Author note: This is a simplification or "dumb-down" version of Aushra's dichotomies traits on logical and ethical types. I plan on doing all the main ones, and potentially even renin since it's still considered a significant part of classical socionics. This isn't official yet, at least by me, I plan on actually editing this if needed.

Source original material: https://classicsocionics.wordpress.com/logic-ethics/

Ethical v Logical Strengths: While ethical types excel in interpersonal relations, it's important to note that their strength lies not just in building relationships, but also in understanding and manipulating emotions. On the other hand, logical types' prowess in dealing with the objective world extends to problem-solving and critical thinking, often rooted in analytical abilities.

The Approach to Independence: The definition of independence differs between these types. Logical type's independence manifests within their ability to solve problems autonomously, but their reliance on validation & societal recognition creates a dependency of its own. Ethical types are perceived as more dependent due to their focus and utilization of personal relations, but their ability alone to influence others and navigate social dynamics is autonomous in its own right.


Persuasion and Promises: Logical types' adherence to truth and promises stems from their need for reliability and consistency, whereas ethical types' persuasion tactics are rooted in their understanding of emotional nuances and social dynamics. The distinction here lies in the motivation behind their actions and commitments.


Evaluation Criteria: The criteria used for evaluation reflect underlying value systems. Logical types prioritize objective measures such as logic and reason, while ethical types prioritize subjective notions of morality and fairness. This contrast illustrates how individuals with different cognitive orientations perceive and assess the world around them.


Manipulation and Emotions: Ethical types' adeptness at manipulating emotions doesn't necessarily imply malicious intent; rather, it showcases their proficiency in navigating social dynamics. Meanwhile, logical types' focus on objective facts may sometimes lead to overlooking or downplaying emotional considerations, highlighting a potential blind spot in their interpersonal interactions.
Norms and Creativity: While logical types adhere strictly to established norms, it's essential to recognize that this adherence can also stem from a desire for order and predictability. Ethical types' creative approach to ethics reflects their adaptability and responsiveness to situational nuances, which can be both a strength and a challenge depending on the context.


Gender Differences: Gendered expressions of cognitive orientations are influenced by societal expectations and norms. Men with ethical thinking may exhibit pronounced masculinity to align with societal ideals, while women with logical thinking may adopt behaviors traditionally associated with masculinity as a means of asserting their competence and autonomy.


Communication of Feelings: The difficulty that logical types face in expressing emotions verbally doesn't diminish the depth or intensity of their feelings; rather, it underscores their preference for action-oriented expressions of affection. Conversely, ethical types' deliberate expressions of love reflect their conscious effort to foster emotional connections and maintain interpersonal bonds.


Stability of Feelings: Logical types' tendency to examine feelings through logical reasoning doesn't imply emotional detachment, but rather a methodical approach to understanding and processing emotions. Ethical types' conscious creation of feelings emphasizes their agency in shaping emotional experiences and relationships.