Does Rationality/Irrationality exist in classical Socionics?

[The Ineffable]

I can't remember any strong evidence that Aushra and early Socionists used this naming - and concept - to differentiate j/p types. It was indeed sometimes used for convenience, but nowdays, many people - which I would not call Socionists - take them for granted and develop based on their meaning, in most of the cases fallaciously using Jung and Myers-Briggs writings as justification, different explanations.

Apparently, in Socionics, the corresponding dichotomy has a different naming and meaning, namely Schizotim/Cyclotim. Aushra, in one of her books, offered an explanation on how Schizothymia and Cyclothymia emerge from the dichotomies of the Information Aspects (Static/Dynamic, Extroverted/Introverted) depending on their positioning as Accepting/Producing. Aushra wrote black on white:

Why cyclothymia seem impulsive, and G. K. Jung even called it "irrational"?

Therefore they [skizotims] seem to be more stringent, resolute, rational, their movements are faster and more angular, sharper emotions and cold.

How shizotim easily, "rationally" changes its behavior and manifestations of emotions...
...

Additionally, the Information Elements/Aspects themselves are not even usually classified in Schizothymic/Cyclothymic - Rational/Irrational - Judging/Perceiving. They're simply eight aspects of information based on three fundamental dichotomies.
---

Now the imminent questions:
- is this really the case? Any other pro and contra evidence? (with sources)
- if yes, how did we get to use this bastardized version of Socionics?
- what can we do about it, are people willing to take on sources of information and their authors (socionics.com, wikisocion.org, socionics.us)
- how could we prevent such things happening again?

By "such things" I especially mean identifying and associating Socionics notions, concepts and explanations with their correspondents from Jung and other related Jungian theories, even if they fundamentally differ in meaning. Another example was using Jung's Objectivity/Subjectivity as an equivalent for Bodies/Fields (I think I noticed Rick and Gulenko using them, as a "more modern interpretation" of B/F), although they correspond, they're pretty much different things and by Aushra changing the naming, she changed the understanding in the respective types: the Socionics understanding.

[FDG]

If I remember correctly, in his "Psychological Types" Jung used the adjectives rational-irrational "predisposition" in relation to functions. He further specified that introverted rationality is radically different from extraverted rationality. So that's probably where the term comes from.

Even if Ashura might disagree, it's rather obvious that Socionics is based on Jung's masterpiece. Actually, if you read Jung, MBTI and Socionics, you will notice that Jung's and Socionics' definitions of functions are extremely similar, while MBTI departs from both.

[Jarno]

If I remember correctly, in his "Psychological Types" Jung used the adjectives rational-irrational "predisposition" in relation to functions.

He also explained that rational meant: including a judgement
and irrational meant: noticing without judgement.

[The Ineffable]

Even if Ashura might disagree, it's rather obvious that Socionics is based on Jung's masterpiece. Actually, if you read Jung, MBTI and Socionics, you will notice that Jung's and Socionics' definitions of functions are extremely similar, while MBTI departs from both.

Yes, I know, but this is the actual problem: Socionics is Socionics and Jung is Jung, fact. There are certainly similarities, but also differences. I think that to adopt Jung and anything else, these external notions must first of all fit in and be coherent, consistent with the Socionics understanding based on their explanation, to call it as "Socionics". This hasty generalization is fallacious, to take everything Jung said for granted as such (as Socionics) based on the idea that Socionics is pretty much faithful to the "masterpiece" - what happened in the Internet era of this field.

And this is not a matter of credit, FDG. No one denies that Socionics is based on Jung, but it is arguably much improved and certainly different to a large extent - for instance, unlike Jung, Socionics explains the types through information metabolism. Therefore, the explanation of what j/p mean, is radically different across the two systems, as seen in writings like "The Dual Nature of Man".

I don't know but will say it makes sense to use the rationality and irrationality dichotomies to exist as qualifiers for the IMs. It's kind of hard to think of the IMs without them or to think of Model A.

That's a habit, because we used this modified version. I'm contrasting the possible errors through misguidance of certain sources with the accuracy of the original ones. Maybe this is not even close to the best adivce to tell a Ti-PoLR, but if the true Model A doesn't include this dichotomy, we should get over it :|.
---

The point is that, as far as I can tell, we don't use the original Socionics dichotomy + meaning of the J/P; Aushra never warranted the explanations and naming conventions of Jung as drop-in substitutes for hers, but some people made these replacements later. What we call "Socionics" is not the one created by its author, neither fully compatible. Aushra often clarified the differences between Socionics and Jung, therefore any future gratuitous interchange between the two systems is unjustified. So, although they arguably refer to the same types, Schizotimic/Cyclotimic is not Rational/Irrational, not even formally, unless we find authentic evidence that Aushra changed her mind - very unlikely, as she often pointed out the differences.

Should we do something about it? What should we do? Who? - these are the questions. I expect some people to support this correction, while others to oppose it; I have no problem with either, but I think I should raise awareness on the problem - because neither I was aware of it since always.

[jughead]

Well what is irrationality and rationality?

[EyeSeeCold]

Well what is irrationality and rationality?

Taken from Psychological Types, By Carl Jung

10. Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types
I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental.

5. Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types
I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment.

.....

Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment.
~~~~~~~

In other words, Irrationality is accepting experiences and deferring classification and restriction while Rationality places a limit on experiences to emphasize on the organization and development of the information gained from the experiences.

[krieger]

ridiculous thread unworthy of further commentary.

[Jarno]

ridiculous thread unworthy of further commentary.

I remember that you posted a time ago, that introversion and extraversion did not really exist.

[krieger]

I remember that you posted a time ago, that introversion and extraversion did not really exist.

Wrong. I said it about Object/Field, which is a far more theoretical and less easily proven to be real dichotomy than Introvert/Extrovert (of types) and Rational/Irrational.

[717495]

Perceivers post why you would have an irrational function first and foremost. All XXXPs.

I leave things open, indecisive, don't really make strong decisions or plans, go with whatever comes, with the flow, unassuming, unsettled, an air of valued uncertainty and unconfidence in things, open-minded, rely on an inner perception of imagination, respect mystery and obscurity because it leaves things open and can't easily be judged, I have a supernatural disposition, I see things in many ways, I can change my mind, I can start over and take a fresh look, I am creative, and a characteristic trait of IPs is "I think and ponder and speculate alot without judging," EPs taking a more extroverted approach, etc. This dichotomy is detached from settling and judging.

You will hear all INxPs say the same things as to why they're perceivers and not judgers, they're describing an internal process of dominant perception, specifically intuition because its not based closely on concrete reality but abstraction. Judging isn't the dominant process but an aid.

MBTI actually has tons of people believing that INxPs are judgers because it's their "internal thought process." Yeah right, who agreed to that? They qualify as perceivers based on all those questions and type descriptions and have much less all around judging qualities than INxJs. Silly isn't it? Look at the difference between ENP and INP, two different types of intuition dominants. It's not that hard.

A number of Socionics sources also say that is a deciding, limiting, and settling function because it forecasts and tells you what's going to happen, or tells you the real truth. Again, this is not , its not a direct correlation with how perceivers are. They also say deals a lot with perception of structure and contemplative questioning of external or logical relationships, which really tends to have much less to do exactly with how ITJs operate and more relation to an overall intuitive and logical mental sense (a genuinely human mindset depending on what it's directed at), what one easily expects from any NT. Look at niffweed, expat, any Te or Ti NT type for instance, in fact look at a lot of Te/Fi valuers here, look at any type and you will get these kinds of thoughts from them. It's not indefinitely and isn't necessarily a dominant means of judging.

[The Ineffable]

Wrong. I said it about Object/Field, which is a far more theoretical and less easily proven to be real dichotomy than Introvert/Extrovert (of types) and Rational/Irrational.

Unfortunately, Aushra apparently said (automatic translation):

Theory aspects (aspektonika) - the foundation and the foundation of all other sections of Socionics. It introduces concepts and features used throughout science.

Consider the 3 pairs of categories:
1. internal - external
2. Statics - Dynamics
3. body - field

And that means that if you're right, you're not using Socionics - which is itself a theory of information metabolism - but most likely Jung. I have no idea how then you justify to yourself the other dichotomies specific to Socionics, without which they wouldn't even exist...

[717495]

Though what I do like about the description, when its not always speaking of some future-telling myth and decisive person, but it speaks of tracing the rhythm of life in its grander meaning, pondering time, memory, and ones detached imagination, meditation, no urgency, gazing internally at mental concepts and feeling internal images, the current of a whole other internal world and perception, with traces of it in the external, a knowledge and perception of abstractions that don't quite fit on the outside, versus which always meets with and effects the outside.

[Exodus]

Unfortunately, Aushra apparently said (automatic translation):

And that means that if you're right, you're not using Socionics - which is itself a theory of information metabolism - but most likely Jung. I have no idea how then you justify to yourself the other dichotomies specific to Socionics, without which they wouldn't even exist...

Why are you getting hung up on something Aushra said, and probably 30 years ago? The Jungian dichotomies are well established in socionics. It sounds to me like you're saying socionics has no concept of personality type, which is patently false.

[The Ineffable]

Why are you getting hung up on something Aushra said, and probably 30 years ago? The Jungian dichotomies are well established in socionics.

The same I can ask you: why are you getting hung up on something Jung said 90 years ago?

Jung's dichotomies were well established before the creation of Socionics, so Aushra and her group were pretty clear about what they adopted from Jung and what they explain differently. Do you have evidence that all the Russian socionists use Jung's explanation of Rational/Irrational instead of Aushra's Schizotim/Cyclotim? Who reintegrated them, when and why?

On the Russian sites, I keep finding the usage of Schizo/Cyclo based on information metabolism, listing Jung/Jungian as "other typologies". Researchers still use Aushra's writings, including "The Dual Nature of Man", as a reference. How can you convince me that that's not Socionics and it's obsolete, while this mix of IM, Jung and MBTI found on the Western websites is the real one? (edit: not only Western, there are also Russian)

It sounds to me like you're saying socionics has no concept of personality type, which is patently false.

Bullshit and off-topic.

[EyeSeeCold]

You will hear all INxPs say the same things as to why they're perceivers and not judgers, they're describing an internal process of dominant perception, specifically intuition because its not based closely on concrete reality but abstraction. Judging isn't the dominant process but an aid.

MBTI actually has tons of people believing that INxPs are judgers because it's their "internal thought process." Yeah right, who agreed to that? They qualify as perceivers based on all those questions and type descriptions and have much less all around judging qualities than INxJs. Silly isn't it? Look at the difference between ENP and INP, two different types of intuition dominants. It's not that hard.

Yes lol. Once you understand it's funny when you look back at it all. Determining P by Pe and J by Je is stupid. If the dominant function is the result of your programming then it should correspond with your temperament.

I'm Irrational because I don't care for constant planning and organization. I prefer the process of accumulation and experiencing, though I hold judgment until I am able to gain as much information as I can. I absorb informatin like a sponge without judging it, unless it blatantly offends one of my fundamental principles. My internal sense of being is filled with contradictions and uncertainty and I like my thoughts unstructured(my externalized thoughts, however, are a different story).

[The Ineffable]

Please use this link to find out some of the differences between Socionics and Jung - section "Erroneous hypothesis Young":
http://translate.google.com/translat...t.html&prev=_t

Besides the one I argued with people on the falsity of Introversion=Subject/Fields=/=Subject (point 1 in this link), the exact issue of this thread is addressed at point 5:

5. All functions Jung divided into rational, rational: thinking, emotions, and irrational, to perceive: feeling, intuition. When checking it appears that all the elements of MI, both rational and irrational, as the extra-and introtimnye and "perceive" and "talk", but some of these kinds of activity predominates, depends only on the occupied part of space in blocks of the Model A - ie, the function, operable element.

When our research proved that any first - acceptance - block element outweighs the perception, at any second - Reproductive - argument.

Each element receives and processes the specific information on their ways. The amount of information and the quality of its processing is due to function, or place an item in the model A.

[krieger]

Augusta was a crackpot; I never look to her as an authority on socionics. She is just way too weird for that.

Same goes for Jung to a large extent.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Meh, I don't see a problem with keeping Rational/Irrational. Easier to spell, for one.

[Exodus]

The same I can ask you: why are you getting hung up on something Jung said 90 years ago?

Jung's dichotomies were well established before the creation of Socionics, so Aushra and her group were pretty clear about what they adopted from Jung and what they explain differently. Do you have evidence that all the Russian socionists use Jung's explanation of Rational/Irrational instead of Aushra's Schizotim/Cyclotim? Who reintegrated them, when and why?

I usually don't find any need to read their works, when there is so much material and discussion available in English. Why not just make your own observations and come up with your own conclusions, rather than delving into the history of socionics? :shrugs:

I think I finally get what you're saying about the naming issue. IMO yes, all functions are capable of both accepting and evaluating information (pretty sure most socionists would agree on this point). But I couldn't care less about the name.

[The Ineffable]

I usually don't find any need to read their works, when there is so much material and discussion available in English. Why not just make your own observations and come up with your own conclusions, rather than delving into the history of socionics? :shrugs:

Oh, but it's IMO pretty important, because that's how you understand the whole idea. That's how you can tell whether Socionics makes sense or not, right?
If the available material is accurate, there's no problem, but this actual issue was raised exactly because most of the material that's available to us is apparently not authentic, a lot of material was omitted or modified along the way - usually replacing it with other sources, like Jung and MBTI, that as you can see, are considered flawed, erroneous or incomplete in Socionics, in more than few places.

I think it's good to make observations and make your own conclusions, but IMO you should consider:
- are your conclusions radically different from the ones in Socionics? For example, do you use from Jung what in Socionics is an error? Are there any inconsistencies between the two sides? Than no problem, just you're not using Socionics, but something else;
- say that you make improvements and great modifications. You will need to be a very objective and knowledgeable analyst to be able to decide what and why is wrong. You can't just say "that in Socionics is wrong because I read on the internet that it's the other way around/differently";
- maybe you want to pick only what's useful from Socionics. But why dismiss some things without even bother to research, maybe they reveal something very useful that you didn't know - this is very likely, as long as it was created as an improvement on the Jung/Jungian systems. Maybe you'll encounter difficulties that are already solved/explained using the Socionics model of IM. It is very likely that Socionics corrected errors that you may adopt again independently. Besides, many superficial things that someone can easily adopt are misunderstood without a deeper understanding - for example most people don't really know what Strong/Weak is, I often heard that Logical types are "good at both Ti and Te"; putting aside the fact that this is not the point of it, but how the type prefer and deal with different type of info, there are a lot of differences between Ego and Id that they don't consider, including the fact that the Id is considered "vital" while the Ego is "mental" - things that neither do I totally understand so I'm not sure whether I agree with it.

In all the cases, you need one quality: you have to have a deep understanding in Socionics. You can't be able to do any of the above without understanding what the authentic and true Socionics says, so there's no other way around anyway.

[Jarno]

Augusta was a crackpot; I never look to her as an authority on socionics. She is just way too weird for that.

Same goes for Jung to a large extent.

if they are both no authority on socionics, which person do you hold to be the authoroty on socionics than?

[krieger]

Why should I accept anyone's authority? I accept claims that I can verify from my own position from anyone no matter who including the two persons I mentioned. Authority is an entirely different matter.

[The Ineffable]

Why should I accept anyone's authority? I accept claims that I can verify from my own position from anyone no matter who including the two persons I mentioned. Authority is an entirely different matter.

But we're talking about Socionics, not your knowledge. He asked you on what do you base your claim that Aushra is no authority in Socionics. How do you decide who's this authority? How do you decide which is the "official" reference?

[krieger]

He asked me who I hold as an authority on socionics and the answer is no one.

[mu4]

Biologically, I think rationality and irrational is the first split in our central nervous system. Sensory input vs rational analysis. Intuition is a sort of re-sensing and logic being a sort of re-feeling as information is being re-analyzed in a deeper part of a cycle of information processing. Ultimately, we sense the world and we analyze the information our sense provide us but not all of us focus on the same part of the information cycle.

Irrationality is about "perception"
Rationality is about "judgement".

Looking at it from a information metabolism standpoint.

Irrational extraverted functions are information compression(Ne) and information expansion(Se) chambers.

Rational functions are information activation(Fe) and information utilization(Te) points.

Rationality and irrationality one of the fundamental dichotomies, in my mind more so then any other because of it's biological foundations and

[717495]

I think rationals because of their decisiveness are typically better fact checkers, because from my experience there is typically an overreaching instance of "ok checked this, this seems right, and this" and they go down the list in their mind so everything is first verified very well, so there tends to be much less reason to change their mind later. They're not always like that, some just rush into decisions and don't turn from them. The definition of rational is "there's always a point," so continually perceiving things and changing one's perspective is not going to help achieve this mindset.

Irrationals aren't necessarily bad fact-checkers, but they're more idea based and don't limit themselves and rush into making a verified decision, as though "here is a perception, and here is another perception. These are all different ideas, let's explore the ideas, since there is no urgency of certainty." I think a rational type without anyone knowing their intention can seem like an irrational type at first, because they want to explore in order to "get everything straight," but it later becomes clear they're not and rationality was their intention.