The difference between Rationals and Irrationals mostly consists in a difference in the degree to which a person engages in negotiation.
Rationals are negotiating types. They believe that the goal in any discussion is to make a compromise with the opposing party. Irrationals are more likely to stick to their guns and refuse to make concessions.
Rationals are better able to find support for their views. Irrationals are better able to act independently and find validation of their positions in things other than outside support.
Rationals are team players. Irrationals are the independent agents. This mechanism operates independently from introvert/extrovert. A lone wolf can have high energy levels, and a negotiator can be calm and inactive. There is no contradiction between the two.
Rationals make judgments on the basis of policies. A policy warrants a judgment as soon as a measurement is made. The single measurement is then the full antecedent of the decision. Irrationals make judgments on the basis of actual convictions/beliefs, which involve more complex antecedent-consequent relations. The Rational approach is generally more efficient but less fail-proof.
Rationals have an increased ability to accept propositions on the basis of faith. The concept of working with data without accepting it is more familiar to them than to Irrationals.