Rationals vs Irrationals
Why is it said that irrationals are very flexible almost up to a fault?
And similarly why are rationals labeled as driven, supposedly able to stay committed to something almost up to a fault?
@Jack Oliver Aaron
#as well as any other serious socionics theorists what do you think?
I wouldn't quite describe it that way.Originally Posted by Soupman
The rationality/irrationality of a person is ordained by their leading function, so to understand how a rational type is different to an irrational person, we need to see how Logic and Ethics function differently to Sensation and Intuition (as well as what each pair has in common).
For every Ethical and Logical function, the information being metabolised is based on oughts and shoulds... Ethics tells us how people should feel, what I should do to express my feelings, what is good and what is bad, what I should not say to other people etc. Logic tells us the methodologies by which things ought to be done, whether something is correct or incorrect, what I am legally entitled to have, what should be of use.
For every Intuitive and Sensory function, we find a distinct absence of these oughts and shoulds. Instead we find affirmations of how things are and will be... This is happening now, this may happen later, we could do this etc. At the same time we have affirmations of our desires for things... I want this, this feels comfortable, that is interesting, I would like to go there.
As a result, we can now see how rational and irrational types fundamentally differ... The Rational type acts according to what he feels he should do... The irrational type pretty much just does what he wants given what he can do. When the irrational finds that the situation is different and that he might want something else, he will switch. The rational may (depending on his reasons) continue on the belief that he has not fulfilled his ought until he has finished his task.
You have asked this question before. It must be of some concern to you. I really pay very little attention to this trait. Where did you get this notion that rationals are driven and so on? Are you referring to Meyers Briggs Judging and P - ing?
I never notice this trait really. Perhaps I am blind to it. I think all of these traits are a bit situation based also.
Can you dig a little deeper into your difficulties with it, so somebody can attempt to give a satisfying answer? Why do you think it is problematical?
Socionics -
the16types.info
I agree with @Saberstorm; that sounds more like MBTI notions of J/P than Socionics. Not all Rationals are driven and focused. I'm a Rational yet fairly distractable, lazy as hell, and prone to dropping/switching personal projects at a whim. I originally rejected the idea of being a Rational because I couldn't see myself as one, and I didn't (and don't) fit IJ temperament descriptions, but I've come to realize that I do very much identify withbase, and that's the most important thing.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
In socionics, Aushra has irrational as cyclotyme and rational as shizotyme.
I like these terms better than others.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute.
I would check out this article, because it has some fairly unique thoughts on the topic of rationality/irrationality as pertaining to socionics.
Ausra uses brain hemisphere to explain it although that explanation is outdated. In her days, analytical thinking was left brain and creative thinking was right brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral...brain_function
However, modern research suggests this is not all there is.
@Saberstorm plus to an extent @Ryene Astraelis
Sergei Ganin uses that definition of the dichotomy and
generally various schools tend to have a similar definition to what I've described.
In studying socionics I'm now at the stage of rationally challenging all its claims in order to separate the wishy washy idealist crap from real knowledge that has objective basis with really good evidence behind it. Rationality is simiply the tip of a very huge iceberg of questions I have about the evidence behind the core theory itself. I'm also learning Russian and reading some of messier stuff; they treat it like a science and even offer degrees in it as you know.
I class MBTI in the same league as the less logically orientated socionics schools. I just ignore them for the most. However the interesting stuff is more to do with the logical schools who aren't as fond of each other nowadays as Gulenko has been stating that the TIMs definitions are continuing to diverge as difference logical models arise.
Talk to Yaaroslavl about that.
The trouble with your axonim there is that you define yourself as a measuring rod for what rationality can be. As opposed to starting with an impartial definition for what rationality or irrationality is objectively meant to be. This so that when you formally diagnose yourself or others through a respectable means like an interview. You can work from an impartial ''scientific'' blueprint that can objectively identify and classify real facts about your personality or anybody else's; your claims would have to be falsifiable.I agree with @Saberstorm; that sounds more like MBTI notions of J/P than Socionics. Not all Rationals are driven and focused. I'm a Rational yet fairly distractable, lazy as hell, and prone to dropping/switching personal projects at a whim. I originally rejected the idea of being a Rational because I couldn't see myself as one, and I didn't (and don't) fit IJ temperament descriptions, but I've come to realize that I do very much identify with
If you believe that socionics is logically FUBR then there is no point taking the perspective seriously since its core flaw is the assumption there exist a formal way of discerning rationally the claims it asserts.
Last edited by Soupman; 01-09-2014 at 08:42 PM.
I was typed EII by a practicing socionist (Rick DeLong) as the result of various videos, an interview, and further correspondence; he told me not to worry about the temperament not matching. (I later changed to ESI, obviously.) So no, this isn't just me spouting crap. And I am not setting myself up as the standard for all Rationals, merely stating that we clearly are not all as you say.
I don't believe it's entirely screwed up; I just find some aspects of it more importance and worth noting than others.If you believe that socionics is logically FUBR then there is no point taking the perspective seriously since its core flaw is my assumption there exist a formal way of discerning rationally the claims it asserts.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
This isn't a set of concepts that is easy to define or describe. Concepts such as intuition is not well understood in psychology or philosophy, intuition for a long time wasn't even taken seriously in psychology and philosophy.
Recently I have been studying intuition and I came upon this site, which actually coincides with a book I am reading.
http://artificial-intuition.com/
This is the site.
As far as the book.
This is the book.
http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Esc.../dp/0465026567
The ideas presented on the site is fairly good about intuition, and how it's implementation might be achieved artificially, as well as problems and pitfalls. I think his use of Artificial Intuition is mostlybut it's still a valid look at intuition in general and it's usage.
This site also deal with the problem of intuition vs logic, a subset of the classic problem of perception vs logos, and many variations of irrational vs rational. The problem is probably central problem of different modes of cognition. It's not trivial.
BTW from what I can tell of this project, it is likely a total failure. From even a glance at how it was approached, I can say it was dead endish from a exploratory standpoint and useless from a commercial one. However this doesn't mean the thoughts aren't a useful puzzle piece. And if they actually made something that work it might be usable. Also this individual in my opinion totally misread the book I talked about amongst other texts which she references.
YAAROSLAV
Y͝AAR҉Ơ5L̢AV
Y͟͏͠AA̸̧O͝R̷̨̀5̴L̷̷̕Á͘V̴͢͡
Y̧̋ͯ͛ͬͫ̓̋ͥ͘Â̡ͭͦ̽̐̄ͫ̔͘0̴́̔̆ͦ̅̈́͗ͦ̈́̀A̢ͬ̌̃R̡͛́̈̀̓̐̽҉̕ 5̒̀̈́̆ͬ͝1̶̛̌͂̓̇Lͧ̉͑̾̈́̉̃ͤV̛̈́̉4̽͊͆͌ͥ̓ͤ̓͏̕͜
V̸ͣ̇͋̽̍ͮͣ͂͠҉̟̬̰̦̹̼͎̯͕͇͎͉^̴̱̦̮͍ͦͥ͋ͬ̓ͧͨ̓̕̕0͊̽̆͊ͮ̓̓̍ͬ ͪ̚͏̸̵͍̙̺̤͔̳͢͡ͅA̵̸̧͉͍͎̪̘͚̘͚̯̟͂͑̍͊͆̃̋ͤ͐̉ͨ̂̋͑͛̇͘}̎̽ͭ͌ ̶̨̖̝͉͈̲͔͍̟̲̗̦͙ͤ͒̍̃ͨ̒̈́͘͜#̴̶̣̞͎ͥ̿ͦ͒̂̋ͮ͛ͪ̆̊̒ͬͯ̓̆̇́̚͢͢ ͚͍͔̯̩̘̳̮̟̫̘͖̟̖ͅ5̇̽̊̅̉͛ͥ̈́͌͋͏̷̪̪͙͈̞̰̮̞̬̫̪̮̪̩͘͢͜ͅ ͙]̡̑ͤ́͗̾̾̐̑͠҉̵͈̱̘̱̤͘ͅL̡̧̫̯̤̞̥̜̩̅̅̈́̌ͪ͑͒̇͛͒̉̋̒ͧͩͮ͗ͬͧ͘̕ ̮͈͔̜͇̙̥͚̹͎<̴̸͊̃͗͆ͫ̄ͭ͒͋̔ͧ̈ͭ̒̅ͯ̆̃̚҉̧̨͉̤̮̥̗4̋͛̏ͭ̽̋͋̇͡ ̟̫̦̭̹̲̹͟ͅ
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
You know never mind. Though one simple fact about Rick De Long, is that he finally woke up and realised his socionics theory was rubbish, he couldn't ''lie in his own bed'' if you get the expression. He is quite bitter now for obvious reasons. He comes from the less logical socionics school of thought and there are many of those. I'm not being insulting it's just the truth. Your diagnosis will be different depending on the socionics school of thought you employ, logical school have a higher probability of type convergence but that is never guaranteed.
Facebook habit sorry...
Did you put a hashtag as a way of starting a new sentence? This is seriously perplexing. I'm too distracted by this to focus on the content of your questions or this thread.
We are not professional socionics people here. That given, you ask very poorly thought out questions: It is as if you do not know what you are looking for. Could you brainstorm some thoughts on rationality and propose some issues to discuss about it? Yes, propose something thought provoking and see if our thoughts unveil anything worthwhile to pursue in greater depth. You are seeking depth, but you are asking strangely surface questions, Go deep to get deeper.
Socionics -
the16types.info
I'm an AI researcher btw and all I can say from a bit of a point of ignorance, her central idea is a bit rubbish and not even new. Prolog is a system already implemented that mimmicks the form of logic she is attempting to describe. The problem with classic AI generally is that the algorithms present don't take into account the chaos of reality seriously hence no wonder why they fail at seemingly ''real Inteligence''This isn't a set of concepts that is easy to define or describe. Concepts such as intuition is not well understood in psychologyI
ophy, intuition for a long time wasn't even taken seriously in psychology and philosophy.
Recently I have been studying intuition and I came upon this site, which actually coincides with a book I am reading.
http://artificial-intuition.com/
This is the site.
As far as the book.
This is the book.
http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Esc.../dp/0465026567
The ideas presented on the site is fairly good about intuition, and how it's implementation might be achieved artificially, as well as problems and pitfalls. I think his use of Artificial Intuition is mostly
This site also deal with the problem of intuition vs logic, a subset of the classic problem of perception vs logos, and many variations of irrational vs rational. The problem is probably central problem of different modes of cognition. It's not trivial.
BTW from what I can tell of this project, it is likely a total failure. From even a glance at how it was approached, I can say it was dead endish from a exploratory standpoint and useless from a commercial one. However this doesn't mean the thoughts aren't a useful puzzle piece. And if they actually made something that work it might be usable. Also this individual in my opinion totally misread the book I talked about amongst other texts which she references.
Last edited by Soupman; 12-10-2013 at 01:35 PM.
This is the part where our differences in cognitive styles might emerge, as a process type I start from the deceptively simple questions but there aren't simple at all if actually see past their illusion of shallowness.
And again this thread was aimed at aspiring socionics theorists if you aren't willing to take it as seriously as those who have it as a profession, my intention was not to bother you since you'd have been better of ignoring the thread.
Some times I wonder whether that is just a different in intelligence since the simplest questions deceptively hide a lot of complexity. Also I'm not sure whether this has all to do with my Enneatype where I constantly question everything. The simplest questions are always my favourite since I get to see them in so many numerous dimensions that there are far more intellectually stimulating than others might think.
Are Enneatype 5 LII interested in pondering such deceptively simple questions?
Grrrr....
Last edited by Saberstorm; 12-10-2013 at 10:46 AM.
Socionics -
the16types.info
My apologies for causing offense, but out of interest do start from complex ideas instead? Or do you just find my query boring and you wondering why I keep bringing it up, when its seems dead.
Last edited by Soupman; 12-10-2013 at 01:34 PM.
And you apparently consider Sergei Ganin to be an authority although he focuses on physical VI, writes tests based on overy-simplistic dichotomous concepts, and appears to be the one responsible for everyone's confusion/delusion about the j/p switch. We're even, then.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Socionics is evolving and the most interesting part of it is the difference various schools of thought have, irrespective on some ideas they have similarities but on others they are fundamentally in compatible. Ganin is logically orientated but a lot of his material is questionable, some are good other is bad, the VI Part is something I ignore completely and with his other stuff I have trouble descrening what might be truth and what might be rubbish since the two are often mixed. Sergei uses some of Gulenko's old ideas and some are good and others are not; his VI stuff is based on past work that Gulenko has now abandoned, but I'm sure you know that.
Right now I align most with Gulenko's new radical idea of the energomodel but nevertheless there are many questions that are raised and he is not the only one with good knowledge. The Socionics Scientific Research Institute is another good school, I like some of their ideas yet I find that they even have material contradicting gulenko which is all interesting as i actual test some of the ideasI'm learning.
Yea, but we're not talking AI here, but simply what rationality and irrationality is. In my particular example what Intuition is. There aren't many new ideas in the world, if Prolog mimmicks the implementation of intuition she is attempting to create that's a pro not a con in this discussion. However I'm not sure this is the case.
What is here is just someone who has made a clear differentiation between intuition and logic and place her flag in the house of intuition. I don't think you really read what she's writing because she's mostly talking about chaos and too complex scenarios and how to deal with it. As I said before, I think she made many mistakes and what she's written to be a misunderstanding of things, however this was not the point of my post but rather it shows the divide that people take on Irrationality vs Rationality. Why is that? Why does she go down here rabbit hole? Why do you go down yours?
So anyways, back to rationality and irrationality and your question. There are concepts and ideas about what rationality and irrationality are, having rationality or irrationality as the base function in socionics can have a lot of variation. Socionics descriptions are an attempt at a normative statement concerning various non-uniform topics.
So essentially your question in the beginning is "Why are these normative statements not always true?"
The answer would be, "Why do you expect them to be always true?"
You probably should ask another question.
P.S What AI are you researching and where?
I got the term from Gulenko actually, he has been talking about that recently as he was being attacked for his radical ideas, plus generally he stating that amongst, the logical schools TIM definition has even diverted and now you get arguments from socionics schools insulting each other about how their diagnostic methodology is flawed compared to theirs.
Sorry for beating around the bush there but to put it succinctly, the logically orientated schools create frameworks for both identifying and diagnosing Type Information Metabolisms, which can be challenged and are falsifiable. In this you'd have thought that TIMs would converge and for the most they tend to have a higher probability of converging which gets to a point where socionics can be treated more like a science.
However the trouble is that the instrument of falsifiability, humans, is a every difficult tool since people are very dynamic and thus difficult to classify. Gulenko has been stated recently that at times you get 2 ''logical'' schools typing the same person differently which leads them to insult each other's logic (were the biggest insult is to not call them logical at all lol). However the second option of challenging your socionics model it self, as opposed to insulting other schools logic, has landed Gulenko in trouble since he's got to a point where he is challenging sacred socionics cows like model-a, he is disliked more by other schools as his new theory turns their diagnosis and general understanding upsidedown.
Post
Last edited by Soupman; 12-10-2013 at 04:50 PM.
I would like to know what frameworks are out there for identifying and diagnosing TIM. It would be interesting to do a meta-analysis of the various schools.
http://socionics.kiev.ua/article/energ_model/
This is his Gulenko's energ_model right? It seems he has grouped cautious/bold functions together(aka E/I functions) and put them in two separate transformation rights. So is his typing methodology starting from E/I method?
Currently toying with other means of utilizing support vector machines, but as well as every other AI enthusiast out there the trouble I have is trying to be realistic yet adventurous. Recently I was talking to a professor who's to say that the field can break people when the ideas they've slaved for years refuse to work.
I think anyone building an AI and trying to make a human AI is better off thinking about AI and thought experimenting how the mind works. The caveat is unless you're getting paid a lot of money to do it, then make the $$$.
What I see happening is pretty good as the various algorithms are perfected, although I can imagine how disheartening it is for most AI researchers. IME, there's a lot of lego blocks of the mind being built and once the algorithms are built up there will need to be some assembly required.
I figure the advancement is going to come from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_intelligent_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.I._Systems_Integration
IMO you should read someone like if you haven't already, this is a LII
http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6del-Esc.../dp/0465026567
The idea of perfection is something I've become much more increasingly worried about since I'm finding that all algorithms have volatile strengths and weaknesses, on one test case they seem awesome, but at times change the variables slightly and it looks retarded. Machine learning performs very well for static cases especially but the more dynamic the problem space gets, the less accurate it becomes. Its irritatingly chaotic, hopefully I can get lucky also the recession has meant funders are tightening their belts which sucks but what can you do
I guess what I mean by perfect, is perfect for it's use case. And I certainly don't expect total perfection to occur. I don't understand the nitty gritty of most algorithms so I can't comment on machine learning.
I'm a engineer by trade so I sort of just place my trust in the tools I use and only attempt to understand them at a API/tools level. One has to make sacrifices like this imo to integrate as one can't know everything.
What engineering discipline are you in? Out of interest have you done low level programming?
I do software, and I have never done low level programming professionally. I much prefer high level programming because I'm not very interested in the specifics of some architecture. I'm more interested in modelling and accurately representing a problem domain.
Also what do you mean by low level programming? C or Assembler?
The right tool for AI programming might actually be Java or C# at the moment at least for hybrid systems.
I'm talking C and Assembler, hardcore programming, for example in compiler and most hardcore of all, operating systems development where you go down on the computer. If feels good to learn it, but its a challenge for the pure passion of programming if you go through it without a humble mindset, being impatient it will tear you down.
You know I like the idea of learning something new in it but progress something difficult
https://www.archlinux.org
http://wiki.osdev.org/Main_Page
Yea, I'm not really interested in things like this anymore, although I don't consider C a low level language or even very hard core.
Anyways what do you know about Gulenko's new model because I'm interested.
It all depends with what you are using C for really, if you are coding Operating Systems, its a different beast since you then begin to realize that when you are in ''user-space'', you take a lot of things for granted. From what I've been reading from that level you tend to see as a shortcut to help you stop writing repetitious assembly instructions. Despite that you would still need to understand your compiler and OS architecture well enough so as to know where the language is actually destructive to your design. You know I'm still newbie with regards to real industry software development maybe its the reason why I still have such unbridled optimism
It depends on what you're doing. Sometimes it just doesn't matter or you're relying on the compiler makers to optimize things, other times your brain is just full of other stuff.
High level languages distance you from the operating system and hardware and for a very good reason, because you really want to think about the problem the program is trying to solve, it's not really "user" space so much as domain concerns. Users aren't really necessary. Also you want your stuff to run on multiple platforms, the domain doesn't change but the CPU/OS/Architecture change, you wouldn't write in a low level language if portability is the primary concern.
What I was trying to say was C and C++ forte is low-level_programming in a high-level language, its very important to understand computer architecture in that regards for example when coding on Sony's hellish architecture that was the PS3, you have to know that basic C++ language constructs don't work properly as you could expect. To improve performance Sony implemented various types of ''if statements'' that had to be correctly used to gain performance since for its architecture generic language constructs weren't efficient. For example if you are running an ''if statement'' that you expect to be true, you should not use the standard form of the function since its computationally expensive due to the assembly instructions giving an equal weighting of the viable potential routes that can occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-lev...evel_languages
Sony learned from that mistake.. ^_^
programmers once considered assembly a high level language, being a set of human-readable instructions mapped to machine code... which proves how old school the old school really was.
I actually know someone who programmed in machine code as part of his job when writing applications that required extreme optimization.
I've always dumbed it down to:
rationals are most mobile during stability
irrationals are most mobile during chaos
Perfect<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Loops and Tings
Ambivert / Aggressor / Trailblazer / Nomad / Alpha Caretaker / Free Spirit / Kevlar Speed Demon / Ninja
hmm,
Type A vs Type B?
Perfect<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Loops and Tings
Ambivert / Aggressor / Trailblazer / Nomad / Alpha Caretaker / Free Spirit / Kevlar Speed Demon / Ninja
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
