More thoughts on interpreting symbols in socionics 20

[krieger]

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.

[thePirate]

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 make judgments on the basis of policies. A policy warrants a judgment as soon as a measurement is made.

As I read this, I wrote up a post about how this was skewed, but then chose to look up exact meaning of the words for preciseness and must say you did an excellent job wording everything. However I I feel there's a need to elaborate on these concepts, and wordings as there is room for misinterpretation:

Negotiation: Discussion of a disagreement with the intention of reaching a compromise.

Compromise: A settlement of differences in which each
side makes concessions.

Concessions: Something, such as a point previously claimed in argument, that is later conceded.

My immediate reaction to this post was:

"rationals are the stubborn ones, they are the ones trying to force people's opinions in some pseudo compromise that only pleases one party"

I also generally tend to see irrationals as more compromising in my definition of the word; however in the traditional sense what you said is spot on. I do get the sense that rationals are more content with negotiations in general, and are forceful in the way they are about their views because of wanting true compromise. I feel that they typically get the stereotypes of being stubborn and overbearing, but its because their intent is rooted in consensus.

I consider myself irrational for whatever thats worth, and how things go for me is that I generally consider such people compromising; rationals as stubborn and uncompromising. Now, this is my perception when applied in an outward sense. For instance, outwardly, irrationals have more of a relaxed vibe about subjects. Re-evaluating, this is because irrationals aren't interested in compromising nearly as much as rationals. A discussion of views and maybe even wanting to reach a consensus to a degree, but not in the sense of meeting someone halfway. For me, and the irrationals I've interacted with, its more akin to pulling someone alongside to your views. This explains my gut reaction; as I see THEM(rationals) as stubborn for not coming along to my side, even though I am rarely ever open to discussion with intent to compromise/concede unless its in my favor. Their stubbornness to me doesn't come in the form of them wanting compromise, but in the sense that I DON'T want to compromise and they won't accept that. Add this them being more frequent engaging in such ways, and it becomes a little grating

My way or the highway

This being said, I dont enjoy conflict too much. It just gets draining after awhile, so I will outwardly compromise - as I notice irrationals tend to do - about things. That, or avoid the subject, or choose to be outwardly stubborn so you give up attempts in going for compromise. In this sense, irrationals resonate as the ones being more diplomatic and resonating to my idea of the word compromise; acceptance of both peoples views without needing to push in one way or another. For irrationals, I feel compromise comes in the form of 'agreeing to diagree', we don't meet you halfway but don't make you budge on your position either.

For us that is the win/win.

[tcaudilllg]

+ for both of those posts. Learned something.

[thePirate]

More thoughts:

I was thinking of how this applies to conflictors. For other type relations I believe there is enough resonance with each other for there to be some sort of compromise on both parts, or at least an ability to discuss views with each other. When conflictors come to compromise, I believe each get a sense that the other isn't going to budge.....

Typically when I argue with rationals I can get a sense of where they are coming from. I also get the sense that their intent is focused on making me go away from my position which Im generally not receptive to; but because I like this person or can see their views on things and reasonate with it, I go with it(if even just a little). With conflictors, I find them interesting, but their views are so dynamically opposite from mine that it pisses me off to even think of meeting them in a different way. In order to enter a compromise with them; I would essentially need to compromise everything about myself - my views, my way of life, etc. This heightens the distinct feeling of them coercing me to do something and results in me getting pissed off. You can't reach a consensus with someone who doesnt listen to you or understand you as a person, and while the other relations have at least a little degree of each, conflictors is where neither is met adequate enough for something substantial to result from.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

I'm not 100% happy with what I wrote. The whole negotiation vs. independence mostly works the way I describe it in regard to factual statements and decision making only. When it comes to understanding and recognizing things in a more global way it's as if the roles are reversed. This kind of thing happens a lot in socionics. The theory works a bit like a hall of mirrors where one statement can be right in one context and opposite to the truth in another.

I also think the term "lone wolf" wasn't so good. More like "independent agent".

The same way I disagreed with you that the 'warrior' type is primitive and criminal.

If I called it "struggler" instead would you still disagree? Like I said before, most of what you call "warrior" is actually "associate" the way I understand it. When a person threatens someone else with violence in order to coerce them into extending a service, they are working a social mechanism, which is "associate" behavior.

[krieger]

Another attempt at wording this:

For two irrationals to agree exactly on a single proposition is almost a miracle. There will just about always be small variations in the two persons' beliefs. Only in the case of prolonged discussion will the opinions converge to identity.

For two rationals to agree exactly on a single proposition is very common.

But one reason for this is that rationals tend to respond to suggestions as to what is the case in a "what the heck" kind of way: "let's just go with that", whereas Irrationals take the suggestion as a means of getting closer to the real correct answer and will have serious trouble suppressing the tendency to do this in themselves.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[FDG]

Quick question: are you sure you're not referring to functions as opposed to type? As in, a J-P using hir creative function would relate to the opposite dichotomy, and vice versa?

[krieger]

How do you see stubborn/compliant playing into this?

Can't say I do. I'm a little suspicious of that dichotomy; not sure it even really exists apart from the name people give it.

Quick question: are you sure you're not referring to functions as opposed to type? As in, a J-P using hir creative function would relate to the opposite dichotomy, and vice versa?

I'm afraid that I am, and it has not been my intention to. If all I managed to uncover is that Accepting functions are flexible/changing/quick-and-dirty whereas Creating functions are rigid/static/perfectionistic like I've said a million times before, that means I failed at what I tried to do.

[FDG]

I'm afraid that I am, and it has not been my intention to. If all I managed to uncover is that Accepting functions are flexible/changing/quick-and-dirty whereas Creating functions are rigid/static/perfectionistic like I've said a million times before, that means I failed at what I tried to do.

Well, the consequences of your first post would be slightly different: irrationals would be flexible/cooperative when creating, rationals when accepting; and vice-versa.

[krieger]

Well, the consequences of your first post would be slightly different: irrationals would be flexible/cooperative when creating, rationals when accepting; and vice-versa.

Well, the general topic is "decision making", which links up with "Judging functions" as far as I'm aware. So it's an area in which the Irrationals are "rigid" and perfectionistic and Rationals are pragmatic and "flexible" according to my interpretations.

My later disclaimer was about how things were reversed in the area of wholistic understanding and recognition, aka perceiving functions.

(using "" because rigid and flexible are a little awkward in this context)

Okay, thanks. No access to wiki right now, only thing I have available to me on the stubborn/compliant dichotomy is related to conflict concession or resistance, with stubborn being resistant, and compliant being concillatory. Seems to contradict the rational/irrational divide on this you've set up is why I asked.

I'm not closed off to the possibility that Obstinate/Compliant is an influence on this, possibly alongside Rational/Irrational, but if it is I don't recognize it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

I forgot to say that I always considered the Rationals people who either lead others or submit, while Irrationals being rather uncooperative.
There are exceptions, though, Alpha Rationals for example seem to me to be pretty independent (although in a "disciplined" manner) while Gamma Irrationals seem pretty much adaptable to being in a subordination system (although kinda "rebel").

It is part of my current beliefs that Rational/Irrational is only one among many traits with an influence on a person's level of independence and cooperativeness, so I think I see eye to eye with you quite well here.

[krieger]

Sentiment vs. passion:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/passionate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentimental

Passionate types: Ti/Fe valuing
Sentimental types: Te/Fi valuing

That's how I see the distinction, at least in my mind.

Same disclaimers as always apply: if a type has a lot of traits beside Ti/Fe values signifying "passion", they will not be clearly dispassionate. ESFp and ENTj are the main two "exceptions".

[Trevor]

Sentiment vs. passion:

Passionate types: Ti/Fe valuing
Sentimental types: Te/Fi valuing

That's how I see the distinction, at least in my mind.

Same disclaimers as always apply: if a type has a lot of traits beside Ti/Fe values signifying "passion", they will not be clearly dispassionate. ESFp and ENTj are the main two "exceptions".

Also there exist properties which have a decent positive correlation with some socionics dichotomies but not neccessarily with all socionics types which are members of that certain dichotomic group. One should keep that in mind when inferring narrower type properties from the fact that the narrow type is the member of the wider class. Poetically speaking; not all extroverts are equally extroverted, not all poor people are dirty, although they are dirty in comparison with non-poor people. For example; Farsighted types as opposed to Carefree types have a relatively rough sensory apparatus, they do not shake and shiver easily when confronted with disguisting body odours in the bus, However, ESFjs do shake and shiver when confronted with disguisting body odours in the bus although they are Farsighted. When it comes to our 16 types we should actively seek for the properties which are highly characteristic of all types sharing certain dichotomy and highly non-characteristic of all types not sharing the dichotomy and base our understanding of the dichotomy in question on them rather than on those dichotomy related properties which are not highly characteristic of all of its members.

[krieger]

I don't see your point. Can you reframe it in a single sentence? I am asking out of scepticism, not interest.

[Trevor]

Can you reframe it in a single sentence?

I can.

[krieger]

Glad to be of service. Do please read the disclaimer in my sig. I don't take responsibility for the claims in this thread. All of them are experimental.

[krieger]

Sentiment vs. passion:

Passionate | Define Passionate at Dictionary.com
Sentimental | Define Sentimental at Dictionary.com

Passionate types: Ti/Fe valuing
Sentimental types: Te/Fi valuing

This is still a little incomplete. Irrationals are also generally more sentimental than Rationals and vice versa.

Dynamics are also slightly more sentimental than Statics and vice versa.

[krieger]

Subtypes...

Every person posesses a subtype relative to an environment. A person can be one subtype in one environment and another in another. Knowledge within a specific field makes one progress along the subtype spectrum for that particular field only. Starting afresh in any field makes one revert to the initial "null" subtype.

I think there is great potential in assigning subtypes along the quadra spectrum, thus creating an interpretation very similar to that of smilexian type changes but compatible with the view that types are stable and unchanging.

An introduction that I think would go well with this interpretation is that of inter-quadra supervision: quadras supervise the quadra to the concrete side of them in the spectrum. Alpha supervises Beta, Beta supervises Gamma, Gamma supervises Delta, Delta supervises Alpha...

As always all of this is experimental.

[krieger]

In moments of passionate conversation they can often swallow air like a fish.

What I thought of when reading that.

[krieger]

You start.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Weak intuition how? I understand tuturututu's post to such depths as to know exactly in which ways it is irrelevant to my writings in this thread. Sometimes the emperor is just naked.

Pinocchio: the more you get invested in the position that I am an S type (ridiculous!) the more damage you incur when retract said position. Actually, scrap that, the damage is already being done but you'll only realize it by then. You really aren't on the right track here.

[krieger]

Imported:

People on forums like these tend to mistake two concepts for eachother: that of focussing on specifics and focussing on details, neither of which necessitates or excludes the other. It is, for example, possible to focus on the details of a theoretical account, or to cognize a specific thing in an inprecise way. In my opinion, the interest in specifics is related to S and T functions, and the interest in details to J functions in general (notice how fact and detail are synonymous in a lot of contexts).

Another thing about this.

One interpretation of Creating that I like to use is that of "focussing" (Limiting when Static, means the focal point lies outside of oneself rather than on one's experiences).

Process is the property of having a Creating function that is more practical/specific than one's Accepting function (T is more practical/specific than N, and S more so than T, the rest are trickier so this mainly only works when applied to T types).

Hence, Process is in a sense the property of "focussing on specifics" or "focussing on what is relatively specific in your frame of reference".

[krieger]

So let's focus on the difference between S and T. I say they both are about specifics, but how do the two differ?

I'm thinking along these lines...

S is about pointing at something specific, whereas T is about attributing some effect to the specifics of the thing.

S says "concerning the specifics"
T says "depends on the specifics"

[krieger]

J functions are also about relations, differences. Why are relations and differences interchangeable here? Because any two different things are intrinsically related in some way that can be named.

I like to use the word "comparison" as well.

Now what I believe is that when difference is registered "using" the T function, one does not learn anything about the nature of the relation between the two entities. The difference is arbitrary and simply given a name. An F function, on the other hand, registers very subtle differences, thus being capable of grasping the exact nature of the relation, capable of breaking up the relation into it's meaningful parts.

Now... There is a certain context in which an understanding of a large, arbitrary difference turns into an understanding of small, meaningful differences. This happens when the person takes two entities that are different in many respects and then finds all of the intermediate entities via which the first entity can morph into the second by means of small changes.

This story seems to be related to the + and - aspects of functions somehow. Positing any two specific "S" entities means that the arbitrary "T" relation appears by itself. Taking a specific "S" entity and changing it in a subtle "F" way produces a new "S" entity. S produces T, F produces S. "Produces" is the "left is +, right is -" relation.

[krieger]

Imported:

ESTps are a Result type, so they prefer not to overextend themselves. They spend their energy in brief, controlled doses. ESFps are different. They tend to go all the way at a single thing they have in their mind, like a gambler at a roulette table putting all their chips on Black. For this reason ESFps are likely to appear far more aggressive than ESTps, far more fanatical and acutely dangerous. The danger of an ESTp is of a more lasting, strategical kind.

Ps. their being Serious helps at upholding an image of badassery too in that it makes their communcation style harsher than that of ESTps. ESTps have been known to be charismatic (Churchill) and are very often capable rethoricicians (sp...). They aren't above a little use of Fe to attain the practical control that they live for.

[tcaudilllg]

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.

How did you come by this conclusion?

[silverchris9]

just because she's nice, doesn't mean she's not an IEI.

Now I'm in TWO people's signatures! silverchris9, taking over the16types one signature at a time...

[krieger]

How did you come by this conclusion?

In Rationals, the Static ("introverted") Judging functions are Empowering (= possessing a degree of freedom; choice). This means Rationals have the ability to choose their conclusions, to take one among a number of options. The choice is usually one that suits the person's ends, which in turn is usually some verdict another person has supplied that one might wish to ally with.

[krieger]

Accepting functions are instinctive, reactive. The occasion for the mental activity is an event that happens to the person in which s/he is the passive observer. The reaction to the event can be an active one, but the occasion itself is one in which the person has no part. The Dynamics, observationals, of the situation are singular.

Creating functions are initiative taking, focussedly agentive, also intelligent and complex in the way Accepting functions aren't. The occasion for the mental activity is in many previous events. The comprehension given by these functions has a long learning history.

[krieger]

Accepting Dynamic (Limiting) functions are about acknowledging the event, responding to it in an unpresumptuous, prudent way. The reaction is a neccessitated.

Accepting Static (Empowering) functions are about defying the event, finding some original, quirky or unpredictable way to respond to it. The reaction is a choice.

Creating Dynamic (Empowering) functions are about either gathering information on a complex topic, relating a part of the problem viewed from one's own perspective, pretending to understand the complexities when one really doesn't, or picking a reaction within a set of possible correct ones on the basis of understanding of the complexities. The focus is on the shallow perception of the complexities, but also on gathering as broad as possible a database of information on the issue.

Creating Static (Limiting) functions are about pinpointing the essence of a complex phenomenom through mental focus. Finding it's most precise and minimalistic description. The tendency is on believing one has enough information on the issue and a shortcut to a complete understanding is constantly sought.

[ArchonAlarion]

This seems to fit with my observations, especially about the compromise/radical dichotomy that parallels j/p

[krieger]

Remember that part is about Rational/Irrational as pertaining to types, not functions. If you apply it to functions things will mess up completely.

ENTp made more sense for you, btw. (just my opinion)

[The Exception]

An introduction that I think would go well with this interpretation is that of inter-quadra supervision: quadras supervise the quadra to the concrete side of them in the spectrum. Alpha supervises Beta, Beta supervises Gamma, Gamma supervises Delta, Delta supervises Alpha...

As always all of this is experimental.

What you say is true for the left ring (process types). Its the reverse direction for the result types.

[krieger]

That's the theory that Accepting functions supervise Creating functions. I introduce the proposition that - functions supervise + functions. This is to say, an INTj has the mentality to correct the mistakes of an ISTj, but also of an ESTp. The INTj-ESTp is very contradictory. It is a mutual supervision. In an INTj-ISTj relation, the INTj has the advantage and in an INFj-INTj relation, the INFj has an adavantage over the INTj.

One implication is that for Result types, the benefit and supervisor relations don't work well. They're contradictory.

[Brilliand]

That's the theory that Accepting functions supervise Creating functions. I introduce the proposition that + functions supervise - functions. This is to say, an INTj has the mentality to correct the mistakes of an ISTj, but also of an ESTp. The INTj-ESTp is very contradictory. It is a mutual supervision. In an INTj-ISTj relation, the INTj has the advantage and in an INFj-INTj relation, the INFj has an adavantage over the INTj.

Odd... I thought that it would be the other way around (the more "advanced" type, that is the one with certainty in the area, would have the advantage).

[krieger]

To be able to destroy and reshape the other's axioms is to have power over everything they do. The common perception of Beta STs as primitive, simple types of people is fostered by the fact that socionics is made by alpha NTs.

But it also works that way between Delta NF and Alpha NT. INFjs can guilt trip us into doing anything.

The thing about Result supervision not working well is an opinion I've seen being expressed by at least one other person (John Do).

Besides, if the advantage did belong to the "furthest advanced" person, supervision would not be the right term for the advantage. The advantage would consist in a lack of overarching awareness, not an abundance of it.