MBTI/Socionics and Mistakes about "Logic"
I own a book called 'Being Logical' by C.Q. McInerny. Most of the book I feel I could have written, so much so, that it is questionable whether I even needed to buy it! But there are several things that I realize that I'm not being logical about. However, there are also several notions in the book that I feel pertain to the MBTI/socionics that are being called 'logical' (i.e., 'thinking') that are the exact opposite. To be objective, I will list both my mistakes and the mistakes I feel the theory is making.
My mistakes:
- Naive Optimism:
"A naive optimist, after spending an hour with a young woman whom he has just met for the first time, is convinced that she has a) the beauty of Helen of Troy, b) the intelligence of Madame Curie, and c) the artistic prowess of Emily Dickinson."
This is a fallacy because it might set up for future disappointment in dealing with the woman.
I can be guilty of this. I always look at the glass as 'half-full.' Sometimes it damages me.
- Open-Mindedness:
"A healthy open-mindedness does not mean that one is indiscriminately open to everything. To be noncommittal in a situation that demands commitment is no virtue. To be tolerant of everything is to value nothing."
As intuitive type, I am often too open-minded, and I therefore believe in things like UFOs or ghosts that other people don't even consider. This is probably not rational at all, as it sets the bar "too low" about what is true.
- Emotion and Argument:
"The more intense our emotional state, the more difficult it is to think clearly and behave temperately. A person in the throes of violent anger is seldom a paragon of rationality."
This is one that both I am making and so is the MBTI/socionics. People such as 'Judge Judy' are classified as having really strong logic, when there is nothing to them to me but an intense state of rage. I can sometimes be really angry on the inside. *However*, I try to never let it affect my thinking or my dealings with people. Nonetheless, I am still guilty of it, so it deserves mention.
- Common Sense
"It is 'common' sense in that is shared by all animals who Aristotle defined as rational."
Again, I am willing to believe in UFOs, etc. Therefore, I lack this quality as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socionics/the MBTI's Mistakes:
- Skepticism
"Skepticism as a permanent attitude, a philosophical point of view, is deadly. It subverts the reasoning process before it even gets started, transforming it into a process of misreasoning."
When it comes to truth, skeptics often set the bar 'too-high.' I.e,, they are too conservative as to what counts as knowledge. Proper reasoning sets the bar at just the right height so true beliefs are accepted and the false ones rejected. In the MBTI/socionics, there is a tendency to reward skepticism as "logical thinking" and optimism as the opposite. While I can be too optimistic as well, *both* qualities are examples of erroneous reasoning.
- Cynicism
The same principle applies to cynicism as skepticism. Cynicism is only a more extreme form of skepticism, and the MBTI/socionics seems to reward it as 'logical reasoning' again. For example, the "Critic" personality type is often prized for their reasoning, but if you read carefully, they sometimes range from skeptics to outright cynics on this factor.
- Emotion and Argument
Already discussed in my section.
- The Reason for Reasoning
"Reasoning can be employed for an unspecifiable number of purposes, both good and bad. Some of histories most notorious criminals have been possessed of finely tuned logical minds. To use reasoning for any other purpose is to misuse it."
You see in a number of cases, people who are deemed" logical" in socionics who use reasoning to pick at other people or target other people. They are not using it for the right purpose at all.
- Argumentation is not Quarreling
"Argument is rational discourse. It is not to be confused with quarreling. The object of an argument is to get at the truth. The object of quarreling is to get at other people. There are any number of folk who, though happy to quarrel with you, are either unable or unwilling to argue with you. Do not waste time and energy trying to argue with people who will not or cannot argue."
This again is the opposite of what it sometimes says in the literature. E.g., how certain types like to "argue" and "won't back down until you prove them wrong." Or how some types are "Lawyer" types who will argue any point, just for fun. This is confusing the art of developing sound/valid arguments with quarreling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, I feel that I am somewhat guilty of these fallacies - and, to an extent, and so are these theories. Nonetheless, I thought I would point out the flaws with the thinking/feeling dimension, as a way educating people about critical thinking. The level of critical thinking on this forum is actually quite high. Therefore, if anyone has any challenges to my qualms with my arguments, please voice them.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
