Rational/Irrational dichotomy and a very essential inquiry

[Rocky]

... so I guess this shows how INTJs make me look stupid when I try and write things down.

But I have an example.

Imagine you were giving directions to someone, they have to turn onto a highway and then find an exit. For argument sake let's say that the first exit that comes up is 8E and the second is 8W. Now, if it were someone like my J Mom was giving directions, she would say take "8W", but if you asked her, she would be unsure of whether that was the first or second one that comes up. I would say take the "second" one, but be unsure of what the exit was called.

Do you see how this relates? Would you argue against this J/P distinction?

I am under the impression that the number or word label comes secondary for the P type whereas the picture comes secondary for the J type. The P type must have a picture before he understands the quantified label and the J type must have number before he sees the picture.

I do not think this has anything to do with type, hence nothing to do with J/P. It really has something to do with the communication skills and knowledge. In a given area, those that are more knowledgeable and more confident of their knowlege are more likely to state both the name and related information (such as which coming first in this example). Those that are not as knowledgeable or confident will not be able to recite as much, and the specific knowledge that a person cites depends on how the knowledge was acquired. In this were me, if I looked at the map, I would most likely remember the name of the exit. However, if I was driven there before and was a passenger admiring (or even daydreaming) the highway, I would probably remember the exit in terms of the orientation.

... I think you're missing the point...

I'm saying what would be the most natural connection. We're not here to hyper-analyze all of the variables and psychology as to why some people may answer differently, just demonstrating a point.

[wym123]

Why is Cone an INTP?

I dunno maybe he isn't, but he is not INTJ. He doesn't start with hypotheticals and go to conclusions based upon those hypotheticals but he starts at OBSERVATIONS and notices incosistencies within the observations and then makes logical statements about why such and such an observation cannot be a correct observation (ie questions the observational premise not the theorhetical per se). I on the other hand relate hypothetical statements to one another and say "this is what should be observed if the premises are true." He is TP not TJ.

Isn't that what I have been saying?

Rocky, you said to me:

says if fact does not agree with system, we thow away fact.
says if system does not agree with fact, then we throw away system.

If you are agreeing with Pedro, then you are contradicting the comment you made to me. Pedro is saying that Cone is more inclined to throw out an observation (aka "fact") on the basis that the observation is illogical (ie. does not fit any logical system), therefore Cone does some thing. Am I misunderstanding?

[wym123]

... so I guess this shows how INTJs make me look stupid when I try and write things down.

But I have an example.

Imagine you were giving directions to someone, they have to turn onto a highway and then find an exit. For argument sake let's say that the first exit that comes up is 8E and the second is 8W. Now, if it were someone like my J Mom was giving directions, she would say take "8W", but if you asked her, she would be unsure of whether that was the first or second one that comes up. I would say take the "second" one, but be unsure of what the exit was called.

Do you see how this relates? Would you argue against this J/P distinction?

I am under the impression that the number or word label comes secondary for the P type whereas the picture comes secondary for the J type. The P type must have a picture before he understands the quantified label and the J type must have number before he sees the picture.

I do not think this has anything to do with type, hence nothing to do with J/P. It really has something to do with the communication skills and knowledge. In a given area, those that are more knowledgeable and more confident of their knowlege are more likely to state both the name and related information (such as which coming first in this example). Those that are not as knowledgeable or confident will not be able to recite as much, and the specific knowledge that a person cites depends on how the knowledge was acquired. In this were me, if I looked at the map, I would most likely remember the name of the exit. However, if I was driven there before and was a passenger admiring (or even daydreaming) the highway, I would probably remember the exit in terms of the orientation.

... I think you're missing the point...

I'm saying what would be the most natural connection. We're not here to hyper-analyze all of the variables and psychology as to why some people may answer differently, just demonstrating a point.

Nope, you are missing my point. I am claiming that the J/P variable is irrelevant and has no impact in this scenario and a other variables are at work. In other words, this scenario is not a very valid example that can be used to explain the differences between J and P.

[Creepy-]

Is the distinction between said dichotomies actual? As currently articulated, or at least as what would be indicated by the traditional definitions of said dichotomies, I can only conceive of perception as a sub-classification of judgement, as all perceptions involve a judgement of some sort. Thus, it is blatantly obvious to me that said definitions need significant elaboration so as to make the dichotomy cohere in a sensible manner. Can someone clarify?

Perception is a judgement, because it is an interpretation of sensation.

However, it's not the same kind of judgement as Logic or Ethics. Perception is dependent on sensations and "Judgement" is dependent on pure ideas.

What if we called them Rational/Irrational - would you accept them then?

I would argue that they aren't real dichotomies anyway. We don't have a function called "Introverted Perception" etc., it's just a marker to indicate order of functions.

[science as magic]

@rocky: i don't necessarily disagree but i don't think that was what mysticsonic was trying to reference at all. i think he was trying to get at the smaller parts from which these groupings are constructed. eh, sorry i snapped at you

Isn't that what I have been saying?

the same word can have many different meanings. observation as used in that quote is not the equivalent of "perception" as used in this thread

says if fact does not agree with system, we thow away fact.
says if system does not agree with fact, then we throw away system.

also this is incorrect, the system itself is thrown away by if it is self-contradictory. the incorrect "facts" get thrown away when they are part of such a system. sometimes this is all of them.

[MysticSonic]

"... does it not describe you? "

Not wholly. I often think in psuedo-images when, say, navigating an area which appears unfamiliar by has a decipherable pattern that the street names follow, with the images representing a very decisive quality.

"So we are in perceiving mode even on the forum? Are we not more critical here then we would be if we were relaxing on a beach? "

I'm not entirely certain, I'm attempting to gather what exactly the J/P dichotomy is and if it should be considered as a dichotomy rather than be discarded completely in place of a more deconstructed set of dichotomies that would more effectively represent the psyches. With that said, as pop-psychology the J/P dichotomy is completely satisfactory, but as far as actualy psychology and sociology is concerned, one cannot afford to gloss over the more minute yet significant aspects of the personality and polarize them into two distinct categorization along the lines of a single dichotomy, as distortion due to misapplication of said dichotomy would arise.

"Hard to justify does not mean that it's not true."

Perhaps I should be using more definitive statements, but what I meant by that which you quoted was that with the premise that leads to said conclusion being contested, at least within my own framework of knowledge, it cannot be said to follow.

"Do you see how this relates? Would you argue against this J/P distinction?"

Yes I would, as I'm more likely to remember the sequence in which things of signficant qualities arise rather than the signifiers of said qualities(8W, 8E).

"I am under the impression that the number or word label comes secondary for the P type whereas the picture comes secondary for the J type. The P type must have a picture before he understands the quantified label and the J type must have number before he sees the picture."

That is impossible as the picture is the means by which the signifier is symbolized in the external world; judgement always follows perception in the visual sense as you are articulating it.

"Does this have to do with socionics judgment? "

I'm not sure, what is Socionic judgement?

[Rocky]

Nope, you are missing my point. I am claiming that the J/P variable is irrelevant and has no impact in this scenario and a other variables are at work. In other words, this scenario is not a very valid example that can be used to explain the differences between J and P.

Well, I could always be wrong about this one.

Then what IS J/P?

[Rocky]

I'm not entirely certain, I'm attempting to gather what exactly the J/P dichotomy is and if it should be considered as a dichotomy rather than be discarded completely in place of a more deconstructed set of dichotomies that would more effectively represent the psyches. With that said, as pop-psychology the J/P dichotomy is completely satisfactory, but as far as actualy psychology and sociology is concerned, one cannot afford to gloss over the more minute yet significant aspects of the personality and polarize them into two distinct categorization along the lines of a single dichotomy, as distortion due to misapplication of said dichotomy would arise.

I think at the very least whenever people are critical, emotional, or reactionary, we are using our judgment.

People on these boards are critical.

They are emotional.

They are reactionary.

They are also translating their thoughts into intelligable language.

Does this not imply judgment then?

"Does this have to do with socionics judgment? "

I'm not sure, what is Socionic judgement?

It's the point of this thread.

[Rocky]

Isn't that what I have been saying?

the same word can have many different meanings. observation as used in that quote is not the equivalent of "perception" as used in this thread

But I was also saying that perceivers "put things together" later on. To me that's partially because when we think about things we don't think of them in terms of those "labels" or concious thought. We only label when we finally have to.

[MysticSonic]

"People on these boards are critical.

They are emotional.

They are reactionary.

They are also translating their thoughts into intelligable language.

Does this not imply judgment then? "

I think the most latter portion of your collection does.

"It's the point of this thread."

The point of this thread was to discern what the J/P dichotomy is, as I have a sneaking suspicion that it is merely a composite of various, more essential dichotomies, hence the difficulties in determining whom falls at which end of the dichotomous spectrum.

[wym123]

Nope, you are missing my point. I am claiming that the J/P variable is irrelevant and has no impact in this scenario and a other variables are at work. In other words, this scenario is not a very valid example that can be used to explain the differences between J and P.

Well, I could always be wrong about this one.

Then what IS J/P?

I took it as preference for the Rational vs the Irrational Functions. If you are asking me for physical manifestations, then sorry, I can't give any.

[wym123]

says if fact does not agree with system, we thow away fact.
says if system does not agree with fact, then we throw away system.

also this is incorrect, the system itself is thrown away by if it is self-contradictory. the incorrect "facts" get thrown away when they are part of such a system. sometimes this is all of them.

What you are saying is right? Could you give the analogous one for or are like that too and that this does not serve as a valid distinction between the two?

[FDG]

We will never get anywhere, since writing on a forum implies the usage of only rational functions; specifically, usage is of utmost importance in the formulations of thoughs in written language - as Jung said, ALL expressed thought is , whichever its nature may be -; therefore, it is quite impossible to argue the presence of perception in an environment which allows only judgement.

[Rocky]

"They are also translating their thoughts into intelligable language.

Does this not imply judgment then? "

I think the most latter portion of your collection does.

We will never get anywhere, since writing on a forum implies the usage of only rational functions; specifically, usage is of utmost importance in the formulations of thoughs in written language - as Jung said, ALL expressed thought is , whichever its nature may be -; therefore, it is quite impossible to argue the presence of perception in an environment which allows only judgement.

Isn't this what I was saying before?

So that means that the written word is judgment.

And yeah, J/P is connected to other things, but is used to tell the difference from whether a Rational or Irrational function is dominant. But we switch back and forth between using J/P frequently (as oppossed to say switching back and forth from T/F), so I guess we can also label J/P whatever it is that you'd fall back on, or which form of "language" would come to you first.

[Rocky]

If you are agreeing with Pedro, then you are contradicting the comment you made to me. Pedro is saying that Cone is more inclined to throw out an observation (aka "fact") on the basis that the observation is illogical (ie. does not fit any logical system), therefore Cone does some thing. Am I misunderstanding?

Observations in the form of come first, and the system is only put into place much later ( ).

Pedro starts with the hypothetical ( ), and then has observations come second.

IxTPs remember don't view the world through logic like you do. We don't generally have this system set up when we are playing around with facts.

[wym123]

If you are agreeing with Pedro, then you are contradicting the comment you made to me. Pedro is saying that Cone is more inclined to throw out an observation (aka "fact") on the basis that the observation is illogical (ie. does not fit any logical system), therefore Cone does some thing. Am I misunderstanding?

Observations in the form of come first, and the system is only put into place much later ( ).

Pedro starts with the hypothetical ( ), and then has observations come second.

Define "the hypothetical." Do you mean an attempt at the generalization of the phenomenon via pure guessing? In other words are you suggesting that Pedro comes up with this random framework and then tries to fit the facts into the framework and because the framework is a random work of art, the facts will unlikely be unable to fit into the theory. It is analogous to guessing randomly and hoping that you will get a lucky shot. Sounds like all are idiots and like to play guessing games.

Anyway, my point is, what you suggest for is very idiotic. Every generalization and systematization no matter how ridiculous is based on the observation of facts. The only difference is how the facts are perceived and here is where there are differences. Some people tend of focus on certain aspects while others focus on others (I think that's the key to vs ). Some people are less likely to color the facts and can maintain astute cold detaching interpretation throughout (F vs T?). Some people tend to see the bigger picture that is conveyed by the facts while others tend to only notice the details. (S vs N?). Of course, some people are just better at noticing contradictions, ill-defined ideas, unspecified methodologies, etc; hence, can easily estimate the validity of the facts, making them more immune to bullshit (no idea what this is but I think it is a developed skill). Conversely some people see facts where there isn't any (I think this is not related to type although N are probably slightly more prone to this but for NT this is usually not a problem because the T destroys all wild ideas).

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[crazymaisy]

"... does it not describe you? "

Not wholly. I often think in psuedo-images when, say, navigating an area which appears unfamiliar by has a decipherable pattern that the street names follow, with the images representing a very decisive quality.

I can imagine what you mean by 'psuedo-images' but have to at that term of usage to describe anything visual. Isn't an image a real image if it's an image?

I do mean to state it directly for you to understand that visually speaking anyone is CAPABLE nearly of seeing things in their mind as images, just on different levels depending on who you are.

Do you see things visually in your mind at other times, hence your strange usage of pairing "psuedo" with "image"? Perhaps it's that you have comparison to more vivid imagery, thus it seems that the lack of vivid imagery when thinking of mappage brings out a blah image to you which is "pseudo" in nature and NOT a real thing. ????

"So we are in perceiving mode even on the forum? Are we not more critical here then we would be if we were relaxing on a beach? "

I'm not entirely certain, I'm attempting to gather what exactly the J/P dichotomy is and if it should be considered as a dichotomy rather than be discarded completely in place of a more deconstructed set of dichotomies that would more effectively represent the psyches. With that said, as pop-psychology the J/P dichotomy is completely satisfactory, but as far as actualy psychology and sociology is concerned, one cannot afford to gloss over the more minute yet significant aspects of the personality and polarize them into two distinct categorization along the lines of a single dichotomy, as distortion due to misapplication of said dichotomy would arise.

I've tried to show you how Rational and Irrational are truly the J/P dicotomy in that Rational is J and Irrational is P, which makes for the distinctions of which function is the leading first function makes the J or P in the "translated" four-letter combo.

The Socionics methodology of naming is for three-letters, which means we know which is "P" and which is "J" because of Rational and Irrational leading first function.

I don't mean to have you believe that I believe it's done on purpose, it's not. I just does work out that Rational is "lefty Judgy" and Irrational is "righty Perceivey" if you know anything about the processes that are said to be "left" and "right" in Brain Typing.

So you don't need to think in terms of 'throwing out J/P dichotomies" since they are really very explainable and understandable as being there for the Americans mostly, but that without them, the ILI is still "Right Brain" since it's Ni is Irrational.

Rationality / Irrationality

Definition: rational types have logic or ethics as their leading function (, , or ), while irrational types have intuition or sensing (, , , or ). In addition, all accepting functions of rationals are rational and all producing functions are irrational, and vice-versa for irrationals.

Go over to:

http://socionics.us/types.shtml

to see about it, look at the types, use the pop up chart there to see what I mean about it being corresponding to how things are in reality moreso left or right AS A BASE POSITION for each person. Their base, home position, which is their most Prominent Function is either one or the other, which does reflect the truth of J or P respective of Rationality or Irrationality each.

"Do you see how this relates? Would you argue against this J/P distinction?"

Yes I would, as I'm more likely to remember the sequence in which things of signficant qualities arise rather than the signifiers of said qualities(8W, 8E).



"I am under the impression that the number or word label comes secondary for the P type whereas the picture comes secondary for the J type. The P type must have a picture before he understands the quantified label and the J type must have number before he sees the picture."

That is impossible as the picture is the means by which the signifier is symbolized in the external world; judgement always follows perception in the visual sense as you are articulating it.

You do have some things to learn in life still, so to use the word "impossible" does mean you know all about it? I don't think you see it exactly as meant.

Symbols are pictures, but they are consider information as the Left Side of the Brain would process. Left processing brings forth understanding of words diffently than Right processing brings for the understanding of pictures.

The Right side is Visual and Spatial and understanding comes without words or symbols. Pictures are worth a thousand words, you have heard that, no? They are, and I would say, from experience, most often words don't do the pictures we P's get justice at all.

Please let me reiterate to you that it's only a "home base" sort of thing to get to the "Left" and "Right" idea, that you as an LII, INTj would be able to use a Visual Spatial approach to thinking if you have that ability, which most have SOME sort of ability at it. Transversally I am an ILI, INTp, and I have a base operation of understanding via my right side, Visual Spatial Ni (you must know that I do think that in MBTI being an INTP overall is supposed to be what Socionics INTp is since the functions aren't purely switched, the J/P dichotomy switcheroo doesn't fly for everyone, IMO, and that the functions in MBTI are not aligned correctly necessarily, and that I have questioned the Ti Ne of INTP that it was really Ni or Ne that was primary, but I hadn't delved into what that would be, just know that it's iNtuition that's leading and for an INTP, that's right, with S and F as third and fourth respectively, but that's not proveable, neither disprovable, and however MBTI or Socionics puts the functions it's pretty interesting to note that in MBTI the truth of P isn't really known, but shows in what an INTP is supposed to be like, not profile-wise since they are subjectively written, ALL of them are. It's the descriptives that are key, as in Brain Typing, those things are used as a guiding base for each type, I have a quote for this further below. So I come from the perspective of already knowing that my iNtuition and Perceiving are tied to my Right whether or not MBTI gets this as my first function under INTP type, but that due to how it all works out it's right that most INTP's that understand what it's about are still INTP's when they go to Socionics, even if they don't know that they know, or the WHY of it all, they know if they are the same under both systems.)

"Does this have to do with socionics judgment? "

I'm not sure, what is Socionic judgement?

I am not authorized to state what it is, but will offer my view of what seems to be the heart of it all.

Socionics takes the idea of personality and puts it into a three-letter type label, taking the functions and putting them in a certain order for each of the 16 types. This is similar to MBTI and moreso similar than not, it's only that Socionics takes the idea of the I, E, N, S, T, F, J, P and dilutes and fragments it around to divide it into the 16 types as distinct three-lettered type labels ... it's that the "I" is on both sides (rationality and irrationality) and so is "E", and that the "J" and "P" do not show up in the three-letter version, they are used as "rationality" and "irrationality" respectively, and it goes that Socionics nods towards the way of each as being the primary and that everyone has a Judging and Percieving function at some level, but only the ILE, SEI, SLE, IEI, SEE, ILI, IEE, and SLI types are the ones with a leading Irrational First Function, which I am able to see as being the "P" easily.

Read this well:

Rationality has these key words: sequential, linear, one-directional; consistent

Irrationality has these key words: cyclical, multi-directional; flexible

Apply that to the thought of all the types I listed just above as being the "P's" and that the Irrationality key words are precisely language of right-brain Visual-Spatialness.

The other types, which I didn't list, which are "J's" are the Rationality types, and their key words are precisely language of left-brain Auditory-Sequentialness.

All the types use both sides of their brains, Brain Typing isn't about using only one side of your brain. It's that most everyone has a preference for one side or the other, and if it's proved one day that the brain sides aren't it, so what, since it's still true that "what we call 'left' and 'right' is still experienced by everyone at some level".

I am Right-Brain INTP Brain Type; also INTP MBTI; also INTp or ILI Socionics. I have left-brain abilities beyond that, and know that most highly intelligent people have really good something on both sides, but still have a preference for one side as their Leading First Function. Brain Typing quote below is to show that it's the basis for understanding the framework we are made up with. Beyond that it's whichever Psychological whateverness to explain further, and so it's just logical to consider Brain Typing and do so with an 'open mind', which is easier to do if you use Ni or Ne as you read about it

From: http://braintypes.com/16_types.htm

BTI's independent studies and experiences have led us to concur that there are sixteen “types.” However, our belief concerning the various types is quite different from the norm. We distinguish these differing designs as Brain Types—found in all people the world over—each with unique cerebral/cognitive, physical/motor and visual/spatial skill proficiencies. The short definitions below of each Brain Type are only simple summaries—generic descriptions for the majority within each category. Though personas can vary significantly within individuals of each Brain Type (due to nurture: parenting, upbringing, etc., and nature: genetic variances), we believe that differing inborn neural circuits in each BT affect specific cognitive, physical, and spatial skills and that these similarities within each design are due to genetic hardwiring—nature.

There's more to this, I'll post this now, though, and reply to your response with more data. I really hope my unlimited time spent on this is of value to you, an aide to seeing what I mean, but if not, no sweat.

[Rocky]

@ wym: Stop making it sound like I think the process is stupid. I didn't say that. I think we are letting intepretation of written word go a little off course here...

@ maisy: I love you. :wink:





Side note! Did you know that Napoleon said "A picture is worth a thousand words"? HA!

[wym123]

@ wym: Stop making it sound like I think the process is stupid. I didn't say that. I think we are letting intepretation of written word go a little off course here...

Is there any way to justify the kind of rationality you suggested? To come up with frameworks and hope for a blank hit? Seriously, I really don't think anyone with any bit of intelligence will do anything like that. It is like, saying that all birds are colored white when you don't even know what a bird is. I can understand ethical thinking. Compared to logical thinking, ethical thinking simply use different assumptions hence ethical thinking can easily be justified and is quite "logical". There is no reasonable assumption that one can invoke to justify this kind of thinking, which is why I am calling that process stupid and how you are implicitly characterizing as stupid.

[Rocky]

*pm @wym*

[crazymaisy]

@ maisy: I love you. :wink:





Side note! Did you know that Napoleon said "A picture is worth a thousand words"? HA!

Didn't know that precisely, but it's worth a look-up and thanks!

I grew up with "If a picture paints a thousand words, then why can't I ..." da, da, da, da ... the 70's ...

Now as for the gushy sentiment, you know I'm an INTp, and well, gosh, it's embarrassing, but thanks! (hiding behind the nearest piece of furniture) (that's the closest to 'blushing' that this forum has in emoticons.)

[Rocky]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Napoleon_Bonaparte

*waits for the Ti types to start throwing chairs at me*

:wink:

It's under "A" in bold print so it should be that hard to find.

[crazymaisy]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Napoleon_Bonaparte

*waits for the Ti types to start throwing chairs at me*

:wink:

It's under "A" in bold print so it should be that hard to find.

Thanks again! I didn't mean for you to type it out for me, but hey, it's nice to have it done for me :wink: And it wasn't hard to find, note that you seemed to be writing that it wouldn't be that hard, but didn't really write it out as such :wink:

A plehtora of good quotes! Don't know why I never stumbled on that page in Wikipedia, one of my favorite things is to play the old Encyclopedia game, like I did as a child, and sit with my Funk and Wagnals and the other set (which I forget their name) and skip around where ever it'd lead.

I don't have real Encyclopedia's in my adult life, so I'm appreciating Wikipedia ever more and more of late.

**Let the Ti thrown chairs fly, chair flying is a fun sport, sometimes (I use the term "sport" loosely, I don't like most sports --and true to how some profile's for INTp's-- I find them totally worthless overall, but do have a passing fancy with some sportage and find that unorganized sportage can be quite fun atimes.)**

[emeye]

I don't like most sports --and true to how some profile's for INTp's-- I find them totally worthless overall, but do have a passing fancy with some sportage and find that unorganized sportage can be quite fun atimes.

I assume you are referring to the evasive actions taken regarding the airborne furniture?

[crazymaisy]

I don't like most sports --and true to how some profile's for INTp's-- I find them totally worthless overall, but do have a passing fancy with some sportage and find that unorganized sportage can be quite fun atimes.

I assume you are referring to the evasive actions taken regarding the airborne furniture?

No, Yes, No, Yes, Maybe, Sometimes, Maybe, Yes, No. shrug shoulders, no true opinion ...

[MysticSonic]

"Isn't this what I was saying before?"
Not at all.
"Do you see things visually in your mind at other times, hence your strange usage of pairing "psuedo" with "image"? Perhaps it's that you have comparison to more vivid imagery, thus it seems that the lack of vivid imagery when thinking of mappage brings out a blah image to you which is "pseudo" in nature and NOT a real thing. ???? "

I merely have a difficult time consciously contructing mental-images in a detailed manner, so I suppose "psuedo-image" would not be an appropriate term here.

"I've tried to show you how Rational and Irrational are truly the J/P dicotomy in that Rational is J and Irrational is P, which makes for the distinctions of which function is the leading first function makes the J or P in the "translated" four-letter combo. "

That doesn't explain to me why Irrational and Ratioanls have different "rythms," nor does it explain to me why irrationalis behave in a manner that is particular to irrationals which holds true with the latter set as well.

"I don't mean to have you believe that I believe it's done on purpose, it's not. I just does work out that Rational is "lefty Judgy" and Irrational is "righty Perceivey" if you know anything about the processes that are said to be "left" and "right" in Brain Typing. "

This would work if all rationals were left brained and all irrationals were right brained, but it doesn't as the conditions required to be satisfied for such a statement to hold are left unmet.

As for the rest of your post dealing with the matter stated above,

"Symbols are pictures, but they are consider information as the Left Side of the Brain would process. Left processing brings forth understanding of words diffently than Right processing brings for the understanding of pictures. "

This only has to do with how the image is analyzed, whereas I'm speaking of the neccessary direction in which information must be processed; one cannot process information without first apprehending it.

[MysticSonic]

My concept of what Judging and Perceiving actually are:

Perception is the means by which data is obtained, each perceptive function dealing with a different particular sort of data.

Judgement is the means by which data is processed.

That's about the only difference I can actually decipher. I'd also call into question whether or not such traits for what one could consider a dichotomy.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[MysticSonic]

"Does that sound like a pure judgment to you, or something mixed in with observation?"

Yeah, see, that's why I find this entire subject difficult. Nothing is strictly defined. The definitions of Fe intermesh with other functions, and it appears quite blatantly to possess subjective characteristics. Socionics is so convoluted that I doubt it can be salvaged from the apparent field of obscurity, but great commendations to anyone who even attempts such a feat.

[crazymaisy]

"Isn't this what I was saying before?"
Not at all.
"Do you see things visually in your mind at other times, hence your strange usage of pairing "psuedo" with "image"? Perhaps it's that you have comparison to more vivid imagery, thus it seems that the lack of vivid imagery when thinking of mappage brings out a blah image to you which is "pseudo" in nature and NOT a real thing. ???? "

I merely have a difficult time consciously contructing mental-images in a detailed manner, so I suppose "psuedo-image" would not be an appropriate term here.

So then, you do not have a strength of being Visual-Spatial as your dominant first function, which DOES NOT MEAN that you CAN'T visualize things in your mind, can you 'see' what I mean?

"I've tried to show you how Rational and Irrational are truly the J/P dicotomy in that Rational is J and Irrational is P, which makes for the distinctions of which function is the leading first function makes the J or P in the "translated" four-letter combo. "

That doesn't explain to me why Irrational and Ratioanls have different "rythms," nor does it explain to me why irrationalis behave in a manner that is particular to irrationals which holds true with the latter set as well.

Have you gone over to Rick's Socionics.us site and read anything and tried to understand it? It sure seems as if you haven't.

"I don't mean to have you believe that I believe it's done on purpose, it's not. I just does work out that Rational is "lefty Judgy" and Irrational is "righty Perceivey" if you know anything about the processes that are said to be "left" and "right" in Brain Typing. "

This would work if all rationals were left brained and all irrationals were right brained, but it doesn't as the conditions required to be satisfied for such a statement to hold are left unmet.

Can you prove that ALL Rationals are NOT dominant as on the left-side, as a home base that they fall back on, rest on, are mainly active on, but this DOES NOT mean that they DO NOT USE their right sides at all, only not as primary.

Can you prove that ALL Irrationals are nOT dominant as on the right-side, as a home base that they fall back on, rest on, are mainly active on, bt this DOES NOT mean that they DO NOT USE their left sides at all, only not as primary.

Can you prove that MOST Rationals are not dominant left-side?
Can you prove that MOST Irrationals are not dominant right-side?

Can you prove that only SOME Rationals are dominant left-side?
Can you prove that only SOME Irrationals are dominant right-side?

I see that you really need to go back and read my prior post, and read it again and again. Go to Rick's Socionics site and see what is said there about Irrational and Rational, and what the broader descriptives of each are. Please notice that there you will see that other functions in each type have Rational and Irrational pairings, and that I am correlating BrainTyping sort of info to the fact of BASE OPERATIONS coming from one aspect or the other, but not that they have no ability to be otherwise in other functions. It's that The Rational descriptives are set up to be part and parcel with each type that has that leading first function as Rational, as I wrote in my prior post to you. As well, the Irrational descriptives are set up to be part and parcel with each type that has that leading first function as Irrational.

Believe it if I say that these descriptives ARE exactly descriptive of the basicness of Rational=left, and Irrational=right.

They are, not on purpose per se, but Rational and Irrational correspond BEAUTIFULLY to Left and Right home base brain-typing. It's a basic framework, not the whole of you.

As for the rest of your post dealing with the matter stated above,

"Symbols are pictures, but they are consider information as the Left Side of the Brain would process. Left processing brings forth understanding of words diffently than Right processing brings for the understanding of pictures. "

This only has to do with how the image is analyzed, whereas I'm speaking of the neccessary direction in which information must be processed; one cannot process information without first apprehending it.

I suppose you can't get how right brain works since you aren't right brain dominant. Just try to access pictures, rememberances, look up, close your eyes and look up. Can you see clear or murky pictures on past events, movies, things you have ever seen or thought of, created in your mind?

For a right brain dominant it's that this is an open connection, and flexible and multi-tasking ... the images do use the left to interpret to some degree, but not fully, not always, but comprehension comes from pictures alone to a degree, it's not a clear ability to just Ni and Ni alone, it's not just that and it's ethereal in and of itself, further Te processing brings further clarification to what is seen in the mind, but it's not necessarily Te that brings overall comprehension. I mean, the Right Brain isn't dumb, just different, it's visual and spatially oriented info, and if you don't have a good use of it, you just don't.

You CAN work on it and sometime get better usage of it, but it's not for everyone, just as for me, fully Lefty thinking just isn't going to happen, but I do have partial usage of it in a high manner, and can use it better when I practice, but dominace is still default.

It can be that you are just too young to utelize what you can potentially do. You might need to get more experience in life, and experience much more to grasp the big picture. You can't see the Forest for the Trees.

[MysticSonic]

"They are, not on purpose per se, but Rational and Irrational correspond BEAUTIFULLY to Left and Right home base brain-typing. It's a basic framework, not the whole of you. "

Explain to me why Lenore Thompson(Rocky, I need commentary on this statement) has found via neurological studies for Ni to correspond with the left portion of the brain, and Ti to correspond with the right portion of the brain?

[MysticSonic]

"I suppose..."

What I'm saying is that one must first gather data before one can analyze it---I don't think you can argue with me on that.

[crazymaisy]

"I suppose..."

What I'm saying is that one must first gather data before one can analyze it---I don't think you can argue with me on that.

Oh yes I can argue with me on that ...

I don't "gather" per se, I CAN but don't HAVE to.

Also, "analyze" is something that is not exactly how one with the open percieving sort of leading first function happens. I will not be able to describe it with words adequately for you, I am certain. At this time it's moreso difficult to describe. I know what it is, but words aren't there.

So If I introspect on it a bit maybe I can come up with a simpler explanation that you can swallow.

[MysticSonic]

I'm using a broad definition of "analyze"---namely, I'm defining it as any sort of processes of any sort of data.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Rocky]

"They are, not on purpose per se, but Rational and Irrational correspond BEAUTIFULLY to Left and Right home base brain-typing. It's a basic framework, not the whole of you. "

Explain to me why Lenore Thompson(Rocky, I need commentary on this statement) has found via neurological studies for Ni to correspond with the left portion of the brain, and Ti to correspond with the right portion of the brain?

... Thompson uses the same model as Niednagel (the BrainTypes guy).

It seems that two things are going on there;

1) He (they?) have completely redefined the functions by the kinds of attitudes they found in people they've interviewed to the point of having the types line up 100% to socionics types (only with defining the functions differently).

2) He doesn't tell the whole story to smooth out the edges.


You can tell the second one because in his (Niednagel's) book he shows pictures of the brain hemispheres and different "functions" that could be related to Jungian functions. There are some of them that he doesn't discuss, however. For example, for perception, he claims that perceiving functions in the right brain are "visualization" and "spatial awearness" more towards the front part (loosely correlating to Ne and Se), and "body awearness" and "understanding symbol" more towards the back. These, of course, can also be products of Si and Ni like the other two were products of Ne and Se (though he doesn't talk about these functions). Interestingly enough, what he calls "left-brained perception" is "symantic processing" and "abstract categorization" in the back left (symantic processing is like reading). But there is no reason why these can't actually be "judgment" instead.

Also, he called Ti "right-brained" thinking, and I guess you could say that was only semi-right. He says that in most books about the brain you will find, it will say that logic is related to the left-brian. His justification for Ti being right-brained is, "damage in right parietal areas results in spatial reasoning deficits." In socionics, that could very well be having logic as a creative function. This is because we are not "slaves" to constant logic, but only apply it in small doses (so, turning it into more "spatial" reasoning as opposed to sequential reasoning).