Logic vs Ethics

[Creepy-]

Is there a Socionic explanation for this or am I just strange?

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm more subjective/people oriented than material/task oriented. I am an Ethical type.

However, while I have the expected weaknesses I don't appear to have much in the way of the expected strengths, i.e.

(from Rick's site)

Working with subjective/human world (depite being focussed on it )
Persuasion
Making independent decisions in human sphere
Evaluating others' good will and positive or negative attitude
Creating a good impression on the right people; public relations
Being "the life of the party"

So what's up with this? Is it because Ethics is only my second function? Is it because of the ? Am I so focussed on my 4th/6th functions that my hasn't developed properly? Something I haven't thought of?

[Creepy-]

I also do all of these...

norms or "rules of thumb"

(logical types)
* try to strictly follow others' ethical norms and rules of thumb for demonstrating emotions and feelings

(ethical types)
* try to use formal logic in discussions and read up on scientific and/or technical literature to increase their self-confidence

weaknesses

(logical types)
* often feel helpless when forced to deal with others' feelings, emotional reactions, and subjective factors

(ethical types)
* evaluating how much work has been done and how much remains to do
* opinions more easily influenced by others' logic and arguments
* more subject to manipulation through dishonest, incorrect, or inconsistent information and deeds

typical doubts

(logical types)
* often are unsure of their right to have feelings for others and display emotions
* often unsure that their partner really has feelings for them

(ethical types)
* often unsure of their ability to work and get things done or whether they have done enough work

[Rick]

As much as I hate to admit it, I'm more subjective/people oriented than material/task oriented. I am an Ethical type.

That's wonderful! Too many task-oriented people around these days anyway Which country do you live in? Does your work or other main activity allow you to use your intuitive and ethical strengths, or does it get you hung up on logic?

It sounds like you either might be having a bad day, or you haven't come to appreciate your strengths enough (or, more likely, others don't appreciate them enough).

[Creepy-]

That's wonderful! Too many task-oriented people around these days anyway Which country do you live in? Does your work or other main activity allow you to use your intuitive and ethical strengths, or does it get you hung up on logic?

I live in Australia, and I'm a student. Currently on holidays. Last year I was studying music, in a week I start Psychology at a different university. I don't know about psychology but music doesn't seem biased either way. I just like logic

It sounds like you either might be having a bad day, or you haven't come to appreciate your strengths enough (or, more likely, others don't appreciate them enough).

Don't say that, Joy might agree with you!

It could possibly be lack of confidence but that doesn't really change how things appear to be working.

Perhaps I should add that this doesn't necessarily bother me a great deal but I am curious about why this has come about.

[Joy]

Yeah, any of us can develop any of our functions if we want/need to.

[schrödinger's cat]

The only explanation I can think of is that you're Delta and have a stronger Fi than Fe...

The only sensible explanation I can think of is this: sometimes we feel we're bad at doing something precisely because we're good at it. We can see how complex it all is, how many mistakes we can make. In other areas we're content to just muddle through, but in this area we set ourselves a high standard and if we fail to achieve it we think we've failed completely. Maybe it's that?

And perhaps your friends and your partner don't think that you have these weaknesses.

[Creepy-]

The only explanation I can think of is that you're Delta and have a stronger Fi than Fe...

lol, wouldn't that make even less sense in this context?

The only sensible explanation I can think of is this: sometimes we feel we're bad at doing something precisely because we're good at it. We can see how complex it all is, how many mistakes we can make. In other areas we're content to just muddle through, but in this area we set ourselves a high standard and if we fail to achieve it we think we've failed completely. Maybe it's that?

And perhaps your friends and your partner don't think that you have these weaknesses.

Perhaps. I don't know. My partner certainly sees my weaknesses there because I keep asking him how I should be feeling whenever something drastic happens (like someone dying etc.)

(edited because I messed up the quotes)

[FDG]

I also do all of these...

norms or "rules of thumb"

(logical types)
* try to strictly follow others' ethical norms and rules of thumb for demonstrating emotions and feelings

(ethical types)
* try to use formal logic in discussions and read up on scientific and/or technical literature to increase their self-confidence

This is somewhat confusing, since T types are obviously more frequent in the set of scientific literature readers .

[Raver]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...c&word2=ethics

Close battle, but we all know who the victor is.

[Creepy-]

I also do all of these...

norms or "rules of thumb"

(logical types)
* try to strictly follow others' ethical norms and rules of thumb for demonstrating emotions and feelings

(ethical types)
* try to use formal logic in discussions and read up on scientific and/or technical literature to increase their self-confidence

This is somewhat confusing, since T types are obviously more frequent in the set of scientific literature readers .

I think it's more about what they do to gain self-confidence.

[Gilly]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=logic&word2=ethics

Close battle, but we all know who the victor is.

Apparently, Porn is better than cheesecake.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...rd2=Cheesecake

[Dmitri Lytov]

Definition of Logic/Ethic, quoted from www.socioniko.net/en/

1. Thinking / feeling (in socionics: logic / ethic).

The definitions of this dichotomy seem to be equal both in socionics and in MBTT. If we even noticed certain differences, they were caused by own perception of their authors, not by any traditions.

The only difference is the name. Let us remind: the term used in the US may lead to confusion (which was noticed by Jung himself), because, for example, the word “feeling” describes not only the emotional sphere (which is really described by this part of the dichotomy), but also human perception.

In determining this criterion without testing, Victor Gulenko and Catherine Filatova pointed at the following basic differences:

1. Impersonal (logical types) or evaluative (ethical types) type of judgments and expressions. Logical types usually have slow reaction towards other people's emotions and/or slowly awake their own emotions. This, on the one hand, sometimes causes problems in communication or in “self-advertising”, but on the other, it's an advantage, which allows being "cold-minded", evaluate facts soberly.

Mimicry is often an obvious evidence of the person's being a logical or ethical type. Mimicry of ethical types is always rich, even when they are introverted, restrained. Mimicry of logical types is rather monotonous, too obvious (joy – grief, satisfaction – dissatisfaction). Often ethical types understand their own influence on people and even “play little dramas”. Logical types rather get angry when they lose control over the situation.

This difference becomes especially noticeable when we watch women actresses. Society usually expects that women should be emotional, somewhat capricious, tender. However, actresses that belong to logical types do not demonstrate lots of emotions, they are rather over-realistic in their roles.

Examples of actresses belonging to logical types: Meryl Streep, Meg Ryan, Helen Hant, Sharon Stone, Glenn Close, Patricia Kaas, Uma Thurman, Demie Moore.

Examples of actresses belonging to ethical types: Barbra Streisand, Elisabeth Taylor, Melanie Griffith, Nastassia Kinsky, Susan Sarandon, Fannie Ardan, Liza Minnelli, Nicole Kidman.

IMPORTANT NOTE: in all cases when we give examples of type representatives, we have verified his/her type by biographical materials. We did not (and will not) determine his/her type by appearance, texts and other indirect sources – we analyzed their life and behavior. We also avoid mentioning people whose types are still argued

2. Laconism (logical types) or adjective-overloaded speech (ethical types). When we do not watch somebody personally, we can at least judge his/her speech. Writers of logical types may write very long sentences and books, but they speak about facts, not something "subjective". They do not concentrate their attention on emotions, they just give facts and thoughts. On the other hand, ethical writers are masters of word, they often use a lot of adjectives, describe passions that rage between people - and this sometimes results in a sad fact: a lot of passion, but very little action.

Good examples of “logical” writers are Stanislaw Lem, Anton Chekhov, Maxim Gorky, Ayn Rand, Jack London, Somerset Maugham, Agatha Christie, Haruki Murakami.

Examples of ethical writers: Thomas and Heinrich Mann, maybe 60-70% of poets, Alexandre Dumas (both father and son), Victor Hugo, Theodore Dreiser, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Stefan Zweig, Gerald Durrell.

NOTE: again, we (or other socionists) have determined types of these people not by their texts but by biographical data. The texts were analyzed only afterwards.

3. Behavior in arguments: focus on facts (logic) / on relations, people (ethic); explanation of his or her own opinion (logic) / persuasion, induction (ethic) etc.

Representatives of ethical types are usually good talkers, but when they become managers or even politicians, they are afraid of making unpopular decisions, they prefer that somebody else would do unpopular things behind their backs. For example, ****** was a very soft, joyous and even sometimes compliant in communication; he preferred not to see “unpleasant things” by his own eyes and, unlike many dictators, very rarely used reprisals against people from his surrounding.

Logical types are much more often represented among managers, but they often lack somewhat called “charm”, they seem to be too “dry”. Some people of logical types sometimes succeed in becoming more attractive to others, but their saying are often explicit and straightforward. They do not "play games", they "do their job".

Examples of politicians of ethical types: Mikhail Gorbachev, Georgi Dimitrov, Nicolae Ceausescu, George W. Bush Jr., Jacques Chirac, Leonid Brezhnev, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Examples of politicians of logical types: Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, Charles de Gaulle, Winston Churchill, probably also Czar Simeon II (sorry, we do not know much about him, we just watched his interviews on TV).

One more interesting note. Jung wrote that about 2/3 of “thinking” (i.e. logical) types are represented by men, and about 2/3 of “feeling” (ethical) types by women. Isabel Myers was not so flat in her sayings, but she also noticed such a trend: from the very childhood, “feeling” traits are cultivated in girls, and “thinking” in boys.

This, however, does not mean that men of ethical types are “feminine”, and women of logical types are “masculine”. The reality is more complicated and more interesting! Independently from each other, Victor Talanov and we (Dmitri and Marianna) discovered an interesting tendency in the results of our tests. Men of ethical types had always had higher scores on the logical scale than women or corresponding types. And vice versa: women of logical types had higher scores on the ethical scale than men of the same types.

In other words: logic/ethic has very indirect relation to masculinity/femininity; the last scale reflects rather distribution of these traits among men and women of the same psychological types. In other words, AVERAGE women are more “ethical” than AVERAGE men, and that is all.

Moreover, men of ethical types often look sexually attractive; they instinctively feel what attracts other people in them, and emphasize these traits. Examples of famous men actors of ethical types: John Travolta, Michele Placido, George Clooney, Jeremy Irons, Hugh Grant.

By contrast, men of logical types are not too demonstrative: they simply “do what is useful”. And they do not demonstrate much emotions – they ACT. Examples of famous actors of logical types: Brad Pitt, Bruce Willis, Woody Allen, Robert De Niro, Anthony Hopkins, Tim Robbins.

And finally, let us once more tell about our Multifactor test. We told already that most of its questions were "responsible" for combinations of Jung's criteria, e.g., "sensation + logic", or "intuition + introversion + rationality", etc. However, some of its questions were responsible for "pure criteria". Let us list the questions “responsible” for logic/ethic.

Please just remember that using these questions ONLY does not always a well reliable result – sometimes people tend to “play roles”. The questions responsible for combination of criteria proved to be much more valid!

Logic: positive answers
1. I usually estimate my own and other's actions from the viewpoint of their logicality and expediency.

3. When I make important decisions, arguments of reason mean more for me than the "voice of my heart".

198. I know quite a bit about technical aspects, and can repair household appliances etc. if needed.

235. In evaluation of human relations I pay attention to the obvious facts and often neglect small nuances.

251. I can logically and consequently explain complicated problems, but sometimes people reproach me of being "somewhat dry".

Ethic: positive answers
4. My remarkable feature is the capability to sympathize to others, to help them to calm down and release emotional stress.

14. I usually notice right away that my friend (partner etc.) is tired or does not feel good, and I am there to help.

28. When somebody is in trouble, I immediately feel emotional response to this unlucky event in my soul, even when I do not know him/her personally.

157. I can brightly imagine, “hear by my inner ear" live voices of my relatives and friends with their characteristic timbre, tone, intonations.

172. I like to read books whose authors directly express their evaluation of the event, their moral; I also like movies with emphasized people's moral traits.

252. I sense the reality not as much by reasoning but by compassion and emotional evaluation.

265. I am a very emotional person; even passing feelings capture me totally.

266. During communication I absolutely need the feeling of emotional contact and emotional feedback

282. I am very sensitive towards emotional disharmony, unpleasant intonations, and insincerely expressed feelings.

289. My friends or acquaintances often come to me to tell about their life collisions. Sometimes it is too boring, but I do not like to hurt them by my refuse to listen.

[Ave]

I also do all of these...

norms or "rules of thumb"

(logical types)
* try to strictly follow others' ethical norms and rules of thumb for demonstrating emotions and feelings

(ethical types)
* try to use formal logic in discussions and read up on scientific and/or technical literature to increase their self-confidence

weaknesses

(logical types)
* often feel helpless when forced to deal with others' feelings, emotional reactions, and subjective factors

(ethical types)
* evaluating how much work has been done and how much remains to do
* opinions more easily influenced by others' logic and arguments
* more subject to manipulation through dishonest, incorrect, or inconsistent information and deeds

typical doubts

(logical types)
* often are unsure of their right to have feelings for others and display emotions
* often unsure that their partner really has feelings for them

(ethical types)
* often unsure of their ability to work and get things done or whether they have done enough work

Funny how we both have the same problem. I spent a long time trying to decide if I was INTP or INFP, but decided on INTP based on facial expressions and differences in behavior between myself(interested in talking mainly about impersonal subjects like religion or philosophy etc) and INFPs I know(interetsed mainly in talking about themselves and getting people to talk about themselves and their problems).

Maybe you are a strong intuitive subtype of INFP which is why you may not use your second function too much.

Just my thoughts.

Now, after reading the post above mine, I again have my doubts as to my T/F preference.

[Creepy-]

@Cheerio: It's nice to know at least that I'm not alone

I'm certain that I'm an INFp, but I suppose I have a background composed almost entirely of mathematics/sciences/stereotypical "logical" domains. I've spent my life reading textbooks, I imagine that could be isolating enough to skew development somewhat.

I'm a total slave to my hidden agenda!

Although my behaviour is people-oriented, my values lean towards the abstract and I don't find myself much concerned with others except in very neurotic ways . I find myself mostly unmoved by tragedy, pain, death, suffering, etc.... maybe I'm just a cold-hearted robot... or I am living inside my head too much.

[Ave]

Funny how I seem to have the same kind of reaction to people's problems, either Im unmoved by it, or it really bugs me in a way that is not healthy and obsessive. Maybe its a weak thing, you know, not picking up on the reality of a situation and thus overdramatizing or underdramatizing it.

[Darklord]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=logic&word2=ethics

Close battle, but we all know who the victor is.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...word2=Muhammed


As it turns out, googlefight.com is remarkably accurate :wink: .
I think we can trust it.

[Creepy-]

Funny how I seem to have the same kind of reaction to people's problems, either Im unmoved by it, or it really bugs me in a way that is not healthy and obsessive. Maybe its a weak thing, you know, not picking up on the reality of a situation and thus overdramatizing or underdramatizing it.

That could be it...