Index › Forums › Cognitive Functions › Seelie & Adaptive vs. Unseelie & Directive: Is it Related to Conflict Avoidance? › Reply To: Seelie & Adaptive vs. Unseelie & Directive: Is it Related to Conflict Avoidance?
- Type: TiNe
- Development: l--l
- Attitude: Adaptive
@animal – By the way, thank you so much for pressing me to address this matter! This has really needed clarity, and you help get me off my ass about it. Although the general distinction was made in the book (how it relates to ethical strategies), but in far less detail. I’ve been sitting on this, trying to put better words to it. I think this really is the essential difference and is what we’re seeing across samples.
I think part of what’s made this difficult to parse is seelie/adaptive tends to more often get a free pass as being “good” and unseelie/directive is cast as “bad” in our current political climate. This is done without really evaluating the moral character of the person. I spoke to @jelle about this not long ago, and she said someone can be a disagreeable but a pure/golden person, or someone can be an agreeable piece of shit. I found it fitting. The question of who is morally in the right is a separate matter.
I don’t think either is superior to the other or inherently more right; it’s a necessary duality. We wouldn’t have both extremes if they weren’t both equally essential and valid. But depending on where one is standing, the opposite side will look worse. For example, Peterson considers ‘mercy’ to be debilitating, crippling and altogether unethical. Doing something for someone that they can do themselves is unethical, in his view. The point is to enable people to face the world head on.
Oppositely, the adaptive/seelie side will see it as unethical not to help someone out if one has the ability to. It doesn’t consider the problem of enabling dependency, or if it does it may see it as a positive and constructive interconnectedness, rather than as crippling people. It also tends to be more pacifist.