A Socionics Lens on Critical Thinking

Critical thinking about Socionics is exceedingly important and we should not abandon it.  But what if we turn things upside down, and think Socionically about critical thinking?  jason_m on the 16types made a forum thread about this (people think he is likely an IEE and I find this worth considering due to this initiative of -Ne), and this was my response:

Naive Optimism

The best relationship I can come up with for Naive Optimism in Socionics is Extroverted Intuition.  So caught up in the thrill of exploration, research, risk taking and making something new work, it sometimes tunes out well-intentioned and sober skeptical feedback.  In Humanitarian Socionics in particular, positivism can also lead to naive optimism.  However, in the case of positivism, if it is burned by once naive optimism, it might turn out the opposite and become distrustful to the point of paranoia.

Open-Mindedness

Open-mindedness itself isn't a misstep, because open-mindedness doesn't inherently mean believing in something. The problem with believing in something without evidence is not that your mind is open; it is that your mind is passive. If you are researching UFOs and ghosts and you find evidence to support them, and you entertain these hypotheses with logical arguments, then there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about that. Common sense (i.e. Doxa or OrthoDoxy in a particular community) is often in the wrong, and it would actually be illogical and unreasonable to dismiss something just because it is unusual. However, if you just believe in something and are not open to reconsidering, even if there is evidence to the contrary, or it is damaging your life in some way despite there not being much evidence and you are weighed down by fruitless uncertainty, etc., then it becomes unreasonable. One must maintain an active mind to avoid these pitfalls. Basically, the problem is passive-mindedness: the refusal to actively examine conclusions which conflict with prejudices (everyone has prejudices), and the refusal to continually reexamine assumptions in light of experience. No amount of experience can prove a belief correct because there are infinitely more experiences that we haven't had which we are generalizing over; David Hume and Karl Popper tease this out a lot in their philosophies of skepticism and falsificationism.  In addition, one person's experiences are not interpreted in a vacuum; they are interpreted socially in conjunction with social languages that other people are using to interpret their experiences. To determine whether your belief in UFOs or ghosts is illogical, we'd have to examine why you believe it.

Excessive open-mindedness can come from the Initial subtypes in Humanitarian Socionics, and some functions focused on by these types which are relevant are Ne, Fe, Ni and Fi (accordingly, some types for whom these functions are important would also experience this and some other paradigms of Socionics will also relate to some of this).
-With Ne there is simply that instinct for research and exploration which I touched on above, spreading yourself thin between ideas, in addition to not focusing much on the grounding downsides of things.
-With Fe one can be lead by one's subjective mood and whatever happens to enchant, to light up, or catch its fancy, which can lead to a kind of aesthetic openness or rapture (I'm pretty sure this trait is part of some of the expanded big 5 definitions of openness).  There is also often a high sociability with Fe which can make one more socially involved in a variety of ways, sometimes without much in the way of productivity or a plan.
-With Ni there is an ability to mentally penetrate deeply into certain aspects of reality.  That won't necessarily give broad interests, in fact it's more likely to be a deep insight or penetration into fewer things, but because of this a person can be open to eccentric or strange interests or insights that others can't understand or relate to.  This can lead to a painful disconnection and problems if efforts are not meant to create bridges.
-With Fi, there is the possibility of deep empathy and synchronization with another at a deep level.  That doesn't mean the openness to give up on one's own feelings, but a deep understanding and tolerance of selected others can happen through this function.  At its worst, this can lead to a sad sort of vulnerability and ability to be exploited, especially once attachments are formed.

All of these functions can be used in less "overly" open-minded ways:
-With Ne, there is the quick loss of interest, short attention span, and a lack of inherent respect for tradition.  There can also be an arrogance and rosy over-confidence in the positive sides of one's prospects and abilities.
-With Fe one can be aesthetically repulsed without good objective reasons, a lack of ability to consider something dispassionately once something "gets them going", and a desire to emotionally manipulate.
-With Ni there can be such an involvement with narrow interests that there is an absent-mindedness towards most other things, in addition to a general detachment from most of standard life.
-With Fi there can be very strong internal convictions and subjective attachments that once formed are very difficult to shed.

Emotion and Argument

Judge Judy's show is entertainment, so she is probably putting on a bit of a performance with her angry arguments. However, it might be true that her anger, which is obviously present, gets in the way of her better judgment sometimes, but she does seem to apply strict logic effectively in at least some cases. Overall, I agree that it is best to reach a state of calm when entering into a real intellectual discussion that you want to actually get somewhere in. If you are seething in anger, it will bias your judgment. Unleashing anger like that on productive tasks or some form of art is usually a better outlet for it.

Overly angry and impassioned arguing can come from functions like Te, Se, and Fe, which are either trying to anything they can to defend certain positions or make certain overvalued ideas "work" (Te), or discharging accumulated emotion (Fe) and/or aggression (Se).  Sometimes, these functions can be rhetorically effective in absence of proper dispassionate or detached consideration (such as in charismatic leaders or those pandering to the primitive ego inflation of an audience or mob).  However, these functions are also important to employ when you want to effectively display even worthy ideas (Te-showing straightforward task effectiveness, Se-showing a sense of mastery and authority, Fe-coming across as compelling or inspiring), otherwise you can have the most brilliant abstract thoughts in the world and still come across as weak or insufficiently noticeable.

Common Sense

Common sense is okay as a general term for being able to get around in life, but it doesn't have much place in rigorous examinations. Our "common sense" is defied by science, probability theory, statistics, technology, etc., all the time, and these disciplines are exceedingly logical and reasonable. People do not naturally have the objectivity to think in terms of data and reason, and they often have to put in much effort to do this, including logical types. Common sense is fine up to a point, but it will have to be put aside in favor of real, substantive arguments when getting to the bottom of topics that are not mere Doxa. Being willing to believe in UFOs may or may not lack common sense, but what matters in the UFO discussion is evidence and argument, because it is so easy to be biased or frightened or have your mind shut down when talking about such fantastical and unusual topics. I'm not suggesting that I support a belief in UFOs, but my point is just on how the discussion would be suitably conducted.

Common sense at its best seems to relate to keeping functions like Te and Se firmly in mind: functions that are no-nonsense, realistic and containing some bite and practical consequence.  Si is probably involved in common sense as well, being the most understanding of what is needed to sustain a standard comfortable and healthy existence. But common sense isn't always the best answer; sometimes we need to do things that might not be obviously effective, easily/commonly understood, etc. Some truths require more eclectic, quirky or detail-oriented minds to apprehend at first.  You will have to contend with an often unruly and irrational public mind to get major innovations recognized (outside of perhaps technological innovations but those kind of innovations can be used for good and ill and thus are not inherently a good thing on their own).

Skepticism and Cynicism

Skepticism and open-mindedness I think are both generally good qualities. I respect people who have high standards of rational/experiential scrutiny for what they are willing to accept, and I am willing to have patience for this.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle

The problems with skepticism can happen when it is applied in a way that is not even-handed (you are very skeptical of others but not yourself), and when it becomes cynicism.

Every man carries Two Bags about with him, one in front and one behind, and both are packed full of faults. The Bag in front contains his neighbours' faults, the one behind his own. Because of this it is that men do not see their own faults, but always see those of others. -Aesop's Fables

It is just easier for us to ruthlessly criticize the faults of other people, than it is to do the same for our own. On the one hand, we are adapted to our own faults, so they might not be as obviously faults to us. On the other, looking at the real weakest points in our beliefs is a daunting prospect, and people consistently have a hard time with this. We are stubborn creatures. We have to make extra effort to question our own assumptions, to be fair to others and to prevent ourselves from being misled by our own bias.

Cynicism is also a problem because it is a kind of giving up. We refuse to even examine things, due to bad experiences, or intellectual laziness, or a lazy (and maybe spiteful) pessimistic assumption that things just won't work out. There are indeed many ILI's who shrivel up into this pitiable form, but hardly just them.

Open-mindedness at its best is mental dexterity (active minded), and at its worst is gullibility (passive minded). Skepticism at its best is scrupulousness (active minded), and at its worst is cynicism (passive minded).

[There is a] dangerous little catch phrase which advises you to keep an “open mind.” This is a very ambiguous term—as demonstrated by a man who once accused a famous politician of having “a wide open mind.” That term is an anti-concept: it is usually taken to mean an objective, unbiased approach to ideas, but it is used as a call for perpetual skepticism, for holding no firm convictions and granting plausibility to anything. A “closed mind” is usually taken to mean the attitude of a man impervious to ideas, arguments, facts and logic, who clings stubbornly to some mixture of unwarranted assumptions, fashionable catch phrases, tribal prejudices—and emotions. But this is not a “closed” mind, it is a passive one. It is a mind that has dispensed with (or never acquired) the practice of thinking or judging, and feels threatened by any request to consider anything.
What objectivity and the study of philosophy require is not an “open mind,” but an active mind—a mind able and eagerly willing to examine ideas, but to examine them critically. An active mind does not grant equal status to truth and falsehood; it does not remain floating forever in a stagnant vacuum of neutrality and uncertainty; by assuming the responsibility of judgment, it reaches firm convictions and holds to them. Since it is able to prove its convictions, an active mind achieves an unassailable certainty in confrontations with assailants—a certainty untainted by spots of blind faith, approximation, evasion and fear. -Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand makes a lot of good points about the importance of keeping an active mind. But even in her professed commitment to having an active mind, I and many others would say that she failed:

The cultic flaw in Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is not its use of reason, emphasis on individuality, view that humans ought to be motivated by rational self-interest, or conviction that capitalism is the ideal system. The fallacy in Objectivism is its belief that absolute knowledge and final Truth are attainable through reason, and therefore that there are absolutes of right and wrong knowledge and of moral and immoral thought and action. For Objectivists, once a principle has been discovered by (the Objectivists' version of) reason to be True, the discussion is at an end. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed. If your reasoning is flawed, it can be corrected, but if you don't correct your reasoning (i.e., learn to accept the principle), you are flawed and do not belong in the group. Excommunication is the final solution for such unreformed heretics.
One of those closest to Rand was Nathaniel Branden, a young philosophy student who joined the Collective in the early days, before Atlas Shrugged was published. In his autobiographical memoirs, entitled Judgment Day, he recalled, "There were implicit premises in our world to which everyone in our circle subscribed, and which we transmitted to our students at NBI." Incredibly, and here is where a philosophical movement mutated into a cult of personality, their creed became, in Nathaniel Branden's words:
• Ayn Rand is the greatest human being who has ever lived.
• Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world.
• Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man's life on earth.
• Once one is acquainted with Ayn Rand and /or her work, the measure of one's virtue is intrinsically tied to the position one takes regarding her and/or it.
• No one can be a good Objectivist who does not admire what Ayn Rand admires and condemn what Ayn Rand condemns.
• No one can be a fully consistent individualist who disagrees with Ayn Rand on any fundamental issue.
• Since Ayn Rand has designated Nathaniel Branden as her "intellectual heir," and has repeatedly proclaimed him to be an ideal exponent of her philosophy, he is to be accorded only marginally less reverence than Ayn Rand herself.
• But it is best not to say most of these things explicitly (excepting, perhaps, the first two items). One must always maintain that one arrives at one's beliefs solely by reason. (1989, pp. 255-256) -Michael Shermer

All of these people, Ayn Rand, Michael Shermer, etc., say they have a commitment to reason and critical thinking, but they still make grave, passive-minded mistakes that have led to seriously bad decisions and circumstances for themselves and others. I've seen cultism and fundamentalism happen in so many ways in my life, and I have even been involved in it myself. The active mind of a real seeker is the only antidote, and that requires constant cultivation. The discoveries, the real deep discussions you can have, the vastness of potential availed, and the greater alignment with truth and meaning make it an endlessly worthwhile pursuit.

Skepticism and cynicism can relate to a number of functions:

-Ni leads can have that problem due to their suppression of Ne in favor of Ni (leading to premature devaluation of risk and new optimistic possibilities)

-Introverted rational functions like Ti and Fi can be rigid or even bureaucratic (Ti) in their standards, while entirely failing to engage

-Te can be highly suspicious of those who do not share the value for the ideas or projects that it is trying to make work, leading to overly competitive and pressuring behavior

-Se also needs to see the feasibility of something in a concrete way because of its deeply felt sense for weakness in anything

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.

I prefer the idea of Reason over Rationality, since the idea of Reason is something more flexible which maintains a focus on what is "reasonable" outside of rigid logical systems.  One can be rational according to some rigid logical scheme while also being completely unreasonable.  Reason leaves a door open; it is more holistic.

Overall, there is an excellent distinction made here.  Attempting to have serious first-principles conversations that get at the truth is sorely lacking in Socionics and in life, which is one reason for the rising to power of the so-called "intellectual dark web".  The people in that web are far from perfect themselves, but they are having real conversations on a scale that hasn't been in the public eye like that for a while.  Quarreling in a serious discussion is an evasion, using irrelevancies, lies, scandals, expediency or slyness to shield oneself from precision, thoroughness, straightforwardness and true spirited dialectic.  Sometimes, of course, people quarrel to amuse themselves, or because they simply cannot stop themselves.