# A couple of things on high ethics



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I think, in general, people think of high dimensional use of ethics in the sense that it makes you skillful, social smooth etc in ways those with low dimensional ethics are not, but in fact, these things are not necessarily true. What is true about high dimensional IEs, however, is:


Will not be fazed in the light of criticism
Will feel confident in their own ability to criticize other people or be above reproach
Can be dicks and feel entitled about it
Will twist the situation in their own favor by seizing control


The bottom line is, high ethics does not make a person a saint and many people with high ethics can be socially awkward and dickheads. The difference is that they will present themselves in a way that will make it seem like the opposite is true and when criticized for it, will brush off the criticism while launching their own in order to make the person criticizing them look like the bad person.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Entropic said:


> I think, in general, people think of high dimensional use of ethics in the sense that it makes you skillful, social smooth etc in ways those with low dimensional ethics are not, but in fact, these things are not necessarily true. What is true about high dimensional IEs, however, is:
> 
> 
> Will not be fazed in the light of criticism
> ...


So all people can be like each other is what you're saying? (The bolded bit applies to most people of all types, not just ethical types).


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

I have to admit, I haven't actually seen this opinion (the one about people seeing high Ethics being overly positive) expressed much at all. I do think all the IEs in high-dimensional position can be used 'poorly' or 'negatively' (in apostrophes because the user won't necessary agree on them being used that way) and it's dependent entirely on the perspectives of the individual and the person/people they're interacting with on how that can be judged.
(I'm not sure why Ethics was necessarily highlighted in particular when this applies to all high-dimensional IEs... I'd say I've seen more misunderstandings about Se, overall.)


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Tad Cooper said:


> So all people can be like each other is what you're saying? (The bolded bit applies to most people of all types, not just ethical types).


I believe he was referring to all strong/high dimensionality functions at that point.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Fried Eggz said:


> I believe he was referring to all strong/high dimensionality functions at that point.


But he was speaking particularly of ethics. That description tells us nothing about ethics. It is what everybody does. People act like saints but really aren't; they hide their weaknesses and try to turn them around on others. Great insight there. I wonder what I would do if I didn't have Socionics to teach me this stuff.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Tad Cooper said:


> So all people can be like each other is what you're saying? (The bolded bit applies to most people of all types, not just ethical types).


I think you'll find that if you're gonna solely judge someone by their behaviors and not the motivations and rationale behind these behaviors, you're going to find a _lot _of similarities between people, yes.

To derive "all people can be like each other" from the original premise is not nuanced, imo. I would say, "some groups of people can look like other/different groups, but for different reasons and with different results and side-effects". There's a difference between knowing the rules of a game and breaking them, and unintentionally tripping over a rope.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Night Huntress said:


> I think you'll find that if you're gonna solely judge someone by their behaviors and not the motivations and rationale behind these behaviors, you're going to find a _lot _of similarities between people, yes.


I'm confused. Isn't this Tad's argument, that the bolded part of Entropic's post is too broad and behavioural to be purely Ethics? 



> To derive "all people can be like each other" from the original premise is not nuanced, imo. I would say, "some groups of people can look like other/different groups, but for different reasons and with different results and side-effects". There's a difference between knowing the rules of a game and breaking them, and unintentionally tripping over a rope.


You've excluded the second part of Tad's post. Here's the rest:


> (The bolded bit applies to most people of all types, not just ethical types).


That's the main issue, that the OP post is too broad to be specifically about Ethical types.
(To say someone's argument isn't nuanced without confronting the entire post they've made isn't very fair, in my opinion.)


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I think maybe what he is trying to say, using Fe as an example:

Fe is comfortable in the Fe arena of battle. I'll use an example. Arranged marriages. lol. Or just general social expectations or pressures. If you try to pressure a Fe type with your Fe, they will whip out their own Fe and do battle. Fe types are more comfortable going against Fe. Whereas a Fe polr type gets backed into a marriage. Or thinkers in general.

An SLI or ILI has a problem going against an ESE saying shit like "get married". They won't come back with a furious anger at least. Like how dare you try to pressure me into those situations.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

owlet said:


> I'm confused. Isn't this Tad's argument, that the bolded part of Entropic's post is too broad and behavioural to be purely Ethics?


I don't see how the bolded part of Entropic's post is too behavioral to not be grounded in theory, because it is an established fact about Model A that, in comparison to their weaker blocks, individuals are not as vulnerable to criticism of their ego and id block, as they are confident of the judgments they make there.



> *Strong* (control) functions are located in blocks of Ego and Id. This is the zone of one's abilities. They are presented confidently and independently, able to operate continuously and efficiently. Here, one's own point of view is more important than any other; it is to be propagated into the surrounding environment.


Socionics - the16types.info - [Translation] Model A

As for being too broad, I would say that the original post aims to discuss a tendency by using ethics as the primary standpoint or example being discussed, as opposed to saying it is _limited _to ethical types... which I have failed to see mentioned anywhere. 



> You've excluded the second part of Tad's post. Here's the rest:
> 
> That's the main issue, that the OP post is too broad to be specifically about Ethical types.


I have not excluded it. I have responded to the parts I think are worth responding to. However, since you want clarification, see above.




> (To say someone's argument isn't nuanced without confronting the entire post they've made isn't very fair, in my opinion.)


No. I think that argument was not nuanced enough despite the existence of the second sentence. How can one justify the statement "all people can be like each other" as an accurate conclusion from the OP? And how is that related to thinking that the post was too broad to be specifically about ethical types? 

Unless there's something very different that Tad intended to convey, which I am definitely open to hearing and considering from her.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ok no offense but don't read things into what I supposedly say but I didn't by putting words in my mouth. I never said that the principle I outlined was applicable to ethics only, but I was trying to address a specific attitude where people generally speaking have a tendency to think that socially tactful people are more likely to be ethicians and socially tactless people logicians. This is derived from the fact that type descriptions stress that poor dimensionality in ethics typically results in inability to be socially graceful because if you don't know how to emotionally express yourself properly in any given situation people will find you weird and borderline autistic and if you don't know how to consider your personal relationships with others people will find you tyrannical and heartless. 

That doesn't stop the general principle to be true for other IEs but in this specific situation I wasn't thinking about that because I was thinking of a recent personal example of having observed some really socially shitty behavior from a couple of ethicians that just roflstomped logicians that tried to call them out on it. This also matches my personal experience with ethicians that justify their behaviors by controlling the emotional space better than I do so even if I know in my heart I'm right I can't articulate it in a way so they'll accept the criticism as valid. 

That was really all I wanted to say. It's not limited to ethicians but it was merely an example to illustrate a greater point of view. 

So saying I was trying to express that this is strictly limited to ethicians is simply not something I endorse and is in fact missing the entire point of what I was trying to suggest.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Then why make the thread about ethics and use an ethics example?



> The bottom line is, high ethics does not make a person a saint and many people with high ethics can be socially awkward and dickheads. *The difference is that they will present themselves in a way that will make it seem like the opposite is true and when criticized for it, will brush off the criticism while launching their own in order to make the person criticizing them look like the bad person.
> *


Is that bolded part non sequitur? No. It is a continuous train of thought. Ethicians do this and here is an example. This is a thread about ethics. You explained how you think it works. I am saying that isn't ethics. There is no larger general idea being missed. You haven't cleared up any misconceptions you have only created more.

The larger point is that ethics types can be dickheads and are not saints, BUT, they do it in a certain way. That "but" , that difference, is a part of the larger idea and applies to such general behaviors that it gives us no actual distinction between logic and ethics.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Night Huntress said:


> *I don't see how the bolded part of Entropic's post is too behavioral to not be grounded in theory*, because it is an established fact about Model A that, in comparison to their weaker blocks, individuals are not as vulnerable to criticism of their ego and id block, as they are confident of the judgments they make there.


I never claimed the bolded, I said it was too broad 'to be purely Ethics'.



> As for being too broad, I would say that the original post aims to discuss a tendency by using ethics as the primary standpoint or example being discussed, as opposed to saying it is _limited _to ethical types... which I have failed to see mentioned anywhere.


Then I don't understand why there's a focus on Ethics at all, and this:


> The bottom line is, high ethics does not make a person a saint and many people with high ethics can be socially awkward and dickheads. *The difference is that they will present themselves in a way that will make it seem like the opposite is true and when criticized for it, will brush off the criticism while launching their own in order to make the person criticizing them look like the bad person.*


Seems like it's supposed to be specifically about Ethics, because the bolded is written after the sentence clarifying the subject is Ethics.



> I have not excluded it. I have responded to the parts I think are worth responding to. However, since you want clarification, see above.
> 
> No. I think that argument was not nuanced enough despite the existence of the second sentence. How can one justify the statement "all people can be like each other" as an accurate conclusion from the OP? And how is that related to thinking that the post was too broad to be specifically about ethical types?
> 
> Unless there's something very different that Tad intended to convey, which I am definitely open to hearing and considering from her.


If you call an argument 'not nuanced enough' you need to take the entire argument into consideration, otherwise it's literally taking half of what someone's said and saying 'this isn't nuanced'.

So, I'm just going to quote Tad again, as you're not reading that second sentence which is a clarifier.


> So all people can be like each other is what you're saying? (The bolded bit applies to most people of all types, not just ethical types).


'The bolded bit applies to most people of all types, not just ethical types'. The fact the OP post is said to be about Ethics, then (if we go back to the bolded part I quoted) describes general behavioural characteristics under the first sentence clarifier of Ethics makes it come across as too broadly behavioural to really apply to just Ethical types.
Reading the first paragraph, the argument is absolutely fine and I agree, but then the second paragraph seems to be about Ethics while describing general characteristics. With the initial clarifying sentence of the second paragraph and the title, it comes across as being about Ethics specifically.




Entropic said:


> Ok no offense but don't read things into what I supposedly say but I didn't by putting words in my mouth. I never said that the principle I outlined was applicable to ethics only, but I was trying to address a specific attitude where people generally speaking have a tendency to think that socially tactful people are more likely to be ethicians and socially tactless people logicians. This is derived from the fact that type descriptions stress that poor dimensionality in ethics typically results in inability to be socially graceful because if you don't know how to emotionally express yourself properly in any given situation people will find you weird and borderline autistic and if you don't know how to consider your personal relationships with others people will find you tyrannical and heartless.


Okay, I don't like the reference to autism here, but aside from that, this makes sense and is a lot more clear.



> That doesn't stop the general principle to be true for other IEs but in this specific situation I wasn't thinking about that because I was thinking of a recent personal example of having observed some really socially shitty behavior from a couple of ethicians that just roflstomped logicians that tried to call them out on it. This also matches my personal experience with ethicians that justify their behaviors by controlling the emotional space better than I do so *even if I know in my heart I'm right I can't articulate it in a way so they'll accept the criticism as valid. *


Maybe the fact it was from personal experience made it difficult for others to follow.
As for the bolded, we all have that problem with everyone. If someone believes they're right and wants to change the opinion of others, they have to create a reasoned argument that's accessible to the people they're trying to convince. Yes, it's frustrating (and I've personally failed many times), but if you want to change people's minds, you have to speak to them in a way they understand - which can mean rephrasing the argument almost entirely, clarifying, taking questions etc. I've talked to many Logicians who won't be convinced by an argument despite me thinking my reasoning was good enough - obviously it wasn't.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

owlet said:


> I never claimed the bolded, I said it was too broad 'to be purely Ethics'.


"too broad and behavioural to be purely Ethics". This is what you claimed Tad's argument was. You say it below too: too broadly behavioural to really apply to just Ethical types.



> Then I don't understand why there's a focus on Ethics at all, and this:
> 
> Seems like it's supposed to be specifically about Ethics, because the bolded is written after the sentence clarifying the subject is Ethics.


I don't think so. To me it's pretty obvious that it is using ethical types as an example to convey a tendency that is displayed by other types too, when they encounter criticism of their strong functions. And it seems several others understood that as well, hmm? Perhaps it may also have been worth considering why ethics was used as a specific example here as opposed to some other IE? Because it's a fairly prominent assumption all throughout theory that it's logical types that lack social graces or the ability to express themselves well, and how ethical types in general are amazing at handling people and relationships flawlessly, maneuvering huge networks with little to no effort.

I'd even get it if you couldn't understand that initially, but to keep harping on how it "seems" some other way even after the OP has clarified the intention and the correct way to interpret it looks rather redundant to me. Communication and interpretation issues definitely arise in threads, no problem with that, but to go on about it even after clarification -- is that really the primary issue driving the criticism then? 



> If you call an argument 'not nuanced enough' you need to take the entire argument into consideration, otherwise it's literally taking half of what someone's said and saying 'this isn't nuanced'.
> 
> So, I'm just going to quote Tad again, as you're not reading that second sentence which is a clarifier.
> 
> ...



You have not commented on why I think the argument is not nuanced in the first place. To say it is not nuanced to assert the first sentence despite the existence of the second one is different from "not reading the second sentence", which, forgive me, you have no right to assume. 

So if Tad were to explain to me how the statement that all people can be like each other is a valid conclusion from the OP, and how her second statement relates back to that, that would be great. And yes, I say Tad specifically, because this proxy argument is dull.


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

This is mildly unrelated, but how would a conflict of two or three people of the same dimension resolve? Would a lower dimension ethical clash end up fighting with logic?


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

@Night Huntress I was explaining why I thought the way I did, as the OP commented that people were putting words in his mouth so I wanted to explain where the confusion came from.



Night Huntress said:


> And yes, I say Tad specifically, because this proxy argument is dull.


Okay, this is disrespectful and I won't make you any more bored with a more in-depth reply.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Curi said:


> This is mildly unrelated, but how would a conflict of two or three people of the same dimension resolve? Would a lower dimension ethical clash end up fighting with logic?


Not necessarily. Typically, they may fall back on personal attacks or the like because they can't actually resolve the conflict using ethics. 

If you want examples of this, go dig up some thread in any of the MBTI subs for example INTJs or INTPs. You'll see that they eventually resort to not even try to convey their points maturely without falling back on calling the other person an idiot for not understanding better. Everyone else is simply stupid. 

Which is to say that ethicians can do this too but their strategy when used is to shame you and make you feel like you are stupid, whereas logicians attack the actual logical quality and the quality of the mind. 

It's more detached. If you dig out such a thread I can point out examples from it. 

@owlet you don't need to know it's based on personal experience and observations in order to understand the underlying principle I'm trying to express. If I wanted to share personal experience I'd focus on that. The point however, wasn't about my personal experiences but it's about that I noticed a tendency in how people see ethicians and I wanted to squash that perception by highlighting how dimensionality actually works. 

The principle is that high dimensionality does not actually mean that you are a good person and this is specifically true for ethics which when being called as such, may mislead people into thinking that ethicians are by nature ethically correct people. 

There are probably other observations to be made about the other IEs. 

Also, if you understood what was being expressed, I would like you to simply acknowledge that point so we can move on with discussion and actually discuss the contents of the OP instead of being stuck clarifying over and over what the OP is supposed to say, which is overly redundant since I have now been forced to clarify this to you twice. I do not enjoy clarifying myself several times over a point that should at this point be made perfectly clear to all participants involved. 

If we now agree on the parameters being discussed which is what I just outlined to you, it is hindering the progression of discussion to keep discuss the nature of those parameters for the sake of clarifying them. If they are unclear, then ask how or why they are so, but if they are clear and they should because I have now clarified them twice to you, then we should be able to agree on this so we can actually discuss 

1. The underlying principles of dimensionality; what are they and how can we observe this?
2. High ethics vs low ethics vs high logic vs low logic: how are they different and how do they manifest in people? 
3. How are these observations relevant in relation to type descriptions? Could it mean that descriptions are biased or imply something about the nature of TIMs that isn't wholly accurate in reality? 

These are the questions I find pertinent to discuss, not what the meaning of the OP is.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The first line from the description of EIE id block from Sociotype:

*EIEs generally refuse to conform to standards of what is acceptable and nice to say.

*
Yet there are supposed Fe polr types who claim the opposite. That they are Fe polr cuz they are rude and shit and don't conform. These are people creating misconceptions. Look through the polr thread that is going now for examples. 
*
*


----------



## Massage (Sep 16, 2016)

I like this, and it can be applied to logic also. Furthermore does the demonstrative element play a big role in these behaviors?


----------



## orbit (Oct 19, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Not necessarily. Typically, they may fall back on personal attacks or the like because they can't actually resolve the conflict using ethics.


So:
strong + weak = resolution with weak conceding. 
Weak + weak = no resolution. 
Strong + strong = either or? 



> If you want examples of this, go dig up some thread in any of the MBTI subs for example INTJs or INTPs. You'll see that they eventually resort to not even try to convey their points maturely without falling back on calling the other person an idiot for not understanding better. Everyone else is simply stupid.


All logical types devolve into immaturity, or only the immature ones? 



> Which is to say that ethicians can do this with too but their strategy when used is to shame you and make you feel like you are stupid, whereas logicians attack the actual logical quality and the quality of the mind.


Ethicians > humiliate character. Logicians > humiliate mind. Different intentions. Correct?



> It's more detached. If you dig out such a thread I can point out examples from it.


http://personalitycafe.com/estj-forum-guardians/115058-how-tell-estjs-entjs-5.html


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But he was speaking particularly of ethics. That description tells us nothing about ethics. It is what everybody does. People act like saints but really aren't; they hide their weaknesses and try to turn them around on others. Great insight there. I wonder what I would do if I didn't have Socionics to teach me this stuff.


My thoughts exactly!



Night Huntress said:


> I think you'll find that if you're gonna solely judge someone by their behaviors and not the motivations and rationale behind these behaviors, you're going to find a _lot _of similarities between people, yes.
> 
> To derive "all people can be like each other" from the original premise is not nuanced, imo. I would say, "some groups of people can look like other/different groups, but for different reasons and with different results and side-effects". There's a difference between knowing the rules of a game and breaking them, and unintentionally tripping over a rope.





owlet said:


> I'm confused. Isn't this Tad's argument, that the bolded part of Entropic's post is too broad and behavioural to be purely Ethics?
> 
> 
> You've excluded the second part of Tad's post. Here's the rest:
> ...



Owlet answered so well I don't think I need to respond!


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Night Huntress said:


> So if Tad were to explain to me how the statement that all people can be like each other is a valid conclusion from the OP, and how her second statement relates back to that, that would be great. And yes, I say Tad specifically, because this proxy argument is dull.


I don't need to, @owlet responded really well!


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Curi said:


> This is mildly unrelated, but how would a conflict of two or three people of the same dimension resolve? Would a lower dimension ethical clash end up fighting with logic?


That's interesting!

I would imagine it would vary, but I think probably there would be a strong reaction of some kind. I find I am incredibly jealous of Se doms (I want to be as free as they seem), but react in a negative way to Fe or maybe Si (mostly because I just don't understand how they can see the world the way they do and my lack of empathy in that way causes big issues - many arguments with ESFJ boyfriends because of this! Never had the same lack of understanding with other type boyfriends, so I think it would be one of those functions....) and I adore Ne and Fi (they are so insightful in a lot of ways) and respect Te and Ni types (familiarity?)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Entropic said:


> I think, in general, people think of high dimensional use of ethics in the sense that it makes you skillful, social smooth etc in ways those with low dimensional ethics are not, but in fact, these things are not necessarily true. What is true about high dimensional IEs, however, is:
> 
> 
> Will not be fazed in the light of criticism
> ...



: )))) basically SJWs.










[HR][/HR]

In socionics the meaning of ethics revolves around subject-object and object-object relations and which end up being value judgments based on internal or external feeling criteria. <.< so I object to calling it "ethics", as Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. We are only going to conflate the terms here. Even conscience is not ethics. *So in no way does Feeler (Fe or Fi) processing or the resulting behavior make ppl ethical or skilled social butterflies. They merely have a preference towards relationships and making value judgments.*

Ethics Te vs Ti (Utilitarian vs Deontological):










Side note: Deontological ethics is more logically sound imo and thus preferable. There are good arguments in favor of deontological ethics.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Y'all need Talos.

Anyway. For what its worth, I read Entropic's post as being about general theory with Ethics being just an example. This is made clear by his first paragraph being more generally theoretical, then moving towards an example. It's just his style. General to specific (and then back to general). 



Night Huntress said:


> I don't think so. To me it's pretty obvious that it is using ethical types as an example to convey a tendency that is displayed by other types too, when they encounter criticism of their strong functions. And it seems several others understood that as well, hmm? *Perhaps it may also have been worth considering why ethics was used as a specific example here as opposed to some other IE? Because it's a fairly prominent assumption all throughout theory that it's logical types that lack social graces or the ability to express themselves well, and how ethical types in general are amazing at handling people and relationships flawlessly, maneuvering huge networks with little to no effort.*


See, if the bolded were really true about all ethicians, I think that there would be no such thing as an "introverted Ethician". The level of energy required to do all that is enormous, and an introverted ethician will understand what level of investment and energy that is. So if they are introverted and they understand then why would they have such huge networks? Some of the assumptions people make just puzzle me.

I particularly disagree with the belief that ethical types handle relationships flawlessly. That's just laughable! Nah, I find that ethicians are more confident in dealing with such things, for better or for worse. -_-

I find that there is no simple answer like "all people of x type are y where people of z type are the opposite of y". People just aren't that simple. It's a caricature of reality, and a rather unjust one at that.



Night Huntress said:


> You have not commented on why I think the argument is not nuanced in the first place. *To say it is not nuanced to assert the first sentence despite the existence of the second one is different from "not reading the second sentence", which, forgive me, you have no right to assume*.


That's weird, I literally just had to explain this exact thing to someone in a Facebook argument.

Anyway, I'd call that a false attribution. The assumption that someone else's actions or motives are x because they performed y action, when y action would be caused by x for the person who is making that assumption. It assumes understanding the thinking patterns of your interlocutor. Its an interesting thing I see happen a lot in arguments.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Fenix Wulfheart yes I'm extremely prone towards deductive thinking so whenever I approach a subject I always hover on the general principles and the larger framework where the details simply support the framework in itself and are used to demonstrate various aspects of it. 

Actually, if we're going to make it socionics related that's typical of process types. Result types do things the other way around which is why they tend towards inductive thinking.


----------

