not my strongest point... Your help will be much appreciated!

[Rocky]

If one considers the implications of this, it could mean that an ethical type could very likely be a contract killer if they are able to justify such a role according to their own personal (not necessarily what society/bible etc says)evaluative system.
My experience is limited of course, but in the course of my life, I have seen that some of the most "unemotional", "morally bankrupt", "criminal" people have been ethical types.

...oh?? examples?

And though I do not have time/space to address this now myself, does being a logical type really mean that one is intelligent and in possession of good reasoning abilities? I often get the impression that some logical types automatically presume themselves to have superior intelligence to ethical types. Quite possible a disservice to themselves, others and socionics.

...bull... there are plenty of stupid logics out there. If anyone says something like "I am automatically more intelligent than you becuase of [whatever] system", you know that that person is a true idiot, and you are smarter than they are.

[schrödinger's cat]

I wish Jung and Augusta had chosen different names for these two functions. When I explain T and F (or L and E) to people, I sometimes call it "objective or subjective thinking", which is a dodgy way of putting it, but IMO a bit less misleading. Because after all that's what those function are, if I understand this correctly: you can make your decisions either by stepping outside the situation, thus gaining distance to get an overview, or by stepping closer and looking at it from the inside. T and F are merely ways of processing information.

To read some parts of this forum one could get the impression that ethical types are either out planting lovely flowers, crying their little heads of over there latest infatuation/obsession, giving unselfishly to others or just out being darn emotional.

I know that's done a lot by ENFPs, but usually it's just a joke. ENFPs are often mistakenly seen to be over-exuberant little sprites, busy frolicking about and hugging trees, and it's fun to turn it into a joke. Or perhaps that wasn't what you meant?

I wish some people would stop equating ethics (socionics) with warmth, better morals, emotionality and a lack of analytical ability.

Well, yes. You're right. A point well made. Still, you sound as though you've got some specific people in mind, and you also sound very resentful; so perhaps it might be best to seek out those people directly and ask them how they meant the things they said? It might all just be a misunderstanding.

[schrödinger's cat]

That was me.

... the ESTj suppresses usage of and places more confidence in it than the ESFp while the ESFp typically perfers over over a matter of guilt.

Sorry, you lost me there, rmcnew. Could you rephrase this? "the ESTJ suppresses usage of Ti" - that was clear - "and places more confidence in it" - in what? Ti or Te? Can he place confidence in a function he suppresses? I'm confused...

[schrödinger's cat]

...and what does "over a matter of guilt" mean?

[Creepy-ms k]

yes being a feeling type has nothing to do with being ethical

[Waddlesworth]

Ethics are the transition of the potential to the kinetic energy:

It's my understanding that "feeling" in terms of socionics deals with how objects interact. would be the processing of the interaction at the expense of actually interacting while would be the actual interaction at the expense of processing.


Logic is the use of Kinetic energy:

would be the processing of information gained from the interactions- the "facts" such as "it works" or "it doesn't work". would be using what works, drawing attention towards what is practical, what is useful.

You can notice that to focus on one things makes you focus less on something else. Also, logic and ethics exist in the past or future of one another.

The stereotypes of what logic and ethics are are just that. They are also becoming outdated, in my opinion.

[discourse]

I guess, I don't say nothing new, but still, let's try it. As I see the F and T are judging function like they say in MBTI also. You have to read behind the lines in MBTI, to get the idea, what Jung ment. As I understand the Feeling is changeing the mood of others and influenceing the stand points of other people. Feeling types judge the situation by the interests of others and they try to evaluate their decisions so that it will have concequence on others emotional state. Their principles are,that their actions must make others react subjectivelly and open them selfs up.They also pass their mood on to others. The Thinking is judgeing the situation impartially with out changeing the stand points of other. Thinkers don't want others to become angry or confuced by their oppinions. Their principles are to make others understand their stand point, not to react emotionally. They enter to the situation not to change the relations between the people, but to arrange the oppinions of other people. Thinking works on principle to organize the data. I know I speak incoherently and after I read my posting, it was also ruggedly written, but I hope that others still got something new from it. I made it as an interesting to read for people. But I am a bit depressive, so speaking English is hard. I hope you count with it when evaluateing my words. This long theoretical talking ment just a simple thing: was I good or not when explaining about the differences of F and T.

Thank you!

[Angel von Himmel]

Sorry, you lost me there, rmcnew. Could you rephrase this? "the ESTJ suppresses usage of Ti" - that was clear - "and places more confidence in it" - in what? Ti or Te? Can he place confidence in a function he suppresses? I'm confused...

The ESTj places confidence in his base and typically ignores . Think of it as like putting two ballons in a box and then inflating one totally, and then trying to inflate the other. If there is only room for one full blown balloon in the box without popping both, then the second baloon is not going to have much room to express itself when it comes time to be inflated. It is sort of the same concept with the 1st and 7th functions.

I didn't grasp the idea about logics in sensorical types. Can you please bring more light on how the logics express in those types and what is the difference in and means for them. I am a sensorical type and logic is not my strongest point... Your help will be much appreciated!

...and what does "over a matter of guilt" mean?

The reason an ESFp [also ENFps] expresses over is because of the fear one has of fully using that function. There are some ESFps who are so fanatical about not using , that they may literally have no idea what to do with themselves if they can not find someone to talk to them or if someone begins ignoring them while they are talking. It is just something they can not handle, as it is not a strong point for them. Hence, they feel really guilty about expressing too much .

On the other hand, an ESTj expresses because he has full confidence in the function. Otherwise, the way an ESTj and ESFp uses is typically the same, as they both seek to comprehend what it is others are thinking or saying as a primary means of logic.

[Megan]

@ RMCNew, I think there might be a few points I need to have a closer examination of later. The explanations you provided was well aided
(as usual)by the chart.

@schrödinger's cat . I can see that your ENFp psycho radar thingy was in operation , but I was not as resentful as just exasperated by one too many examples of certain of the things I wrote that I unfortunately observed.

@ Olga, I haven't yet read your post on spiritual matters, but now that you have mentioned it, I will. I have to confess that I am not very religious, so given the limited time I have to look at posts, I would very likely bypass one called "spiritual matters" thinking it could be related too closely to religion, I am really not that closed minded it has more to do with time. Even now that I have glanced at it, it does seem a bit long and my attention span doesn't stand up well to really long posts generally . Still, my thoughts are in harmony with much that you have posted above.
I note that you are an ISFj and this pleases me because I view your presence here as a chance to understand and get along better with ISFjs than I have done previously.

[schrödinger's cat]

Psycho radar - that sounds like something from the X Files. Sorry, I wasn't radaring you, I merely got the impression that you were resentful. Glad to hear that I was mistaken. Perhaps I should have said "not very happy" or "peeved" instead of "resentful". Hm.

Generally I agree with what you say. When I got to know about the Jungian typologies I thought "that might help everyone overcome stereotypes and prejudice!" ... *sigh* Obviously, that was before I read the "this type is evil" or "that type is cold-blooded" threads. I'm trying to find of a word for this kind of prejudice... and I found one. Typism. Word for a person who is being prejudiced in that way: a typist.