Type theorycrafting

[nyessss]

In extremely rare cases, there can be multiple introverted functions or extroverted functions in the same block, forming off-quadras. In even rarer cases, such a thing can occur with 2 perceiving or judging functions. Following the rule of 2, the power of 1 function is enhanced exponentially by blocking that function with the identical function of a different sign.

An example is as follows: the most pinpoint, precise possible logic, virtually never naturally occurring, is the Ti+ (base) blocked with Ti- (creative). This allows for absolute accuracy. To further increase its effectiveness one must leave all other functions in a relatively undeveloped state. It can be said that by concentrating already realized knowledge into the fabric of precision fulfills its function without the need for further apperception, as all things are derived from the extreme nature of the ego block. But the real power comes from its core, which forms after allowing the stew of knowledge to settle and create a core.

[nyessss]

A proper ratio must be enforced varying based on the source of knowledge, the concentration and most importantly the structure of the functions. The 3 best are as follows Ti+ 88.66... 86.66... 66.66... To: Ti- 11.33... 13.33... 33.33...

[Bertrand]

I feel like with no perceiving functions to the ego it would be like some nightmarish scenario where your consciousness gets uploaded into a computer and you're just fed data in the dark

[hatchback176]

1) I don't buy the hypothesis that Information Element use is a preference. I think it's related to inborn conscious awareness, forces the brain to mediate it's activities in relation to it, and correlates to a very simple cognitive model.


2) Basic Neuroscience tells us the lion's share of information transfer is driven by 3 major neurotransmitters. Dopamine, Serotonin, and Noradrenaline. Why should we expect to find a conveniently symmetric 8-way split characterizing it's psychological output?


3) It's much too adaptable that people can disregard anomalous behavior such as brain lesions, cognitive disorders, and brand new fitness-preserving genetic mutations by saying 'Nope, we magically accounted for it with this conveniently symmetric 8-way split'


4) There is no regular updating of Socionics by it's main theorists that attempts to integrate novel develelopments or observations meaning it's imperative that individuals with Socionics knowledge use personal initiative to connect the dots together.


5) The field of mathematics is a perfect example of how people leverage differing faculties, mental models, and representational syntax/semantics to form more and less clear views of structured phenomenon and cognition. The field of study you ignored yesterday was the solution to your problems today.


6) All this is just to say that sometimes it takes just the right person for the brain to self-model, such as someone with a DRD2 gene mutation that disrupts Dopamine habituation.
https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/R.../r2/index.html

[Pallas]

1) I don't buy the hypothesis that Information Element use is a preference. I think it's related to inborn conscious awareness, forces the brain to mediate it's activities in relation to it, and correlates to a very simple cognitive model.


2) Basic Neuroscience tells us the lion's share of information transfer is driven by 3 major neurotransmitters. Dopamine, Serotonin, and Noradrenaline. Why should we expect to find a conveniently symmetric 8-way split characterizing it's psychological output?


3) It's much too adaptable that people can disregard anomalous behavior such as brain lesions, cognitive disorders, and brand new fitness-preserving genetic mutations by saying 'Nope, we magically accounted for it with this conveniently symmetric 8-way split'


4) There is no regular updating of MBTI by it's main theorists that attempts to integrate novel develelopments or observations meaning it's imperative that individuals with MBTI knowledge use personal initiative to connect the dots together.


5) The field of mathematics is a perfect example of how people leverage differing faculties, mental models, and representational syntax/semantics to form more and less clear views of structured phenomenon and cognition. The field of study you ignored yesterday was the solution to your problems today.


6) All this is just to say that sometimes it takes just the right person for the brain to self-model, such as someone with a DRD2 gene mutation that disrupts Dopamine habituation.
https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/R.../r2/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

[hatchback176]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision)

[Bertrand]

yes its like we're sitting on a treasure trove of perspectives that could illuminate all sorts of phenomenon but everyones too scared to speak up, and too scared to listen. I can kind of see how IEE talks about fear being at the root of everything, but its more like whatever you call the near total resistance to novelty, its certainly a feature in the large majority of humanity. I know my parents tried as hard as they could to beat it out of me, for fear society would reject me. It seems like there's an obvious evolutionary rationale as to why however inhumane or inefficient it nevertheless has caried us thus far, but it also seems like we've hit a point where rapid developments in technology threaten to unbalance things, for example MAD in the 20th century, etc. Perhaps its just a signal moral development has some catching up to do... it does feel like something big is roiling under the surface. Perhaps notions of typology itself or Jungian concepts will finally have their heyday, because it seems like one of the only ways to reconcile the post modern dilemma of too many narratives and not enough environmental challenge to select between them which ultimately trickles down into selection out of individuals in the form of depression and other neuroses

I suppose that in of itself is really just another form of pressure and maybe it explains why we have so much "willful blindness" to begin with, because its both the cure and the disease suspended in tension in such a way that only the artists really perceive and get the pleasure of struggling with. in that sense it doesn't seem like one type is better off than the other, and its more like a perpetual human condition of treading the line between self destruction and slavery versus liberation. its really interesting because there really is no easy answer to sum it all up and dispense with the anxiety and other seemingly necessary conditions of individual existence. perhaps to say that conscious awareness is the experience of these conditions itself without which the ego would dissipate back into the collective unconscious and we'd be like herd animals again. if that's the case, perhaps the Buddhists had it right all along when they said life is suffering. which is interesting because we live in a time period where people seem to have managed to actually forget that for a moment. perhaps the spectre of MAD is the required counter stroke to bring us out of such a dream, which speaks highly of the dream, because nothing less that total annihilation of the species was the answer to such a strong provocation. it really is man psychically trying to grapple with the world he's created and the jury seems to be out as to which way its going to go. it seems like acceptance of that fact rather than a rush to deny it via pre emptory answers are really the true path forward, in other words we need to move toward suffering. probably not a popular message, but then you have people like peterson who routinely say they're surprised how well the message of suffering and shouldering one's burdens has been received, so maybe people are more ready than we're inclined to think. in other words, there is definitely hope in all of this

[Sol]

In extremely rare cases, there can be multiple introverted functions or extroverted functions in the same block

In not so "extremely rare cases" there can be wrong understanding of people when bs is thought about them.
It's impossible what you are talking. There are non-types factors, dig there and you'll find the answer without heresy.

[Aylen]

In extremely rare cases, there can be multiple introverted functions or extroverted functions in the same block, forming off-quadras. In even rarer cases, such a thing can occur with 2 perceiving or judging functions. Following the rule of 2, the power of 1 function is enhanced exponentially by blocking that function with the identical function of a different sign.

An example is as follows: the most pinpoint, precise possible logic, virtually never naturally occurring, is the Ti+ (base) blocked with Ti- (creative). This allows for absolute accuracy. To further increase its effectiveness one must leave all other functions in a relatively undeveloped state. It can be said that by concentrating already realized knowledge into the fabric of precision fulfills its function without the need for further apperception, as all things are derived from the extreme nature of the ego block. But the real power comes from its core, which forms after allowing the stew of knowledge to settle and create a core.

This reminded me of something I read months ago in relation to Jung "pure type". It's possible I have posted this before.

Section Two: 'Pure' Type

In the MBTI, all types are purposely treated as if the first and second functions of individuals NECESSARILY have opposite directions. This is because those who have designed the instrument believe that pure types will lack a necessary balance between introversion and extraversion, and this will be less healthy. ¹

Speaking of the 'pure' type, the authors of 'Gifts Differing' say -

Such cases do occur and may seem to support the widespread assumption among Jungian analysts that the dominant and auxiliary are naturally both extraverted or both introverted; but such cases are not the norm: they are instances of insufficient use and development of the auxiliary. To live happily and effectively in both worlds, people need a BALANCING auxiliary that will make it possible to adapt in both directions -to the world around them and to their inner selves.

This theoretical bias in the MBTI is so strong, and has become so deeply embedded in how the system operates and is understood, that we would venture to guess that most MBTI practitioners never learned about the possibility of 'pure type' in the first place. Or, if they had, they surely no longer give much consideration to how the profiles of pure types may differ from profiles of the others. Even those who once were aware of the distinction come to forget, over time, about the possibility of 'pure' types. As we have shown elsewhere, this accounts for an interesting contemporary confusion about the personality type of Jung himself. Although one camp argues that he was an INTP (ie, Jungian IT) and the other argues that he was INTJ (Jungian IN), both remain unaware - because they are caught up in MBTI assumptions - of the fact that Jung was, ironically, himself a 'pure' type. A person who had introverted thinking and introverted intuition as his first two functions (with the former as dominant at some points in his career, and the latter dominant at other times), Jung was one 'pure' or 'extreme' type who not only lived 'effectively', but also made an extremely significant contribution.The enneagram, in its 'naivity' with respect to the taboo that the MBTI has put on recognizing 'pure' type, has in effect ignored the expectation that the dominant and auxiliary function alternate in orientation. Indeed, the descriptions of the enneagram 'points', as we hope to demonstrate at another time, are closer to being profiles of the 'pure' types than of the 'alternating' types!

If we think of the Enneazones as extending INVITATIONS to Jungian/MBTI types, who are they primarily inviting? The answer that we will explore here is - first and foremost, they are inviting a specific 'pure' type associated with each zone. Various related 'alternating' types will also be attracted to these 'invitations', as we shall see - and this creates certain patterns that can clearly be distinguished in the distribution of MBTI type across the Enneagram.
In order to clearly distinguish between the 'pure' and 'alternating' types we will need a new nomenclature. For the purposes of this paper, we will use the following convention: the 'pure' type will be designated by three-letter combination. For example, 'INF' will designate the person who has as the dominant function introverted intuition and as the auxiliary function introverted feeling - in contrast to the INFJ (or, INFJ), which is the conventional 'alternating' type with dominant introverted intuition and auxiliary extraverted feeling). Please note - when we use a three-letter name without a 'J' or 'P' on the end (eg, INF), it is NOT meant to stand for the two MBTI types that are named when one alternately attaches a 'J' to the combination or a 'P' (INFP and INFJ, in our example).

For each of the enneazones from 2 through 9, we will identify one 'pure type' that is the hidden 'strange attractor' in the zone. In the chart below, which shows the four introverted enneazones, the 'pure type' is displayed in the second column. From the identified 'pure' type we mechanically generate two Jungian types, each of which is in turn associated with a pair of MBTI types. We use the following formula to do that. Connected with each 'pure' type is a jungian type (column three), that has the same orientation as the pure type, and the same dominant function. It is comprised of two 'alternating' MBTI types (columns four and five). Also connected to the pure type is a second Jungian type (column six), with the same orientation as the pure type, combined with the pure type's auxiliary function. This second Jungian type is comprised of another pair of 'alternating' MBTI types (columns seven and eight). For each type, the 'I-value' in that enneazone is displayed.

For example, the 'pure type' that is uniquely associated with zone Five is the INT -which has dominant introverted thinking and auxiliary introverted intuition. Connected to it is the Jungian IT, comprised of the INTP and the ISTP and the Jungian IN, comprised of the INTJ and the INFJ. In zone five, all four of the above-mentioned MBTI types (INTP, ISTP, INTJ, and INFP) have 'I-values' greater than or equal to one!

For all of the Enneagram points, this pattern, pivoting around a 'pure type', defines a set of jungian and MBTI types that, in 37 out of 40 cases, have I-values of 1.0 or greater!
For the introverted points, shown below, in 19 out of 20 cases the I-value is 1.0 or greater!

zone		pure type	jungian pair=	MBTI type	MBTI type		2nd jungian pair=	MBTI type	MBTI type
9		ISF	IF(2.0)=	ISFP(2.6)	INFP(2.0)		IS=	ISFJ(1.6)	ISTJ(1.0)
4		INF	IN(2.5)=	INFJ(2.4)	INTJ(0.7)		IF=	INFP(2.0)	ISFP(1.5)
5		INT	IT(3.8)	INTP(4.3)	ISTP(2.7)		IN=	INTJ(2.6)	INFJ(1.1)
6		ISF	IS(1.3)=	ISFJ(1.4)	ISTJ(1.2)		IF=	INFP(1.5)	ISFP(1.0)

The Jungian types listed in column three are the ones that Pat and I identified as 'prototypes' for the enneazones with which they are associated in the above diagram. For zones 4 and 5, Riso made the same assignments. For zones 6 and 9 Riso associated the second Jungian pair (column 6) with the enneazone in question. In other words, the above diagram shows that in 15 out of the 16 assignments that we and Riso made for the 'introverted' Enneazones, the I-values are 1.0 or greater.

In two of the four enneazones which, statistically speaking, draw the extraverted types, our assignments are identical to Riso's (zones Eight and Two). In two of the three remaining zones there is general agreement between the two theories - Pat and I accurately see zone One as comprised of all J types, whereas Riso chooses only two of these - the ESTJ and ENTJ as representative types; and in zone 7, Riso picks the ES as representative, whereas we originally identified EN, but later conceded that ES was present, and attributed this to 'S-N blindness' in the Enneagram - which also has an observable effect on zone 3, in our opinion. But making a comparison with Riso's assignments regarding zone three is harder to do, as Riso does not assign MBTI types to it. So we shall have to remain content with having identified closely related types in 8 out of 9 zones.

But this is sufficient, for all we are really trying to show here is that even if the two theories identified DIFFERENT prototypes in 5 out of 9 zones, they were very closely related, choices which to a great extent can be RECONCILED, as the formula and chart above demonstrate - insofar as we aknowledge the principle of 'pure' type as a factor governing distribution.

Walter Geldart, who conceives of his own assignments as but a VARIANT of Riso's, has, for years now, made the bold assertion that the Enneagram may, ironically, be more capable of discerning 'true' Jungian type than is that system which is the direct descendent of Jung's work - the MBTI. And our work here supports his assertion, in very specific terms.

In a future paper we may outline how the description of each enneagram Point can be seen as reflecting one particular 'pure' type, and how those descriptions pit the dominant function of the pure type associated with certain zones against the same- direction auxiliary. For example - in zone four, in which the 'INF' is the pure type that is the hidden 'strange attractor, and descriptions speak of the Four in terms that would suggest that introverted feeling is coming into conflict with introverted intuition.

Although MBTI theorists would draw our attention, in particular, to a gross 'imbalance' (with respect to extraversion and introversion) that can occur in the 'pure' type, more important - at least in the case of Jung himself - may be the manner in which the first two functions of a 'pure' type, because they are pointed in the same direction, can come into conflict or competition with each other. Jung's break with Freud marks a personal psychological shift that he underwent, as 'introverted intuition' began to overtake 'introverted thinking' as his preferred function. His carefully constructed inner 'thought system' was crumbling under the deconstructive power of inner intuition, and he feard going mad.

We must briefly make note of another consequences of shifting theoretical attention AWAY from 'jungian pairs'(eg, IN = INTJ and INFJ) to 'pure' type (INF and INT). Not ALL of the 'pure' types are represented by enneagram Points, in the way that all of the 'Jungian Pairs' seem to be associated with enneagram Points - the INT, for instance. And those that are most closely associated with Enneagram types (the INF and the INT) appear to be pulling certain MBTI types (the INTJ, in this case) in different directions (toward Five and Four, respectively), by virtue of their common appeal to the same function (in this example, introverted intuition). If this is so, it could account for why few INTJs show up in Four. They are all captured by the appeal of the hidden 'strange attractor' at Five (the 'pure' type, the INT). Not only because the INT shares a preference for introverted intuition (albeit 'auxiliary'), but also a preference for thinking.

We will end here, but not without first giving credit to three individuals without whom this paper would never have occured to us - a bright young man who wants to be known only as 'Karl', Andrew Dinkelaker, and Walter Geldart. Karl, a visitor to this site, pushed us for a better explanation for why there were so many INFPs in Four, and so few INTJs. Andrew, with whom we have collaborated closely on a number of research and organizational development projects of late, was aware of the fact that we had conceived of Jung as himself a 'pure' type. As the dialogue that we have posted on the this page illustrates, we had become fixated on an alternative explanation which may account in part for why some IFs show up in Four instead of Nine, and some INs gravitate toward Five - but we could not explain why, as Karl pointed out, some ITs DIDN'Temigrate, in a similar manner, from Five to Four. After witnessing the dialogue with Karl, Andrew made a brilliant suggestion - that the Jungian 'pure' type held the key to a solution which, he predicted, would not only hold for zone Four, but for all of the introverted zones (4, 6, 9, 5) and perhaps the extraverted ones as well. As far as we can tell, this turns out to have been the case. We now believe that 'pure type' may indeed be a key principle guiding distribution of MBTI type across the Enneagram.

Last but not least, if it had not been for Walter Geldart, who over the years has never failed to take advantage of an opportunity to argue in behalf of the important role that Jungian 'pure' types (and also 'unipolar' types) play, it never would have occured to us (more than a year ago), that the solution to the puzzle of Jung's type was to conceive of him as a pure type. And Andrew would have thus been deprived of the exemplar on which he turned our attention back to the principle of 'pure type' on this occasion. So in some sense, it seems, it was Karl, Andrew and Walter who wrote this paper - we just 'facilitated' the process!

http://www.tap3x.net/EMBTI/jthirdprinc.html

My example of what I might consider a still functional "pure type" would be Stephen Hawking but I don't think he started out that way. I think he evolved into one at the expense of his body. Just a thought though.

[Bertrand]

yeah pretty sure people who entertain ideas of this sort are just subtly redefining the theory through the back door, its like trying to say is 2+2 5 possible? well yes, if you change the entire structure unwittingly, but you're still fundamentally referencing the same phenomena just under a new set of rules. that's what all this "theorycrafting" strikes me as

the reason 2 introverted functions can't be consciously used in time as ego more than 1 introverted and 1 extroverted is because introverted functions can only work in tandem with an extroverted function linked to it in order to produce an ego. in the end if you really did use "2 introverted functions" it would just amount to what is understood as an extroverted function, its just describing what the extroverted function does in terms of pure introversion. its a trick of language to think it means what it purports itself to mean, it actually means nothing more than what is commonly understood as extroversion. in other words, this Ti + Ti ego is really just another word for Ti + Pe, its functionally identical. if two introverted functions could coexist to form an ego they would not both be introverted because that is not an ego, it is just describing some other dynamic to the self (which is what enneagram does, inasmuch as it does anything). its creating a distinction without a difference, without realizing its warped the framework in such a way that undermines the possible meaning, inasmuch as they don't fully comprehend this they think they're saying something significant that is in fact empty but its a mirage produced by the snake losing track of the fact its biting its own tail, its a picture of reality that is ignorant to its own implications and mistakes ignorance for insight

at best it mirrors something else that is in fact real but carries over language that does not apply. in other words, I believe perhaps the enneagram connection is real, but its not because of unusual ego makeups, its because the enneagram is describing some other separate and distinct aspect to the self, that "language of the ego" is carried over and imported in order to describe, but the two are not the same thing, at best it is an impressionistic metaphor meant to connect the phenomenology of some related aspects of the self without being particularly clear as to how it achieves this

[hatchback176]

If personality types are more naturally structured as conscious awareness of specific brain regions then it's entirely possible that the 'ego' would be simultaneously extraverted (my understanding of introverted functions being about content encoding and decoding from the long-term memory stores hasn't observed simultaneously introverted egos). In fact, that's exactly what we see. 3 types of people are born in the Orbitofrontal, the Dorsolateral Prefrontal, and the Anterior Cingulate respectively. They coordinate the content of introverted memory regions using mainly 1 of the 3 major neurotransmitters (OFC - Dopamine, DLPFC - Serotonin, ACC - Noradrenaline). The fact that Socionics practitioners aren't expected to construct basic models of cognition or neurological structures is 1 reason they don't have to error-correct when faced with anomalous behaviors. Our models were broken multiple times to arrive at our current understanding and nobody gave us a plan except telling us to re-read multiple Socionics researchers who by no means agree on all the details.

[Bertrand]

true but we need to update our definition of ego itself otherwise I feel like it excludes by definition 2 and only 2 functions of the same attitude in comprising it

in other words I guess it all depends on what you mean when you say ego, I think of it as the foreground of conscious experience and it necessarily entails an extroverted and introverted component because first person phenomenological experience is made up of a composite of those two functions without either of which one would be something less than "all there." to me double attitude ego would be something of an animalistic existence, because its the tension between the two functions that make up conscious experience, it is in some sense how the functions relate to eachother (ego) and relate to their relation (super ego) that makes up the conscious self. to make it so lopsided would be in some sense inhuman because it would turn people into something less than agents strung up in a kind of constant tension, which I would describe as "free will"--it would make them more automatonistic

i think of the birth of consciousness itself in the form of an ego would be mans awareness of his own freedom (choice) and concomitant limitations, which I think necessitates an interplay between conscious intro and extroverted function

radically different conceptions of consciousness could change things tho, but its hard because I equate that with being human itself

[Sanguine Miasma]

Psychological Types

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.

Are there any counter as examples when information is more readily available.

[hatchback176]

1) What is the plan for error-correcting your models and is this explicitly stated by Socionics researchers?
2) Without a cognitive model or knowledge of basic neurological structures we are already refusing to give falsifiable conceptions. This is a problem since a person's personal understanding of Socionics would have meant constant updates and breakdowns of their earlier models to arrive where they are at today.
3) What possible basis could there be for saying that no matter how many genetic mutations happen there will never be an addition to Socionics?
4) If conscious awareness is tied to specific brain regions then we have a basis for double extraverted egos because they would simply need to be in the brain regions that coordinates the neurotransmitters interhemispherically.

I already know multiple researchers that use an updated set of models and methodology so I'm not actually that worried about getting correct answers since they're already years and years ahead of us. It is important that people see that mastery of Socionics will naturally cause extra details that require extra work.

Edit: By cognitive model I mean any step-by-step instructions that shows how learning takes place, and how to evaluate when successful learning has taken place.

[Bertrand]

I definitely think its possible to expand or modify cognitive models, because we in essence are only messing with models i.e.: language; as to my experience I'm simply reconcilling my own experience with the models, but there may come a point where a better model comes along. at that point as far as I can tell it will simply redefine or expand what the ego means to me but change little about the "reality on the ground"--I feel as if socionics is the basis for not so much a scientific model, but a therapeutic one anyway; which is fundamentally ethical. we could perhaps blend the two or remake it in the image of neuroscience but it would be a wholly new product i think. i think in some sense a model wherein two functions of like attitude compose the ego would entail a paradigm shift in some sense, because it would upend the tradition in a lot of ways, reaching back through certain embedded philosophical conceptions of the ego (as an ethical unit). in other words, what we're talking about here is nothing less than a total shift in our conception of the ego as traditionally conceived from ethical to logical or some unity of the two

i do think in the near term the biggest issue is measurement, which will probably determine where the model goes. you see this already with big 5. in principle anything is possible when it comes to manipulating rational conceptions that aren't constrained except by imagination until we interject some kind of hard limitations in the form of what we can measure

[hatchback176]

1) It's not about Neuroscience or Therapy. If you don't have a model of learning then you're not self-reflective about learning.
2) The structure of the Orbitofrontal Cortex is observed to function in an inherently extraverted way. The philosophic groundwork has already been laid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...re_of_the_self
3) It's a cop-out to let people off the hook for not learning new information in a self-reflective manner. You have to be explicit about the revision editing process.

Cognitive Model.jpg

[Bertrand]

I don't think its a cop out because it makes the mistake of assuming that codification of a thing and memorization of it means possession of that which it purports itself to represent. inasmuch as some methods work to convey the thing itself they can be said to be more than sufficient, preferable even, as a substitute. this would obviate the need for some models as a practical matter

this is why appeal to a "better model" entails a change of context as to what category of model the model is in some cases, which should be kept in mind when talking about making such a shift and predicting such shifts, and interpreting the meaning of "better" not to mention working backward from such a meaning to justify a shift. its two different models at that point which is totally fine, but the contiguity between the two is somewhat mistaken, if that is not acknowledged

it seems to me you would erroneously subsume ethics into logic, which may ultimately be possible, but lets not assume that it is or that's not what this would be, hence paradigm shift

[hatchback176]

No, it's a matter of self-reflection.