# Thread: irrational vs rational information elements

1. ## irrational vs. rational information elements

Does anyone know of a source that would provide information that would allow me to determine if this statement is accurate or inaccurate?

Irrational Information Aspects are used primarily to perceive information, and Rational Information Aspects are used primarily to judge/understand that information.

2. That would apply to Se and Te, but I don't know about the other functions.

Use your understanding of the functions, Joy.

3. No. I want to know how "classical" Socionics explains it, not just my personal idea of how it might work.

4. But you've been (self-)educated in classical socionics, so surely your understanding of the functions (especially if you're Te dominant) would arise from this education.

Something which is often overlooked is the clear cut distinction between Rationality and Irrationality.

Here's how to decide whether you're Rational or Irrational. It should be fairly simple.

If you're Irrational, you'll take things as they are, and will accept nature as it is. Why is Se irrational? Because it's about gaining information through the five senses. You needn't do anything with it, it just is. It is simply information.

Rationals categorise said information, and they explain what should be, and not what is. Why do Rationals like routine? Because they are going against nature and natural impulses to create systems and foundations on which they can rely. Irrationals do not need this.

5. ## Re: irrational vs. rational information elements

Originally Posted by Joy
Does anyone know of a source that would provide information that would allow me to determine if this statement is accurate or inaccurate?

Irrational Information Aspects are used primarily to perceive information, and Rational Information Aspects are used primarily to judge/understand that information.
I don't have any references, but, although I think it's correct, this is somewhat confusing. From this you can easily end up thinking that irrational functions perceive and rational functions then judge what is perceived as if it's a one way street. This is precisely why some people are confused by Se thinking it is nothing more than trivial, instinctual, sensory input, which it isn't, because all functions are on the cognitive level where they perceive information, not pure data.

IMHO, if you're looking for a witty statement contrasting the two, it would be better to say that awareness of irrational information aspects can be used to adapt oneself to one's environment, and awareness of rational information aspects to adapt one's environment to oneself. Or something like that...

I've only been reading about Socionics since a couple of weeks, so I'm no authority, but AFAICT the irrational-rational dichotomy is essentially about what the environment constructs (so to speak) versus what the mind constructs. Rational constructs like relationships, logical understanding, motivation, they have no, ehm, physical presence, only exist in your head.

Originally Posted by Ezra
If you're Irrational, you'll take things as they are, and will accept nature as it is. Why is Se irrational? Because it's about gaining information through the five senses. You needn't do anything with it, it just is. It is simply information.

Rationals categorise said information, and they explain what should be, and not what is. Why do Rationals like routine? Because they are going against nature and natural impulses to create systems and foundations on which they can rely. Irrationals do not need this.
Yes, I agree with this, but being an irrational type doesn't make me a passive vegetable or something. Maybe you could say that irrational types tweak their environment so it has a better effect on them/everyone, and rational types tweak their thoughts so they have a better effect on their environment/others?

6. ## Re: irrational vs. rational information elements

Originally Posted by Joy
Does anyone know of a source that would provide information that would allow me to determine if this statement is accurate or inaccurate?

Irrational Information Aspects are used primarily to perceive information, and Rational Information Aspects are used primarily to judge/understand that information.
Don't know of a socionics source, but that statement in its original form can be found in Jung's original treatise on "Psychological Types":

Irrational = N/S
Rational = F/T

7. ## Re: irrational vs. rational information elements

Originally Posted by mm
Yes, I agree with this, but being an irrational type doesn't make me a passive vegetable or something.
In the IP's case, it probably does.

Maybe you could say that irrational types tweak their environment so it has a better effect on them/everyone, and rational types tweak their thoughts so they have a better effect on their environment/others?
No, Irrationals don't tweak. They simply take in. What you described their is everything a Rational would do.

8. Hmm, now I have to disagree. What you say makes no sense. According to that, only half the population would be actually doing anything and the other half would be just sitting there taking stuff in. That's not what http://socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml for instance suggests.

My point is that all types take things in, are aware of certain aspects of reality, and then act according to their awareness. Rational types take in rational aspects of reality and irrational types take in irrational aspects (to state the obvious).

9. this is a good article - http://socionics.com/articles/irra.htm

10. Originally Posted by ifmd95
Originally Posted by mm
Hmm, now I have to disagree. What you say makes no sense. According to that, only half the population would be actually doing anything and the other half would be just sitting there taking stuff in.
creative function.

(who says we only use our base functions? who even says we only use our ego bloc? etc.)
To my knowledge, no one.

11. Originally Posted by mm
Hmm, now I have to disagree. What you say makes no sense. According to that, only half the population would be actually doing anything and the other half would be just sitting there taking stuff in.
Incorrect. That is not what I meant.

Put it this way: Irrationals do not attempt to shape their environment. They are much more likely to adapt to it. Rationals, on the other hand, make no attempt to adapt. Rather they will mould their environment as they see fit; they mould it so that it fits 'what should be'.

12. Originally Posted by Ezra
Put it this way: Irrationals do not attempt to shape their environment. They are much more likely to adapt to it. Rationals, on the other hand, make no attempt to adapt. Rather they will mould their environment as they see fit; they mould it so that it fits 'what should be'.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that more related to Static/Dynamic than Rational/Irrational?

13. Originally Posted by Minde
Originally Posted by Ezra
Put it this way: Irrationals do not attempt to shape their environment. They are much more likely to adapt to it. Rationals, on the other hand, make no attempt to adapt. Rather they will mould their environment as they see fit; they mould it so that it fits 'what should be'.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that more related to Static/Dynamic than Rational/Irrational?
It's both.

I personally think that while rational/irrational is obvious in some people, it's not at all apparent in others.

14. Originally Posted by Ezra
Put it this way: Irrationals do not attempt to shape their environment. They are much more likely to adapt to it. Rationals, on the other hand, make no attempt to adapt. Rather they will mould their environment as they see fit; they mould it so that it fits 'what should be'.
hmm...then I'm irrational

15. Originally Posted by Ezra
Originally Posted by mm
Hmm, now I have to disagree. What you say makes no sense. According to that, only half the population would be actually doing anything and the other half would be just sitting there taking stuff in.
Put it this way: Irrationals do not attempt to shape their environment. They are much more likely to adapt to it. Rationals, on the other hand, make no attempt to adapt. Rather they will mould their environment as they see fit; they mould it so that it fits 'what should be'.
Ok, yes, an irrational type could reply to that with: "What should be already is." What I don't agree with however is that irrationals don't shape their environment, because the way I read that, is that irrationals don't have any impact on their environment, which is obviously not true. And if there's impact they do shape their world.

The idea that I'm against is that there would be an ordering between the functions, that the world is first observed through irrational functions and then judged using rational functions. That confusion (imho) comes from the fact that the words perceiving and judging have been attached to these functions and from the fact that we all do indeed perceive and then judge and make decisions based on those perceptions. (In terms of systems theory, we are a dynamic feedback system with sensors, controller and actors.)

In the way I understand socionics, out of [perception, decision making (judging), action], socionics only deals with perception, answering the question of what's in people's awareness and how that possibly, in very general terms affects their decision making and actions. Socionics can explain what people look for when they are looking at something, trying to understand something, what they are looking for in others, but socionics does not explain how people behave in general. Whenever a socionist attempts to attribute so called typical behaviour or characteristics to certain types, it always ends with: "Yeah, but these other types can do that too."

Socionics divided observed reality in 8 separate aspects using 3 orthogonal dichotomies. What each of the functions expresses is an awareness in one of these aspects. So it makes no sense to me to put one function after the other, by definition, because they're not meant to be used this way: what's in the awareness of the first function would not be in the awareness of the second.

And therefore it makes no sense to me to state that irrational types simply take things in and that rational types make it one step further. All functions equally create a certain awareness and it's perfectly possible to base your decision making and actions on awareness of irrational aspects of reality as opposed to rational. This is why Se isn't just about pure sensory input.

Anyway, to get back to the original quote, I find it incredibly ambiguous.

Irrational Information Aspects are used primarily to perceive information, and Rational Information Aspects are used primarily to judge/understand that information.
If interpreted with the socionics definitions I think it is correct, but then it has this perception/decision-making ordering confusion added to it. What exactly is meant with "perceive information" and "judge/understand *that* information"? I think it would be better to replace that with "perceive the world" and "judge/understand the world". And then add that in that sentence "perceive" is the same as "judge/understand irrational aspects" and "judge/understand" is the same as "perceive rational aspects".

16. Originally Posted by mm
What I don't agree with however is that irrationals don't shape their environment, because the way I read that, is that irrationals don't have any impact on their environment, which is obviously not true. And if there's impact they do shape their world.
Then don't read it that way.

Let's try something else: if there was a corrupt dictatorship in power, an Irrational revolutionary would simply knock it down, without putting anything in power. It would fight against what is. A Rational would think 'okay, we must depose this ruler, and then put another ruler in power'.

17. Originally Posted by Ezra
Let's try something else: if there was a corrupt dictatorship in power, an Irrational revolutionary would simply knock it down, without putting anything in power. It would fight against what is. A Rational would think 'okay, we must depose this ruler, and then put another ruler in power'.
I dunno...

According to this theory (and I'm still not sure how it fits into the rest of the classical theory of Socionics), a rational type would think "this is the way things should be" and an irrational type would think "I don't like the way things are"... or something like that. Whether or not one sets up another ruler or system of government (this example that you came up with is VERY Beta, btw) isn't so much a matter or rationality or irrationality... though a rational type would have planned in advance whether or not they're going to based on how they want things to be. Not sure how an irrational type would decide whether or not they're going to set up a new system of government or put a new ruler in place.

I've always thought of some of this stuff as reasonable vs. resolute. I think I should probably learn more about irrationality/rationality.

18. Originally Posted by Joy
Whether or not one sets up another ruler or system of government (this example that you came up with is VERY Beta, btw)
I should hope so. I got the idea from the SLE common social roles on the wiki:

Originally Posted by Wikisocion
The challenger or revolutionary who rejects existing authority and organizational structures and tries to overturn them and establish his own system, or simply overturn them for fun without putting anything else in their place.

19. I'm not sure you're taking that quote in the right context.

20. Originally Posted by Ezra
Originally Posted by mm
What I don't agree with however is that irrationals don't shape their environment, because the way I read that, is that irrationals don't have any impact on their environment, which is obviously not true. And if there's impact they do shape their world.
Then don't read it that way.

Let's try something else: if there was a corrupt dictatorship in power, an Irrational revolutionary would simply knock it down, without putting anything in power. It would fight against what is. A Rational would think 'okay, we must depose this ruler, and then put another ruler in power'.
You know, it suddenly occurred to me we may be conflictors, because you're coming up with Te arguments, that seem irrelevant to me, and you don't seem to like my Ni perception talking about socionics ontology. So I'm not sure we can gain anything from continuing.

21. Originally Posted by mm
Originally Posted by Ezra
Originally Posted by mm
What I don't agree with however is that irrationals don't shape their environment, because the way I read that, is that irrationals don't have any impact on their environment, which is obviously not true. And if there's impact they do shape their world.
Then don't read it that way.

Let's try something else: if there was a corrupt dictatorship in power, an Irrational revolutionary would simply knock it down, without putting anything in power. It would fight against what is. A Rational would think 'okay, we must depose this ruler, and then put another ruler in power'.
You know, it suddenly occurred to me we may be conflictors, because you're coming up with Te arguments, that seem irrelevant to me, and you don't seem to like my Ni perception talking about socionics ontology. So I'm not sure we can gain anything from continuing.
What are you in terms of type?

22. ## Re: irrational vs. rational information elements

Originally Posted by dee
Originally Posted by Joy
Does anyone know of a source that would provide information that would allow me to determine if this statement is accurate or inaccurate?

Irrational Information Aspects are used primarily to perceive information, and Rational Information Aspects are used primarily to judge/understand that information.
i think perceiving element and judging are bad words for the elements. i think all the elements are both. the only difference between the "J" and "P" i think is that J is dynamic E and static I and the P is dynamic I and static E. the reason why i don't think the words J and P should even be used is because if you think about it, say for Si, internal dynamics of fields, internal can just mean subjective in that the experience is experienced by the subject where as Se does not require a second object to experience the first one. it's just there (for T and F i think internal might ether mean subjective in the same sense and individually biased, or F in the MBTI style). and for say Ti, internal statics of objects, you have the same dichotomical scale, internal-external, static-dynamic, field is the same for both. so they are really very similar. so i think there is no need to use the P-J, at least in differentiating them by one is only purposed for P and the other only for J. why both cannot do both?
Has anyone noticed that that description has basically used the MBTT Judging/Perceiving dichotomy and has given us no new information?

23. Originally Posted by Ezra
What are you in terms of type?
IEI, so that would make you LSE.

24. Originally Posted by mm
Originally Posted by Ezra
What are you in terms of type?
IEI, so that would make you LSE.
If you're right.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•