Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Logic-Ethics by Trehov and Tsypin
¶
Written by
A. Trehov
and
P. Tsypin
from School of Structural Socionics.
Original text.
Introduction
¶
“- Why have you been using epithets? A detective must express
himself by verbs and nouns.”- she said.
(
“Seventeen Moments of
Spring”
)
“- Perhaps he’s a clever professional?”
“- No! A clever professional wouldn’t have gone to the shelter!”
(“Seventeen Moments of Spring”)
Abstract:
Common errors in understanding of Logic-Ethics
dichotomy are examined. Another definition of this dichotomy is
proposed.
The understanding of the Reinin-Augustinavichiute dichotomies by
different socionics authors can differ up to a total contrast.
Furthermore, the abundance of popular writing and the absence of any
textbooks lead to poor common understanding of these dichotomies. Thus,
the authors consider it necessary to rectify the interpretations of the
dichotomies in Socionics and to give them more clear definitions. To
this purpose, we have decided to begin a cycle of articles on this
subject, starting with dichotomy of Logic-Ethics.
Common misconceptions
¶
Let us look at how Logic-Ethics dichotomy is represented in the
socionics literature:
“Our psyche analyzes information connected to time (for which it
relies on intuition), space (by which sensing is occupied), matter
(for which logic is responsible) and energy (which is the
constituency of ethics).” [3, p.25]
Here, fundamental objections don’t come up; however, it seems necessary
to explain the terms “matter” and “energy”, which would allow for
appropriate understanding of these terms in relation to Socionics
theory.
Another example:
“Logical thinking is built upon the assessment of parameters of
objects and the correlations of their qualities. In our world
exist laws, rules, and norms  these are the pillars of logical
thinking.” .. “Ethical thinking is of a completely different
nature. It avoids cold calculation and weighing judgments on the
weights of reason, i.e. what is more or less valid. When making an
evaluation, an ethical type is guided by the advice of the heart.
Ethics legalizes for itself the right to subjectivism. Ethics does
not burden itself with proofs.” [4, p.102-103]
This interpretation is objectionable in several ways. First of all, how
can ethical thinking be of a “different nature” if, same as logical
thinking, it is also considered to be rational judgment (Ji, Je)?
Furthermore, who will discover and analyze the laws, rules, and norms of
psychological and social development? In such fields of study, the
questions and issues posed deal directly with people’s needs and
potential - is this not a field of study that falls into the scope of
ethical thinking? Finally, what is this “advice of the heart”? After
all, Socionics and Socionics TIMs are about the processing of
information by the human intellect. What does the heart have to do with
anything within this field of study? An ethical type thinks with his
mind just like a logical type does; he or she doesn’t have another organ
for accomplishing this. And both logical and ethical types feel with
their heart (not to be confused with the “heart” in the cardiological
sense).
The book of E. Rumyantsev provides these precise definitions:
“Logic  is the thinking function of the psyche of a person, that
processes information and makes decisions objectively and
impartially.”
“Ethics  is the psychic function of subjective judgment or
evaluation, that is based on involvement with the inner, soulfelt
world of people.” [6, p.186-188]
The above assumption of “incorrigible subjectivity” of Ethics is
completely unclear and incomprehensible. It would thus follow that
roughly half of all people - those of “Ethical” types - think
inadequately about all matters (that is, they think subjectively). What
would happen, then, if an ethical type would take up thinking on
something of objective and scientific importance? Let us repeat:
“ethics” is just as rational an aspect as “logic”, and the attribution
of subjectivity does not logically follow from anything. In addition,
what is this “soulfelt inner world of people”, and how does one descend
into it? In what realm does this world exist? How does an ethical type
enter into this world? What exactly does he do? Is he some kind of
“clairvoyant of peoples’ souls”? This cannot be talked about seriously!
“The main motivations behind actions of [ethical] types are
personal motives, and not business interests.” [5, p.180]
“For logical types reason and principles prevail above
relationships. … In their decisions and conclusions, logical
types try to rely on facts, to be objective and impartial in their
evaluations of qualities of people around them. [5, p.181]
In this definition Ethics is presented as some “gradient of stupidity”.
And honestly, what else can you say of a person who is unable to respect
business interests and cannot rely on facts when analyzing reality, and
who is always subjectively biased? In reality, an ethical type is as
much a “person of business” as a logical type. Ethics also intensively
pursues its business interests and it isn’t any more foolish (in the
everyday sense) than logic. The difference is in what “set of
instruments” the person uses predominantly: logical or ethical. For
example, in the search for work or in attempts at promotion, ethical
type is inclined to rely on acquaintances and connections in greater
measure than his or her own professionalism (however high his
professionalism might actually be). Any logical type would envy this
ability to objectively estimate the real, ethical potential and
possibilities of one’s acquaintances and assistants. Thus, the sanity
and soundness of a person’s judgment does not at all depend on belonging
to one of the poles of the Logic/Ethics dichotomy.
If we return to the last quoted phrase from the book of Meged and
Ovcharov, the contradiction is noticeable: “the evaluation of the
qualities of people around them” is a purely ethical process, during
which it is the person of logical type that gravitates towards
arbitrariness and non-objectivity. A person of ethical type, meanwhile,
is less prone to making mistakes in the “human analysis”, though he
finds it harder to work with inanimate material objects.
Finally, according to [8]:
“Logical types are certain that cause-effect connections exist
objectively in the world. Meaning for them is a real concept; it
could be present or absent from each specific statement or
assertion. Thus, a logical type can always distinguish intelligent
assertions from senseless ones.
Ethical types … subconsciously hope that it would be possible
with strong wish or desire to change the circumstances, simply
ignore the facts or draw any kinds of conclusions from them. The
main thing is presence of someone for whom it would be worthwhile
to formulate things in such manner, or a strong desire to see and
set things in that way.”
A number of questions arise after reading this: so is the person of
ethical type unaware and unacknowledging of the existence of
cause-effect relationships in this world? Do people of ethical types not
recognize the laws of physics or biology? [Do they fail these classes in
school?] Show us such a person! Where is he? Furthermore, it follows
from the quoted text that the person of logical type is a normal,
sensible, reasonable person who recognizes objective reality. By
contrast, a person of ethical type is utterly subjective, at all times,
no matter what he is considering and thinking about. It’s impossible to
agree with such assertions.
Interestingly, C. G. Jung associated the tendency towards objectivity
not with Logic/Ethics dichotomy but with another dichotomy  the
E/I-vertness:
“Introverted types differ from extroverted in the fact that they
are oriented predominantly not on the object and not on objective
data, but on subjective factors. In an introvert, between the
perception of an object and its own action there is a subjective
opinion, which prevents the action from acquiring an objective
nature.” [9, p.415]
“If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to
correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims,
whether in a good sense or ill, he is extroverted.” [9, p. 371].
“As a result of the general attitude of extroversion, thinking is
orientated by the object and objective data.” [9, p.380]
“Feeling in the extroverted attitude is orientated by objective
data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind
of feeling. It agrees with objective values.” [9, p.394]
“Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly
directed upon outer objects in the extroverted attitude.” [9,
p.407]
“Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective
factor.” [9, p.422]
“Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the
inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the
unconscious.” [9, p.442]
Generally speaking, it is possible to hear from many socionists that it
is only logical types who are capable of being completely objective,
whereas ethical types are allegedly doomed to lifelong subjectivity in
all questions. Our conceptions are completely different.
First of all, the tendency towards objectivity is not solely a Socionics
factor, but depends on person’s mental and cultural levels, i.e. it is a
personal quality that is not exclusively attributable to any TIM. One
often meets classical (and very “strong”) logical types, whose judgments
in any matters are completely subjective.
These attempts to depict ethical types as defective in questions of
objectivity reverses Aushra’s discovery, turns it inside out. The
Socionic nature of society is expressed in that both poles of any
dichotomy are objectively in demand.
From the point of view of Socionics, “the phenomenon of human
objectivity” can be divided into logical and ethical objectivity. The
realization/implementation of these different forms of objectivity is
tied to differences in the objects [or targets] of logic and ethics. To
put it simply, a logical type is inclined to be objective when
evaluating material objects and characterizing the laws of their
existence. An ethical type in his turn is inclined to be objective when
estimating the qualities of people (and other living beings) and in his
or her understanding of the laws of interactions in society (and all of
its subdivisions, including familial relations). For example, there are
numerous objective psychological reasons built into the theories of
economics, while fields of marketing and personnel management rest for
the most part upon these laws.
Our understanding
¶
A more correct approach would be to completely omit the word
“objectivity” from the definitions of this dichotomy. It would be more
to differentiate their definitions: a logical type has a more nuanced
understanding of external circumstances when it comes to questions of
“what?” and “how?”; an ethical type focuses on internal circumstances
and questions such as “for what?” and “why?”
We read in [2]:
“…People of logical types are occupied by exogenous processes
and exogenous relations, while people of ethical types are
occupied with no less objective endogenous processes and
endogenous relations. The former study exogenous processes and
explain their external circumstances; the latter - endogenous
processes and explain their internal circumstances; that is, their
inclinations, needs, and attractive forces.”
Proposed definitions:
Logic
is the tendency to appeal to reasoning and data analysis
in terms of material (inert, inanimate) aspects of phenomena;
Ethics
is the tendency to appeal to reasoning and data
analysis in terms of energy (animated) aspects of phenomena.
Let us give some examples.
A logical type when he or she is using some thing thinks primarily about
its effectiveness and functionality. A car must move, not break down and
so on, that is, to carry out its functions; a computer must work, etc. A
person of logical type will not sell or exchange a thing only because it
has gone out of fashion. However, for the ethical type the prestige and
modernity of a thing is an argument in its own right. For an ethical
type, following fashion is an instance of recognizing social
expectations (rules, norms) to which ethical person is usually
sensitive. For a logical type a person is defined through their action;
a logical type won’t go into the motivations behind someone’s behavior.
For an ethical type, however, these motives are very important; quite
frequently they are important in themselves, irrespective of their
connection to the actual behavior. The ethical type is interested in
knowing the reason, even if the act did not concern him or her directly.
This is one of the reasons behind the natural attraction of ethical
types to the field of psychology.
Ethics is capable of giving a comprehensive analysis of the motivation
of the actions of people and groups. This form of judgement is
irreplaceable for judicial and law work. It has been noted that ethical
types as a whole are much more inclined to self-reflection than logical
types; ethical types are more inclined to mentally put themselves in the
place of another person, and to attempt to understand their internal
motivations.
Logical judgement is, in general, more evident, since it encompasses
material (noticeable) aspects, whereas ethical judgement needs time to
verify its statements. For example, if the subject matter concerns
evaluation of working potential of a person. When an ethical type makes
such evaluation only time will show whether this ethical evaluation was
correct. It would seem that such “delay” doesn’t decrease the value of
ethical evaluations. Unfortunately, in our times only logical analysis
is currently in demand, which undoubtedly impoverishes society and even
holds it behind is some fields.
Possible points of confusion
¶
From our definition it follows that logical types feel naturally
confident in the spheres of material production, technology, equipment,
and exact sciences. Not infrequently they creatively consider the laws
and regularities of the material-object world, of the inanimate world
where there is no concept of “personal motives”. For a logical type,
expediency and effectiveness are of priority, and, from their point of
view, human relations can be scarified in serve of these “sacred cows”.
The logical type is a person of matter, impersonal technology; he or she
lives by the principle “the aircraft comes first, and the girls - that’s
for later!” An ethical type, on the contrary, is worried primarily about
what other people think of him, how they evaluate his actions. For a
positive opinion of others around him, he is capable of completely
disregarding the interests of a matter.
It is necessary to distinguish Socionics Logic from a common concept of
“everyday logic”. The latter can be represented with socionics terms as
a trinomial unity [7]:
Si + Te + Fi
The phrase “everyday logic”, circulating in society, is associated with
the following assertions:
a person who has “everyday logic” knows how to take care of himself or herself - how to prepare food, how to do laundry, how to choose clothing, what items and are required for daily life. This is the sphere of influence of Si.
the “everyday logical” person must have good judgement and discernment in financial matters, be familiar with technology, know how to work in some kind of “objective” rhythm (for example, from 9am to 6pm), be capable of coordinating his own activities and activities of other people, be dynamic and quick to mobilize. All of this is the sphere of Te.
finally, a real “everyday logical” person must be capable of adequately interacting with people around him, to be competent in interpersonal and collective situations, to be sociable, friendly, able to go for reasonable compromise, or, alternatively, to irreconcilably defend his own values and principles. It is evident that the above is related to element of Fi.
Thus, the person who has “everyday logic” is not necessarily a logical
type in socionics sense. Frequently, such “everyday logician” is of
(Si:Fe), (Fi:Se), (Te:Si), or (Ne:Fi) TIMs.
Socionics “Ethics” has little in common with the traditional concept of
ethical behavior and ethical talk. In reality, socionics ethical types
don’t always consider it necessary to adhere to accepted ethical
standards of behavior; in consequence of which they may be considered as
“unethical” by people around them. This is because a person in
possession of strong ethics (in socionics sense) relates to social and
ethical standards of behavior with greater degrees of freedom; he or she
can invent new rules for social interactions, a “new order” or “new
approach”; and therefore be seen by others as rude - a disturber of
etiquette and ethical canons.
A typical socionics logical type, on the contrary, is often ethical from
the point of view of commonly accepted ethical standards, that is,
he/she tries to strictly adhere to the unwritten rules of interaction.
Why does he/she do this? Because he/she feels uncertain and inadequate
in the sphere of interaction with people. The logical type fears doing
anything incorrect and disclosing his ethical incompetence by a wrong
actions or word; therefore, he holds onto objectively existing norms of
social communication.
Ethical type, in communication, receives maximum amount of information
on nonverbal channels: observing body language and poses, facial
expressions and mimicry, movement of the eyes, emotions, and even
respiration rates of their conversation partner. Logical type, as a
rule, is not as successful at this; a person of such type prefers to
obtain information directly through written or spoken words.
For a logical type it is more difficult to understand the connections
between people and groups. It is easier to formulate new natural laws,
or invent new technical devices. An ethical type, to the contrary, is
not in such friendly terms with “inanimate technology”; he is wary of
it, uses it with care, fearing do something wrong and break it; however,
in the sphere of human relations and associated sciences, ethical type
feels much more freedom and can even be the generator of new ideas and
the creator of new theories of psychological or economic directivity.
Ethics and emotionality
¶
“Ethical type is a person of emotion, but does not necessarily
manifest his or her feelings outwardly.” [12]
For manifestations of emotions and their analysis, the aspect of Fe is
responsible. The aspect of Fi  we want to emphasize this especially
is not connected to emotionalism. It examines such questions as ethical
initiatives and analyzes interpersonal as well as group relationships;
this aspect is tightly connected to psychology.
Emotional manifestation depends on the following factors:
The place of Fe in Model A.
Temperament (energy exchange levels) of the person.
Individual qualities.
From this it follows that:
1. The most emotional types are (Fe:Ni) and (Fe:Si) since their Fe is
4-dimensional and is not dependent on any other functions. However, they
are fully capable of controlling their emotions (at least within some
limits). They can hold their emotions inside for a long period of time
until there is an informational signal from Ni or Si , respectively.
Quite outwardly emotional are both (Te:Ni) and (Te:Si) TIMs due to their
normative (role) Fe . Fe as accepting function grants the largest
intensity of expressed emotions than as producing one.
2. The linear-energetic temperament (EJ) yields the maximum amount of
emotionality, followed by the flexible-mobile (EP), balanced-stable (IJ)
and receptive-adaptive (IP) temperaments [10], [11]. The priority of
emotionality for balanced-stable (IJ) temperament over
receptive-adaptive (IP) temperament is accounted for by the accepting Fe
and stability of his own energetic manifestations.
3. The psycho-energetic traits of a person can be such that even having
TIM with weak Fe , such a person exhibits powerful, long-lasting,
intensive emotional manifestations. It is also possible for individuals
of TIMs (Fe:Ni) or (Fe:Si) to manifest emotions very modestly for long
periods of time. Let us note that most frequently such personalities
have subtypes intuitive-logical in case of (Fe:Ni) and sensory-logical
in case of (Fe-Si).
Conclusion:
the emotional manifestations of people and their
analysis are related to the socionics category of “ethics.” However,
socionics ethics is in no way identical to emotionality. Socionics
ethics is a rational analysis of reality, only tangentially and not
always related to emotions. In particular, Aushra has said (according to
S. Kashnitsky), having (Fi:Se) TIM in mind:
“Ethics is relationships and not emotions. Clyde is not emotional at
all, but he is an excellent diplomat.”
The question of identification
¶
During verbal typing it is necessary to keep in mind, that an ethical
type can methodically and logically discuss many things and phenomena of
reality, particularly those that are related to the people and their
interactions. It is even possible to say that
ethics is the logic of
interaction and social behavior
. With regards to this kind of logic,
ethical types perform well. A person of an ethical type is fully capable
of solving simple problems in the field of exact sciences; however, he
or she never feels fully confident being occupied by such subjects as
mathematics or chemistry on professional level.
Accordingly, logical types find it difficult to understand many aspects
of the development of society, and, consequently, many of the
regularities and laws governing economic theory and many other
scientific disciplines, which, at first glance, seem thoroughly
“logical”(although, naturally, a logical type is capable of being
occupied by them at a professional level). It is reasonable to note that
logic is the ethics of interrelations in the material (inanimate)
world
.
The following fact is interesting and important for type identification:
logic in ethical types is normative, and therefore they are highly
concerned with “logicalness” of their thoughts and actions. In order to
substantiate their actions, they frequently rely on elements of formal
logic by making references to “authority”, laws, rules, and other
“indisputable” sources [10]. Let us note that formal logic is the most
easily accessible “logical tool”, and for this very reason it enjoys
great success with the more “advanced” ethical types.
Aushra wrote:
“The logic of all socionics ethical types is normative. They strictly
carry out all logical norms, and it is of importance to them what is
scientific or at least generally accepted and proven, because they
neither discover nor develop any new logical relationships, methods,
or approaches. Within their own logical reasoning, they are very
careful and are never assured of its flawlessness. For this same
reason, the scope of their logical interests is quite wide; they read
up on various topics more so than logical types and are good
story-tellers of the scientific truths. Conversely, logical types are
often erudite in cultural, humanistic, and artistic literature, which
grants them the ability to understand ethical standards.” [1, p.141]
A logical type frequently has no need in relatively primitive formal
substantiations for his actions; he uses meaningful, substantiated
logical arguments, and relates critically to authorities.
Generally speaking, the identification of this dichotomy is complex,
since the majority of intellectually developed people in mature age
acquire many qualities of the opposite pole of this dichotomy (logical
types develop their ethical side, and vice versa). Out of the entire
Jungian basis, Logic/Ethics dichotomy is the most diluted during typing
and maximally subjected to developmental advancement or partial
reprogramming.
Literature
¶
Augustinavichiute A. Socionics: Introduction / Comp. L. Filippov. M.
- SPb., AST, 1998.
Augustinavichiute A. Theory of the Reinin Dichotomies // Socionics,
Mentology and Personality Psychology, 3, 1998.
Gorenko EA, TOLSTIKOV VI Nature’s own “I”. - M .: Armada-press, 2001.
Kashnitsky SE among the people. Socionics - a science communication.
- M .: Armada-press, 2001.
Meged V. V., Ovcharov A. A. Characters and relationships. - M .:
Armada-press, 2002.
Rumyantsev EA On the way to mutual understanding: socionics -
teachers and parents. - M .: Armada-press, 2002.
Tsypin PE concept of social type, socionic dichotomy and typing //
sleep, September 2003.
UDALOVA EA Lessons Socionics, or most importantly, what we have not
been taught in school / EA UDALOVA LA Beskova. - M .: Astrel 2003.
C. G. Jung Psychological Types / Trans. with it .; Under the total.
Ed. Vladimir Zelensky. - Mn .: “Potpourri” LLC, 1998.
Viktor Gulenko Structural and Functional Socionics: Development of a
method of combinatorics polarities. - K .: Transport of Ukraine,
1999. -CH.1.
Menchov TI, Tsypin PE, Levin JV Secrets typing. - M .: Good Word
2004.
Ekaterina Filatova Socionics for all. B & K, 1999.
Additional Links
¶
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Extroversion-Introversion by Trehov and Tsypin
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Logic-Ethics by Trehov and Tsypin
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Intuition-Sensing by Trehov and Tsypin
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Rationality-Irrationality by Trehov and Tsypin