For the Last Time: Logic vs. Ethics

[jason_m]

Recently, I studied a number of Youtube videos on both "thinking vs. feeling" and "logic vs. ethics." I am sorry to say, I have been overlooking how simple this dichotomy really is. "Logic" (or "thinking") is just a matter of weighing things in terms of "true vs. false." That is all there is to it! One could have a system for weighing things, or scheme, or base it on memory of objective information, but logic is simply a matter of determining what is true and what is not. For instance, one might have a framework based on evolutionary biology, and everything in that framework is used to analyze information to determine whether or not it is either simply "true" or "false." That is just one example, but it gives a clear sense of what "logic" is about. "Ethics," on the other hand, weighs things more in terms of "like and dislike." It could be certain people they "like" that they want to emulate. It could be a moral system that they value. It could be anything that is based around these feelings of like/dislike. Where socionics gets confused is with people who display strong feelings of "disliking" towards certain notions such as morality or religion: "I simply hate religion because of what it stands for" is actually an example of the views of an ethical type; the logical equivalent isn't that one hates the people or ideals of religion, it's the reasoning behind it - "It's based on false premises," "It isn't historially accurate," "There isn't any objective basis for it" are the logical equivalents to someone who simply hates religion because of its ideals. There are also notions such as: "I hate ethical beliefs of any kind. They are Fi and therefore Delta or Gamma to me." That is flat out wrong. It depends on what the ethical beliefs are based on. For instance, Immanuel Kant tried to set up an ethical system that is devoid of all emotion and emotional reasoning. That is in fact a system of ethics, but it is not an example of socionics ethics. One could also hate ethics and ethical people, but if it is based on like and dislike, then it is ironically not an example of socionics logic. As you can see, there are a lot of misnomers about what this dichotomy is about... In fact, I have realized that I might even be an ethical type because of my analysis... And WRT the sciences, I find it hard to see how having a scheme or framework for determining truth equates to being a better scientist or mathematician. I honestly look at that and find it to be a mistake.

In any event, I am thinking less of socionics these days, because I have found a new personality theory that I think is better: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-On-the-Market.

If you have any comments on either of these posts, please respond appropriately...

[Sol]

any thoughts are thinking
any feelings are feeling

[Kill4Me]

As a general rule of thumb, feelers put all their eggs in one basket when it comes to making decisions and estimate probability-of-success through feeling. Thinkers value logic so invest more energy into having other options to choose from and estimate probability-of-success through facts.

Hypothetical probability-of-success scenario as to whether X landlord will rent an apartment to me because "I" have to be out by the end of the month:

Feeler: I have known this landlord for a long time. We had a good relationship. I feel like he will rent it to me. I can make that place look beautiful. I'll do x, y and z to it...my cat will love the porch and climbing up onto the roof; it also comes with a unit on the top floor, so I can rent out the second floor and live at the top. Therefore, he probably wants to rent it to me in spite of the fact he hasn't returned any of my texts. That's just the way he is. He'll let me rent it. I hope the rent isn't too high. I'll send him another text and start working on an ad for roommates to split the rent with.

Thinker: There's no for rent sign on the building. The landlord has not returned any of my texts. The repairs inside are not finished. Therefore, he probably doesn't want to rent it to me; I'll start looking for other places because this guy probably is not going to come through.

[Adam Strange]

Logic is facts, names, classifications.

Ethics is assigning values to those facts. Values can relate to either individual or group values.

For example, you are looking at two brands of canned soup. The labels tell you the caloric content, the percentage of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, fiber, and vitamins and give you a list of ingredients for each brand. You now know lots of facts about both cans of soup. But the facts alone don't allow you to have a preference until you assign value to the facts.

Fortunately, you saw a commercial which associated clean living, bunnies hopping in the grass in front of contented lions, righteousness, purity, and motherhood with one brand, so that's the one you buy. That's value.

[Finaplex]

Recently, I studied a number of Youtube videos on both "thinking vs. feeling" and "logic vs. ethics." I am sorry to say, I have been overlooking how simple this dichotomy really is. "Logic" (or "thinking") is just a matter of weighing things in terms of "true vs. false." That is all there is to it! One could have a system for weighing things, or scheme, or base it on memory of objective information, but logic is simply a matter of determining what is true and what is not. For instance, one might have a framework based on evolutionary biology, and everything in that framework is used to analyze information to determine whether or not it is either simply "true" or "false." That is just one example, but it gives a clear sense of what "logic" is about. "Ethics," on the other hand, weighs things more in terms of "like and dislike." It could be certain people they "like" that they want to emulate. It could be a moral system that they value. It could be anything that is based around these feelings of like/dislike. Where socionics gets confused is with people who display strong feelings of "disliking" towards certain notions such as morality or religion: "I simply hate religion because of what it stands for" is actually an example of the views of an ethical type; the logical equivalent isn't that one hates the people or ideals of religion, it's the reasoning behind it - "It's based on false premises," "It isn't historially accurate," "There isn't any objective basis for it" are the logical equivalents to someone who simply hates religion because of its ideals. There are also notions such as: "I hate ethical beliefs of any kind. They are Fi and therefore Delta or Gamma to me." That is flat out wrong. It depends on what the ethical beliefs are based on. For instance, Immanuel Kant tried to set up an ethical system that is devoid of all emotion and emotional reasoning. That is in fact a system of ethics, but it is not an example of socionics ethics. One could also hate ethics and ethical people, but if it is based on like and dislike, then it is ironically not an example of socionics logic. As you can see, there are a lot of misnomers about what this dichotomy is about... In fact, I have realized that I might even be an ethical type because of my analysis... And WRT the sciences, I find it hard to see how having a scheme or framework for determining truth equates to being a better scientist or mathematician. I honestly look at that and find it to be a mistake.

In any event, I am thinking less of socionics these days, because I have found a new personality theory that I think is better: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-On-the-Market.

If you have any comments on either of these posts, please respond appropriately...

I see this frequently with Te types in the work place. They will often complain about some other worker and how illogical, or poorly planned, or how lacking in common sense people are when in reality what they are instead making are ethical statements masked as logical ones.

Its a type of value judgements and its clear why it gets paired with Fi.

[para]

Socionics, like any other system, does not recognize the indivisibility of those seemingly diametrical ideas.

[The Reality Denialist]

Just observe through which lens people's thoughts are usually looked through. Personal vs impersonal. Granted that ILI's for example like to think about how others relate to each other but that is done for the purpose of schematization.

Emotionality in itself is not feeling in this dichotomy.

[Exodus]

I'd agree that logic is about the true/false distinction.

Is Fe about likes and dislikes though? That's less clear. I'd say ethics is about people. Or feelings in general.

[Rebelondeck]

Ethics in Socionics-speak is likely an unfortunate label for associative (relative) reasoning - as contrasted with rule-based (absolute) reasoning. Others in psychology may have improved on the interpretation of the observations, which might bring us a little closer to a hard science definition:

http://matt.colorado.edu/teaching/hi...adings/s96.pdf

a.k.a. I/O