Ok, I think its time we redefine J vs P

[thePirate]

because these organized/unorganized descriptions just arent cutting it and as I see it are leading to alot of confusion. unfortunately, I dont know how much I can help as I still have trouble figuring this out. my current understanding has led me to the conclusions that its a state of mind, one being more presumptions and quicker to jump to conclusions, more rigid, the other being more open(among other things). inadequate but a starting point. real life examples of ways to discern the difference would be helpful too.

[717495]

Yeah, it's not like in MBTI. MBTI is about external life, where as I think Socionics is about mindset, often just seen as an internal way of thinking. Te for example, would still be an internally based mindset, that might have more stereotypically "J" outcomes.

Rationals are usually more kind of perfectionistic or idealistic with their thinking, while being rigid (okay, even though you can be sort of a perfectionist and idealistic if you're irrational). I'm just saying, the reason why they're not as open to change or new ideas is because they already have a set of certain ideals or judgments. Their "should be's" for the most part. These in no way have to be reflected into external life: being organized, scheduled, etc. Both rationality and irrationality can be seen when people's rational expectations are similar, or when people's irrational perceptions are similar, and one person comes about in a way reading the other person's mind. This is typically what can happen in duality or identity.

I remember back when I studied MBTI, there was this idea going around that INTPs, because they had dominant Ti, were actually more internally J than INTJs, who were thought of as internally P. There was some misconception about that as far as all INTPs being more closed-minded yet more idealistic, for lack of better word, since the two theories don't perfectly correlate like that. However it was a decent observation. So I think that's an definite example that should be used toward Socionics instead. Again, I wish I had better terms.

You also have temperament, which looks a lot at behavior.

I'm not really saying this all too certainly, just from observation. Since mine is just an on-the-spot idea anyway, why don't you take it from source, because I think I may even be missing the point:

Socionics :: Rationality / Irrationality

[JohnDo]

Ok, I think its time we redefine J vs P.. because these organized/unorganized descriptions just arent cutting it and as I see it are leading to alot of confusion.

Why don't you just read the definition on socionics.com?! It says nothing about "organized/unorganized".

Perceiving vs. Judging

Perceiving types are motivated into activity by the changes in a situation. Judging types are motivated into activity by their decisions resulting from the changes in a situation. The most common differences between Perceiving and Judging types are shown below:

Perceiving types
- act impulsively following the situation
- can start many things at once without finishing them properly
- prefer to have freedom from obligations
- are curious and like a fresh look at things
- work productivity depends on their mood
- often act without any preparation

Judging types
- do not like to leave unanswered questions
- plan work ahead and tend to finish it
- do not like to change their decisions
- have relatively stable workability
- easily follow rules and discipline

[thePirate]

Why don't you just read the definition on socionics.com?! It says nothing about "organized/unorganized".

because I can relate to both of those, maybe the P more than the J

the problem with those is that they're a bunch of generalities with no context. It does nothing to clarify subtleties and boundaries in which case certain individuals may not be so clear cut

[strrrng]

Rational/Irrational is about disposition and psychological structure. Rationals assume an order within the manifest form of reality; thus, everything stems from and is tied back to the implicit structure their psyche imposes. Higher threshold for relevancy, more concentrated focus on information filtering. Irrationals tend to assume experience, meaning that whatever emerges naturally is what it is, unhampered by anything one could subjectively impose on it; higher focus on evolution, lower threshold for information reactivity.

Rationals are more predictable (moods, reactions, etc)
Irrationals are much more unpredictable

So, irrationals would probably find each other more predictable?

[717495]

Rational/Irrational is about disposition and psychological structure. Rationals assume an order within the manifest form of reality; thus, everything stems from and is tied back to the implicit structure their psyche imposes. Higher threshold for relevancy, more concentrated focus on information filtering. Irrationals tend to assume experience, meaning that whatever emerges naturally is what it is, unhampered by anything one could subjectively impose on it; higher focus on evolution, lower threshold for information reactivity.

Yes, this definitely is more true than anything. I think it goes with what I was trying to say.

[strrrng]

Not sure "predictable" is the right word. But easier to understand, for sure.

Yeah. Irrationals are much easier for me to gauge; they feel more in tune with flux. Activation is less difficult, more fluid and develops in a moment-to-moment fashion.

[Jarno]

real life examples of ways to discern the difference would be helpful too.

Some general themes:
J/P

rigid / go with the flow
decisive / adaptable
one task before another / multitask

[Azeroffs]

because I can relate to both of those, maybe the P more than the J

the problem with those is that they're a bunch of generalities with no context. It does nothing to clarify subtleties and boundaries in which case certain individuals may not be so clear cut

I think the best way to see P or J in self-reflection is to look at the way your mood affects you through your average day. Js tend to control their moods or let their actions affect their moods. Ps tend to let their moods control them or their actions. Also, you have to make the distinction between mood and emotion. Mood is more like a state of mind or body.

[Gilly]

Irrationals are much more unpredictable

You wish...

[Gilly]

Some general themes:
J/P

rigid / go with the flow
decisive / adaptable
one task before another / multitask

ridiculous and irrelevant. Such petty correlations are what get people confused in the first place.

[717495]

Some general themes:
J/P

rigid / go with the flow
decisive / adaptable
one task before another / multitask

ridiculous and irrelevant. Such petty correlations are what get people confused in the first place.

Yeah.

[Galen]

I'd always heard rational/irrational being described as a matter of energy levels. Rationals tend to keep relatively steady internal energy through an extended period of time, and irrationals tend to vary by some amount throughout the course of a day.

[tcaudilllg]

Rational/Irrational is about disposition and psychological structure. Rationals assume an order within the manifest form of reality; thus, everything stems from and is tied back to the implicit structure their psyche imposes. Higher threshold for relevancy, more concentrated focus on information filtering. Irrationals tend to assume experience, meaning that whatever emerges naturally is what it is, unhampered by anything one could subjectively impose on it; higher focus on evolution, lower threshold for information reactivity.



So, irrationals would probably find each other more predictable?

Not quite but I think I just figured it out by reaching past your argument.

The only difference between LII Ti and Ni is that one is strictly. LIIs never plan things for others, but look for agreement on a plan... and even then, they feel kinda constricted by it. They always want to go their own way. ILIs have no compunction about making people stick to schedule.

LII Ti and Ni have in common that they are both strong and accepting. It's the social dimension which is the dividing factor. A judging type avoids relying on irrational information in an impersonal context. A perceiving type avoids making people agree with their judgments.

Ah hah... it's the matter of agreement: you are J or P whether you expect people to agree on rational or irrational basis.

[ArchonAlarion]

Rational/Irrational is about disposition and psychological structure. Rationals assume an order within the manifest form of reality; thus, everything stems from and is tied back to the implicit structure their psyche imposes. Higher threshold for relevancy, more concentrated focus on information filtering. Irrationals tend to assume experience, meaning that whatever emerges naturally is what it is, unhampered by anything one could subjectively impose on it; higher focus on evolution, lower threshold for information reactivity.

Yes. The irrational functions sense the presence of content and patterns. The rational functions formulate, encrypt, modulate, and "make sense" of the information. Rationals "ration" their energy levels (just like they ration everything else) and irrationals energy levels are enslaved to perceptual cues. I'll be feeling utterly bored and uninspired when some thought that pops into my head (from something I've seen, remembered, heard, etc) sends me into excitement and inspiration. I definitely relate to the evolution part. I feel that my life is made up on an evolving experience.

I often get into conflicts or disagreements with Tom (ESTj) over this. For example:

Me: "I wish we could just be out on a boat with a few friends, smoke some pot, and have a badass discussion."

Tom: "Why do we need to be on a boat? We could just smoke [in my room]."

Me: "Because we'd be on a boat and it would be an awesome experience."

Tom: "That's dumb."

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Tom and Jake riding in a sling, r-i-m-m-i-n-g.

[Jarno]

ridiculous and irrelevant. Such petty correlations are what get people confused in the first place.

huh?

Could you explain why and also name some better ideas that work in practice?

[marooned]

I find the difference very difficult to try to explain, and I feel like this is because nature doesn't have a clear cut difference but people keep trying to forge one out of it anyway.

One reason I tend to see myself as irrational is that I am very subject to my internal moods and states that are always flowing like water into one mood or state or another and that this affects my behavior and choices. One way it affects them is that I usually can't get myself to do anything I don't feel like doing... feeling like doing it is part of my internal mood... I am completely unreliable at times because I simply follow my mood in all things and this creates a pattern of behavior that does appear "go with the flow-ish" but that can also be very annoying, particularly to Ij types I have so far noticed.

Internally it is basically similar to the weather, the clouds passing, concentrating, dissipating, the sun coming out or being obscured under thick clouds, the rain falling or the lightning striking... etc. It all simply flows from one thing to the next and I simply flow with it. What I do or don't do is subject to my moods in a rather unpredictable pattern (if there is even a pattern there at all).

The way that this becomes most obvious to me is when interacting with rationals. I tend to prefer other irrationals a lot of the time because the feeling of being around rationals for long periods of time is often rigid, imprisoning, ordered, detailed, scheduled, etc. like being stuck in a tight box. Usually I've noticed with Ijs and me it's a sort of attempting to learn how to deal with the other person, usually by accpetance of differences and some meeting half way (with sometimes a lot of compromise)... and there is usually a cycle of recurring periods of irritation with one another that comes out if living or working together in a way where it builds to a head and then dissipates and then does it all over again. And yes, with rationals it's often a lot of it should be this way or that way about this or that in a way that attempts to bring a constricting order to some realm of existence. Things can no longer simply flow.

I see the difference as rather easy to spot, but I can easily see how a lot of Fe leading people might feel they relate more to irrational. Fe is dynamic and can certainly have its own sort of "flow" to it. Personally I don't really know how to reconcile Fe leading with being "rational" off the top of my head right now. That said, Fe leading is Ti DS so it works well with a rational mindset in its dual and it wants to be brought order... so indirectly it must work otherwise Fe leading people's duals would drive them mad.

[717495]

huh?

Could you explain why and also name some better ideas that work in practice?

Because any type could be those things. Sure Js are usually more rigid, and Ps are usually more go-with-the-flow, since I have also read Ps being more influenced by their biorhythms, and naturally focus on the correct state of mind and body, but the other things you said are plainly irrelevant and misguided. What strrrng and Archon said was just fine.

[Jarno]

Because any type could be those things. Sure Js are usually more rigid, and Ps are usually more go-with-the-flow, since I have also read Ps being more influenced by their biorhythms, and naturally focus on the correct state of mind and body, but the other things you said are plainly irrelevant and misguided. What strrrng and Archon said was just fine.

no what they said was way to abstract and not practical. That doesn't create a clear image.

[Gilly]

huh?

Could you explain why and also name some better ideas that work in practice?

Rationals thrive on stability and predictability. They expect that, once something is established, it will stay the same way. They attempt to form continuity in their perceptions and expect that this continuity is consistent with reality; if it isn't, then they attempt to enforce it.

Irrationals assume that the world is an unpredictable place. They are at ease with their perceptions changing, because they expect reality to change; they do not require any kind of established order or baseline in order for their perceptions to congeal and make sense to them, because they generally take things as they come and go. They base their ideas and organize their perceptions on the assumption that certain things will change, and, unlike rationals, are not frustrated or disappointed when their assumptions of stability or consistency are not met.

This differs by degrees and in emphasis from type to type, and even subtype to subtype,obviously, so it's helpful to gauge people's valued functions before attempting to see how they all fit together, but generally this is the idea.

When you're trying to type people, you can't just assume that these underlying psychological foundations will manifest consistently, because the transition from psychological organization to behavioral manifestation is simply not that consistent; there are too many variables between one level and the other. You have to examine people's behavior and perceive their overriding attitudes if you want to learn anything about their psychology.

[Gilly]

That was predictable.

You wish...

[717495]

Dynamic types, I think, more so see things as unpredictable, that is why they are always keeping an eye out. It's a state of mind. Where as Irrational types are more unpredictable themselves, which goes along with another state of mind.

[Jarno]

Rationals thrive on stability and predictability. They expect that, once something is established, it will stay the same way. They attempt to form continuity in their perceptions and expect that this continuity is consistent with reality; if it isn't, then they attempt to enforce it.

Irrationals assume that the world is an unpredictable place. They are at ease with their perceptions changing, because they expect reality to change; they do not require any kind of established order or baseline in order for their perceptions to congeal and make sense to them, because they generally take things as they come and go. They base their ideas and organize their perceptions on the assumption that certain things will change, and, unlike rationals, are not frustrated or disappointed when their assumptions of stability or consistency are not met.

This differs by degrees and in emphasis from type to type, and even subtype to subtype,obviously, so it's helpful to gauge people's valued functions before attempting to see how they all fit together, but generally this is the idea.

When you're trying to type people, you can't just assume that these underlying psychological foundations will manifest consistently, because the transition from psychological organization to behavioral manifestation is simply not that consistent; there are too many variables between one level and the other. You have to examine people's behavior and perceive their overriding attitudes if you want to learn anything about their psychology.

ah I really like that explanation!

In short:

Rationals like to follow 'a plan'.
Irrationals take things as they come and go.

[Gilly]

Dynamic types, I think, more so see things as unpredictable, that is why they are always keeping an eye out. It's a state of mind.

No, dynamic types naturally perceive the changing aspects of the world; that says nothing of how they actively assume the world is. It tells us how their mind is structured, not how they perceive the necessity of structure (or lack of it). Rationality/irrationality is a disposition, a psychological preference; static/dynamic is an innate method of operation.

[717495]

No, dynamic types naturally perceive the changing aspects of the world; that says nothing of how they actively assume the world is. It tells us how their mind is structured, not how they perceive structure.

It's a state of mind to see things as unpredictable, and wish to keep a closer eye on things, in my opinion. I mean, I'm only speaking from experience. You may be right.

[Gilly]

ah I really like that explanation!

In short:

Rationals like to follow 'a plan'.
Irrationals take things as they come and go.

That's certainly much better than what you had before. Still a little simple for my taste, but certainly better. I wouldn't try to apply that kind of generalization in all of it's linguistically applicable contexts, because remember this is a deeply rooted, innate psychological attitude that isn't always directly manifest in all behaviors or preferences.

[Gilly]

It's a state of mind to see things as unpredictable, and wish to keep a closer eye on things, in my opinion. I mean, I'm only speaking from experience. You may be right.

Well you claim to be both irrational and dynamic, so I'm not sure how you'd separate the two unless you were speaking from more than experience :wink:

[717495]

Well you claim to be both irrational and dynamic, so I'm not sure how you'd separate the two unless you were speaking from more than experience :wink:

I've never claimed to be either static or dynamic. I've only contemplated on the idea.

[Jarno]

That's certainly much better than what you had before. Still a little simple for my taste, but certainly better. I wouldn't try to apply that kind of generalization in all of it's linguistically applicable contexts, because remember this is a deeply rooted, innate psychological attitude that isn't always directly manifest in all behaviors or preferences.

Yes. I guess it's something like one level down deeper into what J/P really is, then my other ideas, which are more about the often resulting behaviour.

[Gilly]

I've never claimed to be either static or dynamic. I've only contemplated on the idea.

...you just basically said "this is what it's like to be dynamic, from my experience."

[Gilly]

Yes. I guess it's something like one level down deeper into what J/P really is, then my other ideas, which are more about the often resulting behaviour.

Yeah. I mean, the resulting behaviors can be useful in making a quick decision; sometimes people's types really ARE just THAT obvious, in which case, hey, it is what it is. But most people aren't that simple or straightforward, so you do have to look a little deeper.

[717495]

...you just basically said "this is what it's like to be dynamic, from my experience."

People are talkin'. Talkin' bout people. I hear them whisper, you won't believe it..

[Gilly]

Whatever.

[717495]

If it's any consolation, you're definitely not a pisshead or bastard.

[Gilly]

lol, fair enough.

[717495]

I think you're right about static/dynamic, how it is an innate method more than irrational/rational. My observation is probably biased now that I think about it.

[Gilly]

Yeah. I almost wouldn't even call it a "method," because that seems to imply a level of active implimentation; it's simply how people operate, nothing to do with preference, psychological reactions, or disposition. People do as they are programmed.

[Jarno]

People are talkin'. Talkin' bout people. I hear them whisper, you won't believe it..

there's something really weird about you.

[strrrng]

Dynamic types, I think, more so see things as unpredictable, that is why they are always keeping an eye out. It's a state of mind. Where as Irrational types are more unpredictable themselves, which goes along with another state of mind.

I see what you mean. I remember thinking the other day, that dynamic types in general have a more fluid cognition than static types. And I think this is true. Static types have a more condensed cognition, or something. But then you get into P/J subtypes, which basically deals with input mechanisms for information: p-subs being unfiltered and reactive to information, j-subs being refined and organizational. I think the former assumes relevancy of information by its presence, whereas the latter assumes relevancy in accordance with the structure they have established.

So, a dynamic p-sub P is pretty much the most "P" of any type, with a static j-sub J being the most "J."