# Question -- Ethics versus Logic



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

First off, sorry if I get some of the terminology wrong. I'm still very new so Socionics and getting used to everything. Basically, this is a question of Thinking (Te, Ti) versus Feeling (Fe, Fi) or what Socionics calls Logic and Ethics. 

I notice that at least when I was studying cognitive functions from more of a trying-to-understand-Jung more JCF-than-MBTI focus, Feeling (or Ethics, I guess) was all about judging some external thing based on its worth. Or rather, Feeling was the function that rationalized ones' emotional response to an object. And Thinking was coming to understand an object intellectually -- defining it and such (or something to that effect). 

In Socionics, it seems pretty different. I like the way Socionics describes the Perceiving functions (although I admit, reading up about Se was interesting). But sometimes I wonder about the way they distinguish Ethics versus Logic. To be honest, I find myself identifying more (now) with descriptions of Ti than Fi. I know I'm very much a values person, but it seems like in Socionics, Ethics means you're totally focused on relationships between you and another person, or you and an object. This person who prefers to use Ethics as opposed to Logic is good with understanding feelings of people and such. 

I don't exactly just focus on that sort of thing. To me, I just love figuring out the essence of an object. Yes, focus on its potential (Ne), but I also like figuring out how things work. And I do focus on how I think that object will do, what sort of value it has, how effective it will be. Stuff like that. (?) 

Here's a description I was reading having to do with Logic (specifically Ti): 



> We shall call 'logical' those feelings that arise in the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of any objective parameter — for example, a feeling of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc.


Now I thought the question of worth was more in the arena of Ethics, or Feeling, or whatever you might label it. 

Essentially I am asking, in Socionics how are Ethics and Logic really defined? How do they work, exactly? How are they different in the way they judge things? To me, Logic sure looks more appealing than Ethics. Probably because I don't understand the two just yet. Both Ethics and Logic seem to focus on comparing one object to another. I just don't understand how they work just yet. Maybe some examples of how Ti, Fi, Te, and Fe work would be nice. And some definitions. 

And do you think the way Socionics described Ethics and Logic is different from the way Jung described them (although he called them Thinking and Feeling)? If so, how? If not... how?! @[email protected] Lol.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> Essentially I am asking, in Socionics how are Ethics and Logic really defined? How do they work, exactly? How are they different in the way they judge things? To me, Logic sure looks more appealing than Ethics. Probably because I don't understand the two just yet. Both Ethics and Logic seem to focus on comparing one object to another. I just don't understand how they work just yet. Maybe some examples of how Ti, Fi, Te, and Fe work would be nice. And some definitions.


In my view, logic is an orientation towards factual/propositional information and ethics is an orientation towards emotional information. One characteristic of the difference is that logical information is directly observable -- one directly observes facts and reasons by deduction. Ethical information is not observable -- one infers emotional states and reasons by assumption/empathic transfer/etc.

As such, the definition above about logic being taken to mean "objective" information is not far from the mark. Although, collecting factual information is usually the domain of Te whereas Ti focuses on systematic deduction of new principles based on a more limited set of propositions, rather than just "looking at the real world" to see what other information can be observed.

More broad description/definitions from my site:
Logic - WSWiki
Ethics - WSWiki


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> Essentially I am asking, in Socionics how are Ethics and Logic really defined? How do they work, exactly? How are they different in the way they judge things? To me, Logic sure looks more appealing than Ethics. Probably because I don't understand the two just yet. Both Ethics and Logic seem to focus on comparing one object to another. I just don't understand how they work just yet. Maybe some examples of how Ti, Fi, Te, and Fe work would be nice. And some definitions.
> 
> And do you think the way Socionics described Ethics and Logic is different from the way Jung described them (although he called them Thinking and Feeling)? If so, how? If not... how?! @[email protected] Lol.


If you want to look at Socionics attempts at it, take a look at these articles:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/73-Information-Elements-Primer
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/193-Aspects-in-the-Valued-Functions-Dmitry-Golihov

Many people studying Socionics or MBTI end up being dissatisfied by conventional definitions and develop their own versions (like what aestrivex has linked above of his own interpretations).

I've found multiple problems with Socionics definitions that don't reflect the reality of things. For instance, Te in socionics is associated with factual information. However, there is a good deal of people working in professions that require factual competence, that don't value Te, including SEIs and IEIs for whom Te is their PoLR function. And also if you had Te as weak point function (Te-PoLR) wouldn't that preclude you from performing well in any school setting? Since getting education is basically absorption and handling of factual information, SEIs and IEIs would be expected to underperform in any and all classes.

Same thing applies to Ethics. If it has to do with emotions or feelings, then how come there are all these actors and comedians who are logical types?

Something is very much off here. I think neither MBTI nor Socionics have provided a satisfactory definition of Ethics and Logic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I see socionics Te being related to Jung's in the sense that it is very interested in the actual qualitative properties of an object or thpught. This became obvious when talking to bearotter of how we'd go off and analyze literature or art in general. I am overall more interested in discussing the objective quality eg. language use, characterization, plot elements and so on and make judgememts in the realms of objectivity of how well these criteria are fulfilled in order to judge a work of art but bearotter wants to find some metaphysical meaning and this mode of thinking perplexes me.

I am uncertain if I think ethics and logic are meaningful definitions in socionics as output is more relevant than cognitive processes in a way. But I am thinking Jung didn't necessarily have it right either, so meh.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@LeaT

His Te and Si descriptions weren´t really good.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> @_LeaT_
> 
> His Te and Si descriptions weren´t really good.


Yeah, I thought that he focused a bit more on their opposing counterparts in describing them, especially with Te.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

There's definitely a lot of conflicting information on the topic. Some sources will say that the Feeling/Ethics elements are emotionally driven, and others say that emotion is a realm completely outside of cognitive processes as described by Jung/Socionics. Then we have the MBTI descriptions of Fi as about values (something I do somewhat question) but Socionics Fi being about something like psychological distance and whatnot, which is also a little strange in some ways. Another thing I've noticed is that some functions seem much more clear as judging or perceiving processes (Te vs Ne, for example), while at other times they seem very muddled (take Fi, or Se. There's a lot of implied perception in Fi, while Se in Socionics seems to very much take on judgement). While all of the structural insight in Socionics is great, sometimes the descriptions of IM elements can be somewhat lacking, and this is _certainly_ true of MBTI as well, what with all of the copypasta'd type descriptions going around.

I think what must be done is to actually examine the roles that what I will hereafter refer to thinking and feeling play (as judgement processes), and as contrary methods of approach to decision making. Both of them use information and turn it towards a certain focus, each of which has its own nuances in orientation. The focus of the thinking preference could be said to be the organization of ideas according to either internal or external principles. The focus of feeling could then be said to be the evaluation of beliefs based on internal or external values. Note that the differences I've outlined are organization/evaluation, ideas/beliefs, and principles/values. I'm not actually sure how many of these I'd like actually like to use to distinguish between the two processes, because... meh. Could just be between ideas or beliefs, or just between principles and values. But I think the distinction should lie somewhere on that line. From there, the I/E distinction determines orientation, from which we can ascribe more specific characteristics to the elements, such as Ti's basis in subjective logical structure or Fi's basis in interpersonal "distance", or the Te and Fe... stuff. I get how this stuff should work, but I have the same lack for words for this stuff as do most of the writers of these descriptions. So I can't blame them, except I do, because maybe if they had good descriptions we'd have better ideas of what words to use here.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> @_LeaT_
> 
> His Te and Si descriptions weren´t really good.


Jung's type was Ni-INFp so in attempting to describe Si and Te he was describing the elements that were his weakest points (Te-PoLR and Si-Role). I still consider his description of Si to be one of the better ones from those available. Socionics profile of Si is rather outlandish.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

RoSoDude said:


> There's definitely a lot of conflicting information on the topic. *Some sources will say that the Feeling/Ethics elements are emotionally driven, and others say that emotion is a realm completely outside of cognitive processes as described by Jung/Socionics. Then we have the MBTI descriptions of Fi as about values (something I do somewhat question) but Socionics Fi being about something like psychological distance and whatnot, which is also a little strange in some ways.* Another thing I've noticed is that some functions seem much more clear as judging or perceiving processes (Te vs Ne, for example), while at other times they seem very muddled (take Fi, or Se. There's a lot of implied perception in Fi, while Se in Socionics seems to very much take on judgement). While all of the structural insight in Socionics is great, sometimes the descriptions of IM elements can be somewhat lacking, and this is _certainly_ true of MBTI as well, what with all of the copypasta'd type descriptions going around.


values or in the end (Ji) = determination
Feeling (not directly related to sensory input) = how you feel about something (which isn´t a single emotion, it is the essence of it) it´s only natural that this is creating "values" 
Feeling is Feeling and not Values, there is no translation error :frustrating: just interpretation issues. Jung said that it was present in iNtuition (gut feeling) and Sensation and noted something about misunderstanding and values, nothing more that´s all. 
Emotion / Ethics this is all related to it, not in a human sense but with a higher priority.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> values or in the end (Ji) = determination
> Feeling (not directly related to sensory input) = how you feel about something (which isn´t a single emotion, it is the essence of it) it´s only natural that this is creating "values"
> Feeling is Feeling and not Values, there is no translation error :frustrating: just interpretation issues. Jung said that it was present in iNtuition (gut feeling) and Sensation and noted something about misunderstanding and values, nothing more that´s all.
> Emotion / Ethics this is all related to it, not in a human sense but with a higher priority.


Well, yeah, MBTI describes Feeling as being your value system (which I don't exactly agree with). Jung explained Feeling more as the rationalization of your emotional reaction to a thing. So it does tie in with values. Jung described it being more about worth and meaning. At least that's what I know of it in what I've come to study. I'm not the best at translating Jung-language, lol, but I am trying. 

But Socionics kind of confuses me. It's more similar to Jung (from what little I've come to know about Socionics) in that it does focus on the emotional aspect.

@_RoSoDude_ -- The structure and system and the way Socionics describes functions working with each other is why I like it. I like how it works. But yeah, the IM element descriptions can be confusing (except I love the way Ne is described -- best description of Ne ever. Was the person who came up with Socionics a Ne-dom? Everything is described in a very Ne-Objective sort of manner, lol). 

And what you say about Se is exactly why reading the Socionics Se descriptions was confusing for me at first. Also, the Fi description is confusing and I'm trying to figure out whether or not I seem to fit it.  If you know any place that describes these IM elements better than most, please tell me. 

Organization/Evaluation works well. That's a helpful way of describing how the two function (thanks!). ^_^ Organization focusing on the structure and arrangement of a thing, whereas evaluation attempts to figure out what a thing is worth. That does seem to fit with how I understand them and seems to be a good interpretation of how Jung described them as well (though I'm no expert on any of these things). 

What is curious about Socionics is I think it does agree with that description of how Thinking and Feeling work, but after establishing these functions, Socionics seems to make Feeling then focus on relationships between people, and Thinking more about discovering the nature of things. Would you say you noticed this, or is this just my misunderstanding and a couple of bad online descriptions? XD 

Also, principles and beliefs are hard to separate (principles being the very foundation of beliefs). Also, wouldn't Feeling focus on both ideas and beliefs (and Thinking as well)? It just seems to boil down to how Feeling or Thinking look at a thing (any truth or concept or idea whatsoever). Maybe I'm repeating myself. x3 

Maybe the problem I'm having is that Socionics seems to slightly disregard _how_ Feeling and Thinking work in the first place, and then try to show _what _the two focus on. Which really just confuses me. A shift from "how" to "what" (this was always my problem with MBTI too). This could be my skewed impression because goodness knows it's hard to find accurate information concerning these things on the internet.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@Julia Bell The crator of Socionics was ILE (NeTi).

You're better off not trying to shove the IEs into the functional boxes Jung made. There are definite differences between the two. Also, Fi focuses on relationships between people (long-term sentiments in general, actually), whereas Fe focuses on the current (and often-changing) emotional state.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Worth and meaning yeah even as a secondary thinker my Fi influences me to make judgments with it  a very good explanation from you Bell. Feeling isn´t only worth and meaning but it´s a "part" of it -to say that a higher strength of it wouldn´t influence emotional reaction would go too far.



Julia Bell said:


> best description of Ne ever. Was the person who came up with Socionics a Ne-dom? Everything is described in a very Ne-Objective sort of manner, lol).


Aren´t IEEs supposed to be Declaring types? Please tell me this was a real Question roud: Augusta was ILE.



> And what you say about Se is exactly why reading the Socionics Se descriptions was confusing for me at first. Also, the Fi description is confusing and I'm trying to figure out whether or not I seem to fit it.


The Se description of Socionics confusing for a Ne-dom  okay on the other side this makes sense if you are not so biased like the alpha Socionists are :wink: but in fact this bias makes you able to see how other typs look at such things. It makes one able to see functions from different angles. What is one of my points to say that IEs and MBTI functions are trying to explain the same thing.



> Maybe the problem I'm having is that Socionics seems to slightly disregard _how_ Feeling and Thinking work in the first place, and then try to show _what _the two focus on. Which really just confuses me. A shift from "how" to "what" (this was always my problem with MBTI too). This could be my skewed impression because goodness knows it's hard to find accurate information concerning these things on the internet.


Damn I beginning to see slightly but consistent that you remind me of @_Rim_ especially here. The difference between male and female is becoming clear and the sixish influence is becoming recognizable enough so that I´m not anymore in danger to mix it up with MBTI-type.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> @_RoSoDude_ -- The structure and system and the way Socionics describes functions working with each other is why I like it. I like how it works. But yeah, the IM element descriptions can be confusing (except I love the way Ne is described -- best description of Ne ever. Was the person who came up with Socionics a Ne-dom? Everything is described in a very Ne-Objective sort of manner, lol).


Ne does seem to be given a more fitting description in many places. I also notice this with Ti. Good question.



> And what you say about Se is exactly why reading the Socionics Se descriptions was confusing for me at first. Also, the Fi description is confusing and I'm trying to figure out whether or not I seem to fit it.  If you know any place that describes these IM elements better than most, please tell me.


Wikisocion remains to me one of the better sources, but even then it seems as though what they're describing and what we're seeking are divergent in nature. We're asking, "how do these IM elements sort out information?" and the descriptions are instead giving us what information they're sorting out. This is something you mention later, so I'll talk about it there.



> Organization/Evaluation works well. That's a helpful way of describing how the two function (thanks!). ^_^ Organization focusing on the structure and arrangement of a thing, whereas evaluation attempts to figure out what a thing is worth. That does seem to fit with how I understand them and seems to be a good interpretation of how Jung described them as well (though I'm no expert on any of these things).
> 
> What is curious about Socionics is I think it does agree with that description of how Thinking and Feeling work, but after establishing these functions, Socionics seems to make Feeling then focus on relationships between people, and Thinking more about discovering the nature of things. Would you say you noticed this, or is this just my misunderstanding and a couple of bad online descriptions? XD


This is something I had noticed before, but your question caused me to look over the Wikisocion descriptions and many others, and I found more examples of the general phenomenon you've identified with Logic and Ethics descriptions. Logic is attributed with understanding of systems and phenomena, while Ethics is said to relate more to relationships between people and emotional states. This does seem a little odd, but I think it is explicable if we take Socionic's IM elements to be more about the kind of information processed and the way in which these processing preferences build up personalities. If one views it this way, the contrast seems to actually serve a purpose. The Ethics elements process a certain _type_ of information as compared with the Logic elements. I also think they sort out this information with different processes (the organization and evaluation that run parallel to Jung's functions), which is probably more what we're looking for when we're seeking IM element descriptions. That's what I'll get into next. 



> Also, principles and beliefs are hard to separate (principles being the very foundation of beliefs). Also, wouldn't Feeling focus on both ideas and beliefs (and Thinking as well)? It just seems to boil down to how Feeling or Thinking look at a thing (any truth or concept or idea whatsoever). Maybe I'm repeating myself. x3


I had actually originally written "ideas or beliefs" for both Thinking and Feeling, before deciding to separate them just to see what it looked like. To be honest, it's a little bit difficult sorting out where the distinction lies. Is it the process they use (organization/evaluation), on what they are making judgments (ideas/beliefs), or from what they draw (principles/values)? I agree that organization/evaluation is perhaps the most accurate. It seems that the difference should lie in the process (as they are cognitive _functions_, or elements that control information _metabolism_).



> Maybe the problem I'm having is that Socionics seems to slightly disregard _how_ Feeling and Thinking work in the first place, and then try to show _what _the two focus on. Which really just confuses me. A shift from "how" to "what" (this was always my problem with MBTI too). This could be my skewed impression because goodness knows it's hard to find accurate information concerning these things on the internet.


Most of the descriptions neglect to describe the process at hand, but instead focus on the types of information going in and out (see Information Aspects). This is why Socionics' Fi descriptions are about "psychological distance" and whatnot, because that's often what the process of feeling in the subjective orientation will direct judgment toward. I think it would be nice if the process were better delineated from the relevant inputs and outputs. This is because I do view the IM elements and functions as describing the same cognitive processes, just from different perspectives and with different insights. Jungian theory gives a better framework for how the functions operate, while Socionics does a great job outlining the manner in which the elements interact and produce certain patterns in the psyche.

Thanks for making this thread, because it's given me a lot to think about, with regards to what Socionics and information metabolism is actually about. I share your confusion about the contrasting definitions of Logic and Ethics, but I never really took the time to examine it until your thread made me dig around and think about how the system is built. I think there's more at work here than just some descriptions being lackluster (something I can't really say about mediocre MBTI descriptions).


----------

