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.