the rational/irrational dichotomy

[chemical]

I believe this dichotomy is both important and very confusing.The reason it is confusing is the apparent truth that we all must both perceive and reason, and thus, any question of emphasis on one or the other within a psyche requires some subtlety in delineating.

Lytov, from the socionics world, in my view correctly states that Jung did not distinguish very precisely these types. However, I am unsure of his subsequent claim that Jung de-emphasized the difference, even if some of his followers do. His original presentation seemed to markedly emphasize the incomprehensibility of the rational types to the irrational types and vice versa, so even if the precise reasons for this were not clear, the view is clear.

In any case, I find that the inherent dialogue between reason and perception makes it hard to really write down what a type favoring one or the other is.

One approach seems to associate the traits of perception to the traits of the so-called perception types: e.g. perception happens spontaneously, and irrational types are said to be spontaneous/flexible.

Where things get hazy to me is e.g. this sort of distinction:

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.

Note that this is one source, and Lytov's intro on rational/irrational bears a similar flavor.

My problem is all these traits are totally extrapolated from the actual process of reasoning and perceiving, without being inherent to the processes themselves. That is, there are flexible reasoners, who modify their judgment as and when new stuff comes in or, in fact, they may just keep adding more clauses, axioms, etc to create a bigger and bigger system of reasoning.

I want to know what causes an irrational type to change his decisions frequently for instance. Why can an intuitive apprehension not result in a decision which essentially won't change? Spontaneity of perception is a truth, in fact, firmly separating it from judgment which tends to be deliberated.
But just because the IE arises spontaneously and one's responses to it are spontaneous doesn't mean one isn't likely to be sure of the decision itself. It's just that as time passes, more spontaneous insights come in, and one does not ignore them.
But who said one tries to account for those in the decision itself: if the decision concerns the momentary spontaneous insight, then it should be good relative to that, and not concerned with any other spontaneous insight, meaning, the decisions will tend to correspond to the content with which they are associated. Maybe a decision based greatly on reason is invariant of the spontaneous, but that doesn't make it to me any more or less likely to be changed. Spontaneous does not mean whimsical: whimsicality is more a function of undirectedness, and the whole point of all this subtlety is that even perceptive activity, to become the leading, must be directed, even if one tends to see reason as the more directed activity.

As for whether one would change one's view or not, well whether deliberated/rationally produced or not, information which overrides prior conclusion or perception not being taken into account is, well, foolhardy? It's so because we must respond to information in accordance with its integrity; otherwise, why claim to process the information at all?

All this stuff reeks of the Myers-Briggs J/P and to me doesn't get at what rational/irrational really is about, and what's more, as many flaws as the Myers-Briggs use of J/P has, to be honest it's a good piece of evidence to me that one can have a J-like exterior with a perceiving information type (I just don't think the formulaic conclusions of MBTI are always true or even expected). An example of what it really is about to me might be seen for instance with sensation functioning: the irrational factor tells us simply what "is". Thus, as much as one has a rational standard for assessing things, tuning into what simply is becomes essential (think for instance socionics Si -- you can come up with all sorts of ethical/emotional values concerning Si content, but at the end of the day, noting Si information is noting it, and navigating the raw physical sphere and tuning into the inner perceptions associated with it is its own thing).

I agree things like structured/unstructured are legitimate things. But I think irrational/rational is more along the lines of empirical vs reason-based. Some obsessive empirical types may present their findings very methodically, others less so, but key is the experience and empirical foundation are things they do not lose touch with.

So for instance, how does the rational type decide to let someone off the hook vs be rigid? I'd say there must be a reason relative to their system for everything. They may be rigid or not about rules depending on temperament; the question is can they justify relative to a rational norm their decision either way. The intuitive type may instead consult an intuition to decide either way.

To be clear, I do agree that the irrational types are spontaneous, because in so much as their ego-consciousness displays an orientation by irrationality, whose information is transmitted spontaneously, you can expect the person will conform to their preferred information mode.

Discussion-wise I would like your thoughts on what you find to be the heart of this dichotomy in the various IE pairings in the ego block. That is, in particular pairings you feel you understand deeply. Yes, this is the contrived, overdone question of "ESE or SEI?! EIE or IEI?" etc.

[Saberstorm]

Look at it from a standpoint of inter type relations.

Rationals are more efficient with other rationals concerning questions of tempo and direction:

Irrationals are more efficient with other irrationals on these issues.

When rationals and irrationals mix, there is a conflict over tempo and direction. When asked to decide tempo or direction with another, ask yourself if it is easy to effect change on those issues. I find it is essentially impossible to move an irrational to action without it being in relation to an condition which I would consider merely epiphenomenal. How do you motivate others is empirical. Look at creating change to see this dichotomy in action.

[Iris]

I was trying to read the OP but started glazing over (it's not you, @chemical, it's me.) But never fear, @Saberstorm perfectly cut to the essence of experiencing the rational/irrational dichotomy.

[chemical]

I find it is essentially impossible to move an irrational to action without it being in relation to an condition which I would consider merely epiphenomenal.

It would be interesting to hear a bit more about this. As you are Robespierre, perhaps in the case of your experience with ILE.
Is the basic idea of rationality looking for the root principles which experienced phenomena derive from what is at work here? Reason is able to average across experiences to attempt to discover what is primary and what is the derivative?

If you were to posit a characterization of rational and irrational types that is a priori not dependent on empirical clues from intertype, but shows itself fairly transparently in intertype, how would you characterize them?

[chemical]

I was trying to read the OP but started glazing over (it's not you, @chemical, it's me.) But never fear, @Saberstorm perfectly cut to the essence of experiencing the rational/irrational dichotomy.

It does seem a good thing to look at; the main thing I am still looking to glean (as in above post) is a fundamental characterization of these types. Note that I know of a fundamental characterization of reason and perception, or of many, and this is in fact a topic one can debate endlessly, but there is "some" definition with certain general properties that bear similarities enough that I am willing to ask the follow-up question of what goes into these modes of processing turning into types.

That is, what is the psychological tension between the two?

The OP is definitely a dump of a lot of junk. I am perfectly willing to clarify any of it, as the content is more thought out than the presentation by far.

If we look at common descriptions of irrational types, you might get that they are more scattered or whatever in their ideas. But the thing is scatteredness is just a way of processing -- eventually if you reason, you want to reach a coherent conclusion. I see there being a deeper psychological tension between the concept of subservience to reason vs e.g. let's take a Jung quote

The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather by what just happens

meaning, the intensity of spontaneous experience is what guides the irrational type (in this case, the subjective factor of sensation).

Note that I am aware, again, Jung=/=socionics but rational/irrational is a Jungian dichotomy, thus any change that were made to it require some foundation level justification for me personally.

If I had to pose an answer to the question I gave to Saberstorm, it would start off by noting that experience is a constant factor, like I said, which reason generally can only average across. One might see the tension between someone who builds models and someone who uses them only as general guidelines but views their averaging effect as too removed from the experience to constitute a sufficient response to it. A sensation-leading type with secondary feeling differs from the reverse in some simple instances, such as the reason for an outburst in the irrational type may be in accordance with the flux of inner processes (giving expression to them), rather than averaged standards, so while the rational type wonders why the outburst even happened. (Note that this example is strictly illustrative and not at all a necessary occurrence, in fact the roles of the irrational/rational could be reversed with an alternate point of view on the scenario.)

This doesn't exactly mean following spontaneous insight need be a response to the moment at the exclusion of foresight of course, as an intuition can be a spontaneous perception involving where things are heading and their intangible nature. Plus, thoroughly socionics-ified, the static/dynamic interplays here too, and my intent isn't to get into that as of now.

[Saberstorm]

I would say that my quasi-identical (ILI) is a better starting point.

He views the world inductively, forecasting trends, thinking in terms of entropy. This is process + objective logical + subjective intuition. The subjective intuition is combined with the irrationality, which makes him prone to subjectively ignoring the opportunities to create novelty. They are like a sailboat, they go where the wind blows. They take action in tandem with a power center like a large established institute (a source of strong Se) and their actions tend to be about the defense of power against an upstart.

An LII is obsessed with novel ideas (objective intuition) and is deductive about it (result) using a dominate subjective logic. The dominate subjective logic is a rational function, it automatically establishes a direction and dissects the idea for eventual utilization. The utilization of the innovation is connected to a social change (Fe) which is strongly sought after. They are not seeking to defend a power center, but are seeking to create acclaim, provoke charming conversations, establish social inclusion, or get everybody excited. They are looking for an exciting future. They are thus an upstart.

The rational LII wants to create and refine new ideas, the irrational ILI wants to forecast the erosion of the power of a valued ally. The ILI will act when entropy (a historical force) harms the valued power source, the LII acts independent of historical forces and rationally seeks to give direction to a torrent of disruptive innovations.

It is a frustrating collision.

When looking at my mirror, read any of hkkmr's posts on politics. The ile seeks to establish through his creative Ti a subjective systematization of ideas, which are etiological in nature, guided by the dominate objective intuition which webs all things together as potentials and hypotheticals. Because he exists in a world of hypotheticals which are seen as real (etiology which is process) he cares less about giving it direction. These mirrors mutually share SI and lack Se - so they simply talk about ideas, and neither act on them. There really is no collision between them. Mirrors workshop ideas together and they do not have an interest in action. The valued Se of the ILI provokes the LII to pitch proposals to him, which end in very little cooperation.

[Pookie]

When i read descriptions i liken it to eating chicken: Rip the meat off the bones and throw the uneatable bullshit in the trash.

From my experience, Rationals rarely have that moment of silence in their head and when they do it's viewed as a good thing. Irrationals have those blank moments more, and it's almost like, man i wasnt even thinking; i dont like how that feels.

[chemical]

When i read descriptions i liken it to eating chicken: Rip the meat off the bones and throw the uneatable bullshit in the trash.

I try to extrapolate what went behind the description, and what is the real essential concept being presented, amidst the colorful portrayals, revealing the point of view of the author, and then mesh it among the web of possible systematizations I see of the underlying ideas.

[chemical]

Saberstorm, I think I am starting to see how you see LII in relation to ILI and ILE. You see reason as taking the LII away from a perpetual world of hypotheticals of the ILE, towards a definite direction which is influenced by the demands of Fe-seeking. Whereas, ILI you seem to see as more reactive than direction-providing, for instance your reference to historical trends should likely be ILI's Ni noting intangible trends including entropic ones which are constantly at work and changing the course of things, and thus to be responded to by constant spontaneous observation.

Your examples definitely seem to use the result/process idea integrally, for instance referencing negative Ni in ILI as forecasting trends which promise disruption in relation to positive Se.
Similarly, you reference the ILE being stuck in hypotheticals due to +Ne base, meaning, the pursuit of these becomes the foundation of the cognition.

Some questions:

They are like a sailboat, they go where the wind blows

This seems to be where you reference ILI's irrationality directly, and build later; I am wondering if you can expand what you mean about "where the wind blows"; I've seen this "go with where things take you" vs "be more directive" idea over and over, and I'd like to understand where the true tension there is.

For instance, entropy is indeed a potential issue, and one can attempt to understand what can and can't be done/said in its presence, whether or not one inherently understands what it is. From a certain point of view, this could be a rational or irrational approach I guess.

[chemical]

OK I think given the direction I took all this, let me make it a bit clearer what it is my confusion is on: I believe there is a distinction between some concept playing out in typology and just existing. A concept called rational/irrational exists.

However, to become a typological concept, it must necessarily be related to a psychological tension.
Jung gave one version of rational/irrational. Roughly, the content of this is that there is a certain aspect to observational/experiential knowledge which is not against reason, but which is not of reason. This could be the difference between direct apprehension and explanation, but could also be that certain facts are taken to be fundamental, in any rationalization which attempts to relate them to one another, essentially the idea being that the rationalization is founded in experience somehow, and if it could exist devoid of that experience, it is uncertain what it is pointing to (now I think of it, this is probably where different views of science/physics come in, on the observational level rather than the rational level). It's not so much that you are changing the axioms, even though it can be made to seem that way, but rather what observations are taken to be elementary. Again this is not so much a matter of convention as it is that one notes a definite experiential factor and the theory must be built with that factor considered basic else there is nothing to talk of.

To Jung, then, the heart of the psychological tension was that there is a definiteness to interacting directly with this experiential factor as the dominant adaptation mode, and this being prioritized in favor of reason led to a certain peculiarity, whereby the intensity of the experience is its own guiding point, and fails to subscribe to that of reason. You could relate this to socionics in that such a type would view a certain rational IE in the superego block as the polr, finding it overbearing.

This to me is decidedly not equivalent to Myers-Briggs, whose idea is much more about so-called "decidedness" vs "spontaneity" which she turns into character traits, which admittedly is not entirely off the mark because a crowning feature of how perception occurs cognitively is spontaneity, but then turning this entirely away from abstract cognition and into a character trait plus the focus on the extraverted orientation of these two.

Socionics literature on this is hard for me to compare/contrast with the 2 above because I find myself unclear on what is the prevalent view on what the heart of this pair's relation to the socionics system in specific happens to be. And that is where I want thoughts mainly - the compare/contrast preferably with Jung's views, in relation to what the dichotomy contributes to the socionics system.
It is entirely appropriate as saberstorm has done, thus, to point to the intertype. I just think someone with a foundation-level doubt like me might need to hear more on what the position is on the relevance to intertype before I'd get it in full. If unwilling to supply further of course, I'll try to sort this out myself and hopefully contribute what my understanding is eventually.

The portrayal of rationals as much more rigid characters is a bit hard for me to stomach, and it makes me wonder why that is seen as at the heart of this topic.

[Soupman]

Interesting topic, why not talk to Soupman,

[Soupman]

This topic is as muddled as hell but the hard thing is that there is truth to it, something is just different about rationals and irrationals.
Amongst the questions I've been asking myself are:

Why and how exactly is rationality and irrationality linked to logic/ethics and intuition/sensoring respectively?
Why is reasoning attributed to logic and ethics?
What exact concrete evidence can be used to falsify claims about the dichotomy?

As a supposed INTP ILI, I wonder ?
Why is it said that intuition of time, is about trends and prediction?
Why is reasoning, analysis, understanding and knowledge construction a non dominant entity in irrationals?
Why is it that the quadra values for Gamma quadra are so absurd? Power, Morality, Time and Profit, whilst alphas have Pleasure Emotionality Creativity and Understanding?

If you can read russian via machine translation, Gulenko's page is interesting nevertheless his ideas do not address the issues I've posed
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Гуман...31906516864613

[chemical]

Why is reasoning attributed to logic and ethics?

I can only say this seems to be because a) logic is generally the formal framework for a lot of claims of reason but b) ethics is also about establishing a reasonable outcome, specifically, but its reasoning is not necessarily going to fit within the realm of pure logic.

Why is it said that intuition of time, is about trends and prediction?

I can tell you that it has occurred to me the Ni vs Si distinction in socionics seems to be different from the original presentation. Si in socionics seems very expressly tied to physical information, whereas the original idea of it seems to be more along the lines of transmitted from a definite physical origin, but where the insights acquired are not tied to the physical, and could be very mental in nature. Hence, both could have been about trends/prediction.

Essentially Si is not portrayed as an abstract information processing element in socionics, so any conceptual time-oriented trends (time-orientation comes from Ni being dynamic intuition) are relegated to Ni, the conceptuality necessitating not S and the time-orientation necessitating dynamic.

As for your comment on quadra values, let me just say I firmly believe quadra values must be forced to conform more with the actual information elements, rather than derivatives. I think ultimately Se = power does not do it for me either. Se is kinetic energy processing, meaning the perception of direction of kinetic energy flow. It's linked to power I suppose because power gives you the ability to mobilize things, but I think frankly anybody can analyze power scenarios and be fascinated by them. Power can be in many forms - why must it be a static IE that deals with it? After all, the ability to forecast trends is a kind of power. Se rightfully contrasts with Ne because seeking all the potential energy of a situation lies contrasting to the attitude of how to set it in motion.

I suppose what makes the quadras tick is not just the IE but what they are blocked with. Alpha and gamma are parallel in that sense because they get the NT and SF types. This is to say ethics tends to be related to concrete/actual/sensory information as opposed to conceptual/essence/intuitive information. With gamma Fi is about more or less stable, universal properties of relations paired with the mobilization of Se, meaning how do these essential qualities of the relations promise to interact with mobilization needs - how do they set us in motion? With alpha the reason Si gets associated with pleasure is probably Si+Fe paired, rather than Si being inherently pleasure-based, as in delta Si+Te seems to be more about concrete functionality, whereas here it is concreteness/actuality paired with emotional ethics.

Thanks for the link.

[Soupman]

I can only say this seems to be because a) logic is generally the formal framework for a lot of claims of reason but b) ethics is also about establishing a reasonable outcome, specifically, but its reasoning is not necessarily going to fit within the realm of pure logic.

Again when you actually start seeking evidence to challenge and falsify such claims, the analysis is found lacking. By that Ne, Ni, Si and Se expressions are not bound by reason, it posses further questions regarding the exact meaning meaning of irrationality orientation. People have been quick to attach the tandem theory that logic/ethics operates with intuition/sensing but the model for explaining that is not well thought out. Expressions not based on reason do not make any sense.

I can tell you that it has occurred to me the Ni vs Si distinction in socionics seems to be different from the original presentation. Si in socionics seems very expressly tied to physical information, whereas the original idea of it seems to be more along the lines of transmitted from a definite physical origin, but where the insights acquired are not tied to the physical, and could be very mental in nature. Hence, both could have been about trends/prediction.

Essentially Si is not portrayed as an abstract information processing element in socionics, so any conceptual time-oriented trends (time-orientation comes from Ni being dynamic intuition) are relegated to Ni, the conceptuality necessitating not S and the time-orientation necessitating dynamic.

The question of raw evidence is the biggest problem at the heart of socionics, those axioms that are accepted on faith are the fundamental reason why the theory remains stuck in the psuedo science territory. Concepts like dynamic and static are inherently liable for critique. The overall problem is the semantic/expression that ''in socionics... (make claim X)'', it removes the need to seek evidence for falsifying claims; it ruins the quest for scientific validity that is desperately sort for by the field.

What is exactly abstract/concrete... information? What is the method for falsifying that such an entity exist even?

As for your comment on quadra values, let me just say I firmly believe quadra values must be forced to conform more with the actual information elements, rather than derivatives. I think ultimately Se = power does not do it for me either. Se is kinetic energy processing, meaning the perception of direction of kinetic energy flow. It's linked to power I suppose because power gives you the ability to mobilize things, but I think frankly anybody can analyze power scenarios and be fascinated by them. Power can be in many forms - why must it be a static IE that deals with it? After all, the ability to forecast trends is a kind of power. Se rightfully contrasts with Ne because seeking all the potential energy of a situation lies contrasting to the attitude of how to set it in motion.

I suppose what makes the quadras tick is not just the IE but what they are blocked with. Alpha and gamma are parallel in that sense because they get the NT and SF types. This is to say ethics tends to be related to concrete/actual/sensory information as opposed to conceptual/essence/intuitive information. With gamma Fi is about more or less stable, universal properties of relations paired with the mobilization of Se, meaning how do these essential qualities of the relations promise to interact with mobilization needs - how do they set us in motion? With alpha the reason Si gets associated with pleasure is probably Si+Fe paired, rather than Si being inherently pleasure-based, as in delta Si+Te seems to be more about concrete functionality, whereas here it is concreteness/actuality paired with emotional ethics.

Thanks for the link.

When presenting any axiom, it should be accompanied by evidence that can be used to falsify it. Additionally besides objectivity the other element is analyzing the consistency, forming a basis structuring, why does it make sense to conclude that some people have an intellectual perspective explicitly dedicated to assessing kinetic energy? A holistic theory arguing that perspective must be constructed with arguments for why reality exists like that,

How must an idea that kinectic energy exists be formed? You must analyse the various perspective that different people have with regards to that idea so you can prepare the groundwork for establishing a reasonable theory that could be tested by another researcher.

The distinction between abstract and concrete information is an interesting topic, the standard definition does not make much sense when you actually analyse how people who maybe be labeled sensors reason.

[chemical]

Expressions not based on reason do not make any sense.

Yes, so if you are talking of the irrational/rational dichotomy being hard to decipher the validity of, as well as assuming validity, the right meaning of, I totally agree with this point and it's definitely one of the main ones in mind when creating this thread.

That is, I think it is underestimated just how nonsensical it is in a sense to say someone is oriented by perception at the exclusion of reason: it's almost easier perhaps to imagine the opposite. Might I add, interestingly, that Jung originally conceived of just two types, and these were the introverts and extraverts, and then the representatives he chose for these are supposedly what became the introverted thinking type and the extraverted feeling type. But when he published Psychological Types, he included the other two types (irrational types).

The issue is he presented them from a standpoint which quite clearly revealed that he thought alike to your quote here, namely he viewed himself as of the rational type, and saw the irrational data which seems outside the realm of reason to be quite strange. indeed, qualities like "guided by what just happens" were hallmarks of what described his irrational types.
Which led to the spontaneous vs deliberated dichotomy.

The distinction between abstract and concrete information is an interesting topic, the standard definition does not make much sense when you actually analyse how people who maybe be labeled sensors reason

What do you see as the standard definition?

With such things, the way I see it, it evokes some image in mind of the intended meaning but this is unclear until one chooses the context.
With socionics, N/S including this distinction in most descriptions tends to evoke mostly the difference between physical and not. E.g. Se actually notes the properties of objects having to do with their intrinsic motion in some sphere, whereas Ne must sort of be inferred, thus is not such a tangible property. This highlights the difference between delta/gamma Fi-Se vs Fi-Ne for instance.

I also think it's really important to note that IE are probably best seen as filters/orientations to info, because in a sense yes even the Fi-Ne type deals with the "concrete" in some sense of the word, so the distinction is only good in so much as a priori the person is guided by the Ne point of view, hence is not looking for the Se point of view, so much as it gets imposed by the superego. So it's a distinction not in whether the information is accessed so much as how it's seen.

Abstract/concrete can mean basically a ton of things, like you seem to suggest. To make it clear though what I think socionics means by it, I think the idea is the concreteness of the sensory always goes back to that which is observable in the sphere of the physical, whereas the ability to form mental imagery and an orientation towards that level a priori goes more to N in socionics.

Note that ultimately this is just an idea, and there could easily be different ideas on what N/S means.The issue with measuring this stuff and establishing empirical support is that in a sense it really is somewhat implicit rather than explicit (socionics itself was developed by a Ne/Ti so maybe this isn't surprising).

[Pookie]

Well the terms are used within the context of the system. Rational & Irrational dont fit the textbook definition just like Perceiving and Judging don't either. If the problem is the term, get rid of the weight you put on the term. It's seeing someone pointing to the moon and looking at the finger.

[Xenith]

I will be scolded for this but I view it in MBTI terms for one,

A J type has subjective perception and objective judgement at the forefront, a P has objective perception and subjective judgement at the forefront. So the J is placing what is experienced into a web of previously gathered data, and using this as a springboard to goal driven behaviour. The P is sussing out the object for its qualities and using this to form the correct categorisation of it.

So the J is directing the flow of events and inputting its own meaning, the P is going with the flow and figuring things out along the way.

[chemical]

Well the terms are used within the context of the system.

OK, so what precisely is the difference between rational and irrational types in the system?

[Saberstorm]

I think Soupman is an SEI. He is dialectical - and he is mistaking his cognitive style for intuition.

Here is an ILI and the second video is an SEI. Which one sounds like Soupman?



This is an SEI.



Soupman is more like Mr. Satter.

[wacey]

I can only say this seems to be because a) logic is generally the formal framework for a lot of claims of reason but b) ethics is also about establishing a reasonable outcome, specifically, but its reasoning is not necessarily going to fit within the realm of pure logic.



I can tell you that it has occurred to me the Ni vs Si distinction in socionics seems to be different from the original presentation. Si in socionics seems very expressly tied to physical information, whereas the original idea of it seems to be more along the lines of transmitted from a definite physical origin, but where the insights acquired are not tied to the physical, and could be very mental in nature. Hence, both could have been about trends/prediction.

Essentially Si is not portrayed as an abstract information processing element in socionics, so any conceptual time-oriented trends (time-orientation comes from Ni being dynamic intuition) are relegated to Ni, the conceptuality necessitating not S and the time-orientation necessitating dynamic.

As for your comment on quadra values, let me just say I firmly believe quadra values must be forced to conform more with the actual information elements, rather than derivatives. I think ultimately Se = power does not do it for me either. Se is kinetic energy processing, meaning the perception of direction of kinetic energy flow. It's linked to power I suppose because power gives you the ability to mobilize things, but I think frankly anybody can analyze power scenarios and be fascinated by them. Power can be in many forms - why must it be a static IE that deals with it? After all, the ability to forecast trends is a kind of power. Se rightfully contrasts with Ne because seeking all the potential energy of a situation lies contrasting to the attitude of how to set it in motion.

I suppose what makes the quadras tick is not just the IE but what they are blocked with. Alpha and gamma are parallel in that sense because they get the NT and SF types. This is to say ethics tends to be related to concrete/actual/sensory information as opposed to conceptual/essence/intuitive information. With gamma Fi is about more or less stable, universal properties of relations paired with the mobilization of Se, meaning how do these essential qualities of the relations promise to interact with mobilization needs - how do they set us in motion? With alpha the reason Si gets associated with pleasure is probably Si+Fe paired, rather than Si being inherently pleasure-based, as in delta Si+Te seems to be more about concrete functionality, whereas here it is concreteness/actuality paired with emotional ethics.

Thanks for the link.

I'm really glad you pointed that out. The distinction is an important one because Se is often confused with power. As it manifests in an individual is willpower to move: psychologically, physically, emotionally.

The contrast with extroverted intuition happens because Ne is a kind of deductive reasoning, all possible explanations must be considered first and to consider all none must be acted upon. Ne is about seeing from the sky down. In this analogy if the sky is Ne, then Se is a car traversing the landscape, what does it matter what the world looks like from the sky down, when one is moving across the hills?

Witnessing this process in actual individuals goes something like this: one person brainstorming ideas about how to do something, for instance planning a trip to another country, will read about this country in travel guides, call ahead to hotel rooms, book the planes, cab rides, transportation, research on the internet, talk with friends and family, imagine what this place will be like, buy many different articles and clothing to prepare, go to museums and art shows that might possibly have anything to do with the new country, eat at a restaurant featuring food from this exotic destination. Whereas the other will just buy a ticket and go, taking each action as it comes along. All the preparation in the world, beyond the practical logistics may meaning nothing to such a person. Commitment to a course of action and implementing the necessary will power to preform the action negates the endless sources of new information. The Se person is if not impatient, than at the very least cavalier about the many different possibilities, they want to know what will happen, so that they can do it. The Ne person in equal measure will be stunned by the seemingly rash actions taken by the other. They may question why this person did not think ahead, consider and take the time to open up to new ideas beyond what they already know because now they have less options, what's done is done. The irrationality partly comes from the need to experiment and to change direction after viewing the results. An Se person is said to be irrational because the action is preformed before the possibilities have been explored.

Se does manifest in a certain boldness of character, but to say it manifests in a character concerned with power does this IE and the people who value it a great disservice.

[wacey]

Luckily, we have both an irrational and rational IE in our egoic psyche, the creative function will balance out the base function.

[Pookie]

OK, so what precisely is the difference between rational and irrational types in the system?[/COLOR]

There isn't really a "precise" difference. Succinctly: Rationals process more information, Irrationals pick up more information. The full catalogued differences are written out all over, like wikisocion and whatnot.

My post was more in the vein of saying that you shouldnt take the dictionary definitions when applying them to a specialized school of thought like this, because the words mean different things here.

[mu4]

First of all, it's important to understand irrationality/rationality are concepts which are very old and what writers in the past have done is merely describe it, the base concept of rationality/irrationality is age old like the core debate around Perception vs Logos and Sense versus Emotion.

The core differences between rationality and irrationality is the presence of "order" within rational process versus irrational processes. Irrational functions do not perceive nor produce order, while rational functions are the tools of order. The basic mechanic of information transformation in socionics is in the movement of information from hot to cold bodies which is analogous to the thermodynamic processes. When you treat information and it's qualities as a measure of entropy it will also necessarily produce a similar system assuming a similar behavior.

The descriptions of irrational/rational functions are descriptions of what is theoretically orderly/disorderly processes within the socionics analogy and model.

Mirror types are entirely different from a temperament perspective as well as a process result perspective, it's somewhat difficult to differentiate on a forum, but longer term social interaction where temperament becomes apparent should result in no confusion concerning temperament.

One of the things about socionics/jung is the combination and dichotomy of orderly process along with implicit and explicit processes, as well as introverted/extroverted processes which create some situations where it's difficult to identify due to the confusion of implicit with the introverted and irrational. This is why extroverted intuition can often seem introverted, and extroverted feeling can often seem irrational.

There are other confusions I think but these are harder to notice because implicit, introverted and irrational processes are somewhat mysterious and obfuscated by their nature.

[chemical]

Se does manifest in a certain boldness of character, but to say it manifests in a character concerned with power does this IE and the people who value it a great disservice.

Right, exactly. In fact, power is quite general a thing. One can approach power just as much from the standpoint of power over circumstances by knowing the inherent potential in things as can one approach it from the Se-standpoint ("I can move anything in theory"). Or, an EIE could be one power-hungry individual, where the Fe/Ni combination's abstract knowledge of emotional development and trajectory goes mostly into controlling individuals, setting a course markedly in the user's favor and so forth.

The IE are all already about power, in so much as information all is a certain sort of power. Admittedly some combinations and manifestations remind us more of what passes for power in society traditionally, but tying this squarely to one IE does appear myopic.

[chemical]

The descriptions of irrational/rational functions are descriptions of what is theoretically orderly/disorderly processes within the socionics analogy and model.

OK, this is your foundation basically. I suppose the sense in which I understand reason to constitute a binding to "order" is simply that, given the experience of a perception, it is natural to ask "was what just occurred reasonable?" Indeed from the irrational standpoint, there is no such question: simply one notes what is. But from the rational standpoint, we can attempt to impose some understanding which stands apart from the experience, apartness being crucial in the sense that otherwise, it just regurgitates the experience in language. To answer whether something was reasonable at all, one must attempt to extract the so-called rational essence from the experience itself, and this inherently means forming certain mental inter-relations among ideas which exist apart from the experience. These are termed laws. Laws are the order I believe you speak of. They tell us that the essence of what happened is encapsulated in so and so law, which is so to speak a more orderly description of the experience than a direct regurgitation of it.

As we note in a subject as physics, the presence of laws can be misleading, for what ultimately happens is some very complicated, subtle process, and the law only averages out what seems to underlie it.
Given that which happens is ultimately known to us to the extent it can be known by perceptive faculties, these can help alert us to what the laws are not telling us.

What always struck me as curious is the rigid/unbending nature of rational types - how could this not be foolish in light of proper new evidence? Yet, the point strikes me that to these types, ultimately the point is that what they know is what is reasonable, and it's of little avail to point to additional factors without knowing how to work them into sufficient orderly laws, because then our dealings with them might be too accidental in nature for their taste.

The thing is it appears there's pretty much a continuous spectrum of shades of grey in the rational/irrational divide if this is true. Assuming one falls on one end or another discernably, a definite irrational/rational type can be spoken of. But it seems I slightly misspoke above, in that even a translation of experience into language constitutes some level of rational binding, particularly if our sentences must "make sense" - Jung was famous for having been disdainful towards various uses of language which essentially neglect the rational problem and instead at most evoke images, thus being not devoid of reason but guided not by the rational principle.

Ah, this appears rather illuminating on the subject of Jung's own type, which has often been a subject of debate, with answers ranging much of the spectrum, though generally at least in socionics typings constrained to the N types. Jung often spoke of his approach as translating the experience and just telling you what is there. Which may seem of the irrational type, but in a manner of speaking could be said to be the very beginnings of preferring reason. This was in contrast to others who were much more "order-imposing" - I notice Lytov types Jung as ILI in socionics, which I suppose is not unreasonable from the socionics framework, but I'd at least argue for a fairly equal standing between irrationality and rationality in him, at least looking holistically. Looking at his original description of the Ni types, what stands out is that their language is not what is traditionally spoken. This line appears significant, because again, language already presumes certain norms and even a mere description so as to evoke an image may betray certain order-imposing sensibilities, and he met types who simply held knowledge in a form quite apart from such restrictions.

I should also note that the way I think logic and ethics come into play here is that "is this reasonable" can be answered in the form of laws which roughly appeal to two different norms of detaching from the experience. Experience has both a relatedness and a non-relatedness component, because on the one hand experience just happens, unlike reason, and thus it is not of us. Experience also, however, is ours: we are the ones who have the experiences, as human beings. Both of these standpoints in a sense are simultaneous in the experience, but to harmonize the experience with laws of reason, it is essential to point to one of these sides (it seems) as the direction one wishes to build a lawfulness around.

Logic emphasizes the former, it seems, to the highest degree: it focuses on the fact that, while the experience was had by us, the big problem when it comes to acting upon it is that it appears to have "just happened" to us, thus we attempt to objectivize it to the highest degree, not in the sense of objects which are of sensory origin, but objective in the sense of having a certain definite existence apart from our subjective and transient experience. We emphasize our unrelatedness to the content, looking to distill it in laws which exist in a way apart from our experience, because then, we know much more about it than the experience told us in a sense.

Ethics, on the other hand, emphasizes the latter: it notes that it is no accident we as human beings had the experience and attempts to discover the human significance (whether from the standpoint of our direct emotional interplay with it, and the ebb and flow of this phenomenon, or from more stable "laws" about humanity, its needs, and such) of the experience, emphasizing our human relatedness to the occurrence in attempting to rationalize it as not merely accidental (because after all, this ethical meaning is in a sense "created" as with all rational meaning - from one standpoint, things just happen and deriving meaning and order from them is considered with some level of apathy or skepticism).

As to whether types prefer one or the other kind of reasoning, well we again see the full spectrum out there! There are logical types who just strike as much more ethical than others, which appear either agnostic or disdainful of the ethical standpoint.

[wacey]

One of the things about socionics/jung is the combination and dichotomy of orderly process along with implicit and explicit processes, as well as introverted/extroverted processes which create some situations where it's difficult to identify due to the confusion of implicit with the introverted and irrational. This is why extroverted intuition can often seem introverted, and extroverted feeling can often seem irrational.

There are other confusions I think but these are harder to notice because implicit, introverted and irrational processes are somewhat mysterious and obfuscated by their nature.

I am interested in the bolded part and was curious if you could elaborate on this point, Point? Would it be possible to explain what you mean, using examples of how this could be seen in people?

[chemical]

Divergentwacey: here is my interpretation of/response to that component of point's post.

He is noting that there can SEEM to be a similarity among certain features of IE: IE can be implicit, introverted, irrational. Implicit I believe refers to "internal/external" which is to say NF vs ST. The N elements consider the implicit, as do F. A priori you can stare at someone's activities and make Te statements about them forever, but one must infer something in order to know what this says about their emotional state.

It may interest you to know, by the way, that Pauli, the physicist who had quite an interest in Jung, tended to lump intuitive+feeling and sensation+thinking together, following his encounters with Jung's theory of types. He believed he had developed naturally as the latter, which you can see as the "what can be known in a hard and fast way". T because T can be expressed in logical form, which gives its statements a certain explicit quality, whereas the "logic" to feeling is hard to render fully explicit and may defeat the point of it at all to try to do so.

Naturally, that which follows from logic and explicit observation in a sense is considered more "rational" at least in colloquial terminology - hence point's statement that the implicit can be confused with the irrational.

As for introverted, well again introverted IE speak of fields, not objects, and fields are noted relations among objects evident to the subject of cognition. There is a sense this could be related to the implicit intuitively in the mind, even though logically they are separate.

I think Fe appearing irrational just refers to how a lot of people have a hard time accepting feeling as a fully rational function in Jungian terms (the comment sort of carries over even if socionics defines Fe differently).

I leave it to point to explicate his/her own version of his meaning, and in part chose to include my interpretation because it may have been a different point of view.

[chemical]

Another salient point in rational/irrational: how do we arrive at reasons for things? It is often suggested, very incorrectly, that a difference between reason and experience is that the experience is poof, gone once it happens. Yet why do we even have memory? Is the ability to form associations between memories entirely what is meant by reason? Hardly. We must have some standards to really extract a truly rational explanation from a mere association.