Rationality Vs Irrationality

[Ezra]

I am irrational according to just about every J/P description out there.

I will keep saying this until people take reason and learn the truth about this. If what you say here is true, then you cannot be an INTj. We should not accept a contradiction, and your presumed type contradicts what you say here. Therefore you are not an INTj, or what you state above is false. Choose another type, or change your understanding of the J/P dichotomy, please.

But just about every description out there says don't type by dichotomies, but by functions.

[KSpin]

I am irrational according to just about every J/P description out there.

I will keep saying this until people take reason and learn the truth about this. If what you say here is true, then you cannot be an INTj. We should not accept a contradiction, and your presumed type contradicts what you say here. Therefore you are not an INTj, or what you state above is false. Choose another type, or change your understanding of the J/P dichotomy, please.

But just about every description out there says don't type by dichotomies, but by functions.

Yeah, that's because if you use dichotomies we get situations like we got with yours. :-)

[Ezra]

haha funny. so you think out loud, ezra? so do i. it annoys other people sometimes. but if i tell them i think out loud then they know that i'm just processing and haven't yet reached any conclusions. sure you're not an entp?

No, no, quite the contrary. I'm beginning to think that I'm more ENTp by the day.

[Jonathan]

I am irrational according to just about every J/P description out there.

I will keep saying this until people take reason and learn the truth about this. If what you say here is true, then you cannot be an INTj. We should not accept a contradiction, and your presumed type contradicts what you say here. Therefore you are not an INTj, or what you state above is false. Choose another type, or change your understanding of the J/P dichotomy, please.

Of course, if Tcaud is right with his dual-type theory, and Labcoat is right about being INTj-ENFp, then we could deduce that he's ENFp as much as INTj.

It's interesting that still, not all people agree on how to characterize rationality vs. irrationality. Here's a recent example: Macintruc has been very industrious contributing a lot of interesting stuff on the www.wikisocion.org site that Rick put up. Here's what he (and whoever else contributed) says about rationality vs. irrationality (http://wikisocion.org/~wikisoci/en/i..._irrationality:

Rationals (shizotymes)
Perceives things as what they should be, and may believe they are like that.
May speak more with complicated grammar, and stutters finding complicated words.
Usually have stiff movements.
May have less moods - usually they are more stiff and rigid, and last longer than irrationals, especially men.
Adapts reality to intellect - rigidity.
Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.

Irrationals (cyclotymes)
Perceives things as what they are, and may believe that they should be like that.
Generally speaks by focusing more on the view than the language itself, but with more grammar mistakes.
Usually have gentle movements.
May have more variable and flexible moods, especially women.
Adapts intellect to reality - flexibility.
Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.

Except for the 6th item in the list, and part of the 5th, these lists don't emphasize those traits you might think most characterize rationality vs. irrationality.

[Gilly]

I am irrational according to just about every J/P description out there.

I will keep saying this until people take reason and learn the truth about this. If what you say here is true, then you cannot be an INTj. We should not accept a contradiction, and your presumed type contradicts what you say here. Therefore you are not an INTj, or what you state above is false. Choose another type, or change your understanding of the J/P dichotomy, please.

I will keep saying this until you take reason and learn the truth about this. If you believe what you say here, then you cannot possibly understand Socionics. We should not accept your idiocy, and your assumptions about the compatibility of MBTT and Socionics contradict the system of Socionics itself. Therefore you are an idiot, or what you state above is not really your opinion. Choose another typology, or realign your understanding of Socionics and accept the inherent discrepencies in comparing it to MBTT.

[Phaedrus]

Of course, if Tcaud is right with his dual-type theory, and Labcoat is right about being INTj-ENFp, then we could deduce that he's ENFp as much as INTj.

Maybe. But according to Socionics he would be an ENFp in that case (or maybe some other irrational type).

Rationals (shizotymes)
Perceives things as what they should be, and may believe they are like that.
May speak more with complicated grammar, and stutters finding complicated words.
Usually have stiff movements.
May have less moods - usually they are more stiff and rigid, and last longer than irrationals, especially men.
Adapts reality to intellect - rigidity.
Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.

Irrationals (cyclotymes)
Perceives things as what they are, and may believe that they should be like that.
Generally speaks by focusing more on the view than the language itself, but with more grammar mistakes.
Usually have gentle movements.
May have more variable and flexible moods, especially women.
Adapts intellect to reality - flexibility.
Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.

Except for the 6th item in the list, and part of the 5th, these lists don't emphasize those traits you might think most characterize rationality vs. irrationality.

Yes, they do. These lists are perfectly in line with official Socionics's view on this (which doesn't exlude that we can say more about this phenomenon than what is included here, of course). I'm not sure why he chooses to call them "shizotymes" and "cyclotymes, though. The correct spelling of those words is "schizothymes" and cyclothymes", and at least Kretschmer's use of them is not exactly the same as here. I am more of a schizothyme according to Kretschmer's criteria. The only clear cyclothymic trait I have (according to Kretschmer) is a somewhat flexible mood that is influenced by season and other external factors to a degree that is perhaps in line with how Kretschmer for example describes the life of Goethe, whose inspiration and working capacity fluctuated and came to a peak in 7 year cycles.

[krieger]

Of course, if Tcaud is right with his dual-type theory, and Labcoat is right about being INTj-ENFp, then we could deduce that he's ENFp as much as INTj.

Maybe. But according to Socionics he would be an ENFp in that case (or maybe some other irrational type).

I should retract the statement about irrationality. It is not strictly true. My covert point in stating it was that it is not strictly false either. I can easily interpret just about every irrationality description in a way that has me identifying with it. When in the rational descriptions I then read things like "have stable workability" and "come on time and have tidy workspaces" all of which are not always true in my case, I might easily swing to the irrational side of things if I was forced to choose between the two.

I am not too wild about assessing the nature of types orienting by descriptions due to this interpretational bias. No doubt some of us are affected by it more than others, but the fact that some are strongly affected by it makes it of a dubitable use on a collective level.