Se an irrational element?

[Aleksei]

From descriptions I've read, there appears to be a contradiction in terms here: Se-dominants are irrationals, and yet the definition of Se seems to fit the rational definition far better. ESTps and ESFps seem to be quite decisive, effective planners, organizers, and harsh leaders. I'm using these definitions: Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion

Rationals
(Also called shizotymes in early socionics literature)

1.Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.
2.Are more often rigid and stubborn.
3.Do not like to change their decisions.
4.Tend to finish what they started.
5.Usually have stiff movements.
6.Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.
7.Low stress tolerance.

Irrationals
(Also called cyclotymes in early socionics literature)

1.Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous.
2.Are more often flexible and tolerant.
3.Change their decisions frequently.
4.Tend to start new things without finishing them.
5.Usually have gentle movements.
6.Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.
7.High stress tolerance.

Extroverted sensing - Wikisocion

Extroverted sensing () is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.

includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required.

Types that value are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value . There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing ()-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".

Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.

I figure based on the contradiction, one must be wrong. Can anyone please discern this, or explain this to me?

[redbaron]

I guess I don't really see much contradiction here. You may be seeing a contradiction based on a faulty definition of Se. Se is not rigid or stiff. And the leadership style of SLE is not authoritarian. They also have a very high stress tolerance, at least all the ones I know.

[krieger]

I'm irrational according to that list. *shrug*

[Logos]

Se is an irrational element. It is simply part of the Socionics definition of irrationality. It uses a perceiving function, which are tautologically irrational, as opposed to the rational, judging functions.

The SLE and SEE fit with the irrational descriptions. There is no contradiction there at all. Being "quite decisive, effective planners, organizers, and harsh leaders" does not make one rational.

[Crispy]

Rationality/Irrationality is one of the hardest dichotomies to define, and wikisocion only did it half well. I'm surprised they didn't use Irrationals look at "what is" and Rationals look at "what should be" which is a much better, albeit still vague distinction.

[krieger]

I'm surprised they didn't use Irrationals look at "what is" and Rationals look at "what should be" which is a much better, albeit still vague distinction.

No, it's terrible. "What should be" has nothing to do with information metabolism. You can't pretend to create a system about the way a person structures and organizes information and suddenly involve the person's motivations or wishes in the explanations.

[Park]

fuck you

[JohnDo]

I'm irrational according to that list. *shrug*

That's what I always suspected. I still don't understand why you type yourself as rational. A mystery...

Rationality/Irrationality is one of the hardest dichotomies to define, and wikisocion only did it half well.

Wikisocion is not an author but a project. If you have a better definition - why don't you just correct the wikisocion article?

I'm surprised they didn't use Irrationals look at "what is" and Rationals look at "what should be" which is a much better, albeit still vague distinction.

The problem is, you can change wikisocion pages as you wish. Nobody cares if it is right or wrong, nobody would correct it if someone wrote complete nonsense there. So nobody should be surprised if he reads bogus on wikisocion...

The article half a year ago (before I changed it): Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion
That was even worse, wasn't it? "Perceives things as what they should be"?!? Ridiculous. The difference is just that rationals have higher expectations and some of them might even think that everything would happen as it should happen...

No, it's terrible. "What should be" has nothing to do with information metabolism. You can't pretend to create a system about the way a person structures and organizes information and suddenly involve the person's motivations or wishes in the explanations.

Socionics is not only about information. I can see nothing wrong in it when someone describes the types and dichotomies by behaviour or thoughts...

[krieger]

That's what I always suspected. I still don't understand why you type yourself as rational. A mystery...

Because socionics is an inconsistent mess when I don't, in which case I might as well litter the forum with more bullshit because everything else is of that variety anyway.

[jughead]

Desire. Is this desire constant or is it changing? The subjective intensity/enjoyability is not the same as willed desire, focusing yourself soley on one goal. However intesity/enjoyability feeds into desire and creates it. They are a loop of sorts, its just what way one gets into it. Se would obviously be more active and changing in striving for one goal while disregarding the enjoyment. Like a boxer per se yes? What a shit pun. Anyhow this is the stupid thing that needs clarification but no one says because they are too good or too stupid to say either way without dropping back into circular definitions.

[leckysupport]

I'm irrational according to that list. *shrug*

Are you the youngest child in your family by any chance?

[Beautiful sky]

I'm rational according to the list, but you have to consider that may be because I value Te; Beta rationals are more Se, spontaneous, impulsive, less routine. This is why I don't like this category system. The best way to do this is to divide by dual pairs and preferences...SLE/IEI pair and what they prefer...Se/Ni...etc.

[redbaron]

I'm rational according to the list, but you have to consider that may be because I value Te; Beta rationals are more Se, spontaneous, impulsive, less routine. This is why I don't like this category system. The best way to do this is to divide by dual pairs and preferences...SLE/IEI pair and what they prefer...Se/Ni...etc.

I like that idea.

[crazedrat]

There's no contradiction. Se behaves more like an irrational element described there.

[Beautiful sky]

Sure. How about Se rational valuers? So you now have Se and rational. Rational implies way too much preference for routine to also imply that you can be both rational and Se.

Rational -applies to Te, IMO
Irrational -applies to Se, IMO

other's don't apply like TiSe is semi rational. they prefer routine, but don't stick to it (I don't know, from observation, I couldn't even make that correlation).

[redbaron]

Sure. How about Se rational valuers? So you now have Se and rational. Rational implies way too much preference for routine to also imply that you can be both rational and Se.

well I think that when Se is valued along with Ti but Ti is valued more, as is the case with EIE/LSI, it ends up looking slightly different. Ti rules over Se in those instances and is tempered by it. This is why I don't think you can really look at Se by itself. I mean, you can but it comes across differently IN PEOPLE and in real life depending on what it's paired with in the ego block.

[Azeroffs]

The best definition of rationality versus irrationality imo, is the preference to come to a decision and stick with it versus keeping things undecided and open for change.

ESxps are decisive in a way that might be seen as rational, but the difference is that they aren't as likely to stick with the decisions they make. Like all EPs they have a direction they'd like to go, but they don't usually have the endurance to stick with it and will quickly change directions.

[Beautiful sky]

The best definition of rationality versus irrationality imo, is the preference to come to a decision and stick with it versus keeping things undecided and open for change.

ESxps are decisive in a way that might be seen as rational, but the difference is that they aren't as likely to stick with the decisions they make. Like all EPs they have a direction they'd like to go, but they don't usually have the endurance to stick with it and will quickly change directions.

I would agree because irrational element observes processes rather then conclusions.

[Azeroffs]

other's don't apply like TiSe is semi rational. they prefer routine, but don't stick to it (I don't know, from observation, I couldn't even make that correlation).

seriously? LSI is stereotypically the type the most fits in with rationality. Se isn't necessarily about spontaneity.

[Azeroffs]

I would agree because irrational element observes processes rather then conclusions.

not necessarily. A processes needs to be decided just as a conclusion needs to be.

[Beautiful sky]

seriously? LSI is stereotypically the type the most fits in with rationality. Se isn't necessarily about spontaneity.

Se is about spontanaity and impulsive action...not planned/schedualed () what do you mean it's not?

You should observe activity relations between LSE and IEE; they are planning more then acting..lol and that's what was observed that "E activity relations slow down" and I's speed up.

[Azeroffs]

Se is about spontanaity and impulsive action...not planned/schedualed () what do you mean it's not?

No, Se is about the perception of reality as is or explicit properties of reality. Ne is basically the perception of the hidden properties of reality.

Se may manifest into spontaneity because it's perceptions are obvious and easily decided upon and in the case of ESxps it often does, but with ISxjs it usually manifests as rigidity and self-assertion. I'm not sure why you think Ne has anything to do with planning.

[Azeroffs]

Also, I think irrationals usually subject their decision making to particular situations. If the situation changes, then their decisions likely will as well. Rationals would rather adjust the situation so they don't have change their mind.

[redbaron]

Also, I think irrationals usually subject their decision making to particular situations. If the situation changes, then their decisions likely will as well. Rationals would rather adjust the situation so they don't have change their mind.

oh yes.

[Morcheeba]

The best definition of rationality versus irrationality imo, is the preference to come to a decision and stick with it versus keeping things undecided and open for change.

I agree with this. It drives me kinda nuts when irrationals don't take me seriously when I have come to a decision. It seems like they are just too open to other situations and just letting things happen. Especially with IEI's; they are just like, oh let's see what happens, we don't need to make a decision yet. I usually want to smack them when they do this. I just need to know what direction I'm going into.

[redbaron]

I agree with this. It drives me kinda nuts when irrationals don't take me seriously when I have come to a decision. It seems like they are just too open to other situations and just letting things happen. Especially with IEI's; they are just like, oh let's see what happens, we don't need to make a decision yet. I usually want to smack them when they do this. I just need to know what direction I'm going into.

it's this type of thing that occasionally makes me wonder about the dual-type theory. Cause like I'm sometimes one way and sometimes the other way. There are certain things that I do want and need to make decisions about and other things that I like to leave completely wide open.

[Morcheeba]

it's this type of thing that occasionally makes me wonder about the dual-type theory. Cause like I'm sometimes one way and sometimes the other way. There are certain things that I do want and need to make decisions about and other things that I like to leave completely wide open.

Well, right. I'm sure if the situation calls for a decision, then any type would want to follow through and expect it to come to fruition.

[Azeroffs]

Also, I think irrationals usually subject their decision making to particular situations. If the situation changes, then their decisions likely will as well. Rationals would rather adjust the situation so they don't have change their mind.

tbh, I think this is more applicable than rationals try to stick with decisions and irrationals like to keep things open. As morch said, everyone needs to and does make decisions and tries to stick with them as long as the decision is applicable. Rationals will just try to keep the situation the same so that the decision doesn't have to be changed, while irrationals accept the change and adjust their decisions accordingly. I should also mention that the change can be external or internal.

[redbaron]

tbh, I think this is more applicable than rationals try to stick with decisions and irrationals like to keep things open. As morch said, everyone needs to and does make decisions and tries to stick with them as long as they can. Rationals will just try to keep the situation the same so that the decision doesn't have to be changed, while irrationals accept the change and adjust their decisions accordingly.

yes I have definitely noticed this.

[krieger]

I find myself firmly deciding I don't want to commit to a plan a lot.

I also assert decisions without being committed to them myself.

I am really ambiguous where J/P is concerned.

[FDG]

I find myself firmly deciding I don't want to commit to a plan a lot.

I also assert decisions without being committed to them myself.

I am really ambiguous where J/P is concerned.

Yeah, I also feel like that. Although, I tend to be much more commitment-oriented whenever another person is included in what I have decided - basically, when changing my decision might be problematic for the other party. Sensing and process are also traits which tend to give a certain "rational" vibe, in MBTI sense. Even an ESFp can be terribly dogmatic in his/her decisions when he/she has made his/her mind, even though those decisions will likely concern relatively short-term matters, so they won't constrain any future action.

[Beautiful sky]

No, Se is about the perception of reality as is or explicit properties of reality. Ne is basically the perception of the hidden properties of reality.

Se may manifest into spontaneity because it's perceptions are obvious and easily decided upon and in the case of ESxps it often does, but with ISxjs it usually manifests as rigidity and self-assertion. I'm not sure why you think Ne has anything to do with planning.

Got it. I think it was a misunderstanding...

The N and planning is an observation; most often it's with Ne types or Ne valuers.

[Skeptic]

Aren't Ni egos super duper planners? Not like strict plans they draw up and expect everyone to conform to, but plans reviewed in their head? It would make sense given that they are constantly described as going over a future-past timeline in their heads.

Also, I think we can discount maritsa's 'observations'. I don't see how a function that has to do with hidden possibility and options is inclined to extensively plan.

ANYWAY I don't agree with OP that there even is a contradiction. If there is, it's more imagined or interpreted than it is clear; the Se description essentially stated that Se types are knowledgable about how much force is necessary to achieve objects of desire. It's useful to note that 'objects of desire' are always changing and so are situations the Se ego finds itself in. I was under the impression that the Se ego can be very resourceful and flexible in the event that its goals change.

[Crispy]

The difference is just that rationals have higher expectations and some of them might even think that everything would happen as it should happen...

That's really all I meant, which is why I said mine was still vague. I might be able to pull out a better distinction from Filatova's book...

Uncertainty and Ambiguity make life difficult for Rationals because they cannot predict and plan under such circumstances, while for irrationals the state of ambiguity is their natural domain, and overly organized life is boring and depressing

This one is weird because it almost sound like making decisions vs keeping options open (strategic vs tactical?).

Another passage about rationality vs irrationality says something to the effect of rationals single task and irrationals multitask but that seems to be a (mis)copy of Process / Result.

To be honest I don't often spot irrationality/rationality in people I type until I work on deciphering information elements.

[Joy]

No information element is ever used alone. The rationality comes from either Fi or Ti.

[ilikesex]

Aren't Ni egos super duper planners? Not like strict plans they draw up and expect everyone to conform to, but plans reviewed in their head? It would make sense given that they are constantly described as going over a future-past timeline in their heads.

simple concept, but bestpost describing Ni in a VERY LONG time, this is so important and nobody understands it

[Joy]

Aren't Ni egos super duper planners? Not like strict plans they draw up and expect everyone to conform to, but plans reviewed in their head? It would make sense given that they are constantly described as going over a future-past timeline in their heads.

No. That sounds more like Ti to me. (Or Fi, depending on the type of thing they're focusing on?) I could see EJ types being a bit like this though? But I'd imagine it's more like they can see the flow of things and use it to develop their plans.

Not for Ni dominants at least. They have a strong concept of underlying cause and effect relationships, but they tend to underestimate their power over the flow of events that they see. It doesn't matter if they're thinking of the past, present, or future (though I'd imagine they're all sort of mixed together??? perhaps a Ni dominant can answer this).

[ilikesex]

No. That sounds more like Ti to me. (Or Fi, depending on the type of thing they're focusing on?) I could see EJ types being a bit like this though? But I'd imagine it's more like they can see the flow of things and use it to develop their plans.

Not for Ni dominants at least. They have a strong concept of underlying cause and effect relationships, but they tend to underestimate their power over the flow of events that they see. It doesn't matter if they're thinking of the past, present, or future (though I'd imagine they're all sort of mixed together??? perhaps a Ni dominant can answer this).

case in point, i know its joy though

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Technically, every function is irrational because each person supposedly processes these functions differently in their psyche, subjectively. There is nothing objective or rational about how somebody purely makes you feel. This theory is mainly based on interpersonal dynamics, not 'who you are.' It's how you exist in relation to others...

Reality clings to the relationship of things in order to exist. the first evil makes people self-destruct because it operates on the premises, that relationships are 'bad' (I'm talking about a pure thing) Until you are so much in your own world that you slit your wrists. Nothing is as 'pure' or raw to be an 'objective element', obviously.

I look at it this way, the lifeforms that asexually reproduce are always in a worse boat then hybrdization sexual reproduction because it fucks up their immune systems and doesn't balance them, one disease wipes out the whole line. In short, if you look at functions as 'rational' or 'objective' in that sense, you are treating functions like a virus, or a half-life. You are, hilariously enough, turning socionics into AIDS for your brain.

[Skeptic]

tbh I can't find a single function description that heavily relates Ni to planning. Like you say Ashton, Ni is very close with uncertainty of the future so a complicated plan may not mix well with something that expects the unexpected.

However, the timeline thing cannot be discounted in that way. Ni egos certainly explore the connections of actions to the future and would be quick to identify possible effects of an action, and that much is in almost every description.