Logic vs. Ethics and More...

[jason_m]

1. On 'thinking types' in the MBTI and socionics. Both of these theories assume that if you are strong in 'thinking,' you are weak in 'ethics/emotions.' I was just watching Spock and McCoy today. If you watch this relation, you see the real difference between logic and ethics. Spock hates it when McCoy gets *overly* emotional. McCoy hates it when Spock doesn't get emotional *enough.* That is all there really is to it. However, some theorists twist and contort this notion beyond comprehension and argue that as a logical type, you shouldn't be 'emotional at all' or that even human virtue and ethics are elements of 'too much feeling.' I am sorry here: the theory is simply that if you're a logical type, you don't feel enough. If you are an ethical type, you feel too much. And of course you can be in between. Again, that is all there is to it. It is a bizarre argument that to be a real 'thinker,' you have to be void of ethics and emotion to the point of being just empty of it - maybe even a sociopath. Another one is that someone with strong logic is just filled with *negativity.* What does negativity have to do with logic, reason or even precision in thought or action? Doesn't it actually cloud one's judgment if they are overly negative? But here again, if you read between the lines, certain types are more 'rational' because they're 'skeptical,' 'cynical,' or 'argumentative.' I am sorry, my hunch tells me it's wrong.

2. If you are a logical type, you are more suited to math, science, or engineering. This is correct, but there is a reason for it. In socoinics, logical types are more impersonal, more objetive and more precise and therefore *tend to be drawn to technical fields.* This has nothing to do with 1) one's innate mathematical ability, 2) one's ability for abstraction or visualization of scientific concepts, and 3) one's ability to be creative in a given domain. The latter three traits are far more important in the sciences than one's ability to simply be precise and/or impersonal. And it is simply assumed *by some* that if you lack the impersonal side, you don't belong in the sciences at all! As someone who is coming to realize that I might be an ethical type, I find this preposterous.


I know am venting here, but these are two big pet peeves of mine - I just had to have some place to rant!

[Soupman]

1. On 'thinking types' in the MBTI and socionics. Both of these theories assume that if you are strong in 'thinking,' you are weak in 'ethics/emotions.' I was just watching Spock and McCoy today. If you watch this relation, you see the real difference between logic and ethics. Spock hates it when McCoy gets *overly* emotional. McCoy hates it when Spock doesn't get emotional *enough.* That is all there really is to it. However, some theorists twist and contort this notion beyond comprehension and argue that as a logical type, you shouldn't be 'emotional at all' or that even human virtue and ethics are elements of 'too much feeling.' I am sorry here: the theory is simply that if you're a logical type, you don't feel enough. If you are an ethical type, you feel too much. And of course you can be in between. Again, that is all there is to it. It is a bizarre argument that to be a real 'thinker,' you have to be void of ethics and emotion to the point of being just empty of it - maybe even a sociopath. Another one is that someone with strong logic is just filled with *negativity.* What does negativity have to do with logic, reason or even precision in thought or action? Doesn't it actually cloud one's judgment if they are overly negative? But here again, if you read between the lines, certain types are more 'rational' because they're 'skeptical,' 'cynical,' or 'argumentative.' I am sorry, my hunch tells me it's wrong.

2. If you are a logical type, you are more suited to math, science, or engineering. This is correct, but there is a reason for it. In socoinics, logical types are more impersonal, more objetive and more precise and therefore *tend to be drawn to technical fields.* This has nothing to do with 1) one's innate mathematical ability, 2) one's ability for abstraction or visualization of scientific concepts, and 3) one's ability to be creative in a given domain. The latter three traits are far more important in the sciences than one's ability to simply be precise and/or impersonal. And it is simply assumed *by some* that if you lack the impersonal side, you don't belong in the sciences at all! As someone who is coming to realize that I might be an ethical type, I find this preposterous.


I know am venting here, but these are two big pet peeves of mine - I just had to have some place to rant!

You should not conflate socionics with MBTI, furthermore there are multiple forms of socionics either way.

DarkAngelFireWolf69 has perfectly explained it - pure logic is autism, and that is what happens to ILI & LII when they've failed to develop the R functions respectively (superego-energy).

BTW being ethical has nothing to do with being cordial in socionics least you are reminded that Donald Trump is an SEE and leader of Germany 33-45 (name gets autocensored) EIE, both dominant subtypes.

[Soupman]

BTW I read some of your posts about duality, and I'm not quite sure what to put of it given how I cannot be sure of your sociotype diagnosis given how you conflate MBTI and socionics.

Nevertheless ESFX are both high energy and assertively domineering, neither of their duals INTX are actually instinctively tolerant of them. They find their free flow nature absurd - that's actually a point of conflict when they don't understand each other.

The biggest difference between ESFX is temperament with EJ disorienting INTP/ILI and EP disorienting INTJ/LII; quadra values can break - there are alpha ILI, LIE, ESI, & SEE