Rational & Irrational

[Ezra]

I've been thinking about this, and I don't think these names are too bad actually. Because if you think about it, Irrational functions truly lead the individual to become, on the deepest level, irrational thinkers, and the same goes for Rational functions. Seriously, look at Se. Where's the logic of territorial acquisition? There isn't any; it's a base motivation; an animal instinct; a passion. Okay, the SEE or the SLE may act rationally, but they're fuelled primarily by their Irrational function. The same can be said of ILIs; these individuals look rational on the outside, but they're fuelled by an undoubtedly Irrational function; one of mysticism and of little reason whatsoever; what makes them reasonable people is their Te creative blocked with their Ni base. But take an unhealthy Irrational, and they sure as shit are irrational people. This might be hard for a lot of you to accept, but hopefully you'll find it consolling that, as an Irrational myself, I'm not propelling some Rational dogma; this is what I actually think.

Rational base functions will always encourage the individual to act rationally most of the time (when their creative Irrational function isn't interfering). Some might argue that Fe and Fi are hardly Rational functions, but think about it. They're simply a different code to Te and Ti Rationality, which is stereotypically Rational. They're Rational because they're based on feelings which are moralistically rational, as opposed to logical and rational in the every day meaning of the word.

[Phaedrus]

So, basically you are saying that you haven't understood the four dichotomies yet, since you consistently get the wrong test results. The J/P dichotomy is bout how you actually behave. As an irrational type, you should always test as a P type, and you should always identify with being an irrational type in the Socionics descriptions of the differences between rational and irrational behaviours.

[Rubicon]

Rational base functions will always encourage the individual to act rationally most of the time (when their creative Irrational function isn't interfering). Some might argue that Fe and Fi are hardly Rational functions, but think about it. They're simply a different code to Te and Ti Rationality, which is stereotypically Rational. They're Rational because they're based on feelings which are moralistically rational, as opposed to logical and rational in the every day meaning of the word.

Thankyou!

[BLauritson]

I say this not out of being offended by the original post or anything like that (because I wasn't), but I genuinely think you're putting too much weight on the labels rational and irrational. My reasoning is that I think any type can act irrational in the non-Socionics sense if something is interfering with their decision-making process, be it mental illness, alcohol, whatever. Others may disagree, but those are my thoughts. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but was it Jung who coined the terms rational and irrational? I only ask because if I recall correctly, his works were originally written in German and so it could simply be a product of translation that they are known as rational and irrational in English, when there could be separate German words instead. I'm only speculating here though, so if anyone knows better, feel free to say.

[mikemex]

And the opposite is the same. The supposed irrationals can also be quite "rational" in the traditional sense. A lot of people complains that I'm too cold and rational even while I'm ENFp.

[Brilliand]

So, basically you are saying that you haven't understood the four dichotomies yet, since you consistently get the wrong test results. The J/P dichotomy is bout how you actually behave. As an irrational type, you should always test as a P type, and you should always identify with being an irrational type in the Socionics descriptions of the differences between rational and irrational behaviours.

-Thought determines behavior.
-A P type pressured to act J can indeed fake being a J type, and defend his right to be a J type on tests.

[Jonathan]

I genuinely think you're putting too much weight on the labels rational and irrational.

Yes, clearly. One of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics is that you can just interpret all the terms according to the plain meaning of the English words.

Socionics "rationality" has nothing to do with acting "rationally" in the sense of acting in a way that's logical, wise, or has a good reason behind it.

[Outside]

Yes, clearly. One of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics is that you can just interpret all the terms according to the plain meaning of the English words.

Socionics "rationality" has nothing to do with acting "rationally" in the sense of acting in a way that's logical, wise, or has a good reason behind it.

Yeah... "Rational" and "Irrational" doesn't mean that one will think or act rationally or irrationally in Socionics... They have different meanings.

[JRiddy]

I think the suggestion behind the word "rational" is that the incoming information is weighed and judged before it ever makes it to conscious thought.

Also, I think we should try out "nonrational" instead of "irrational".

[Phaedrus]

-Thought determines behavior.

The attitude you express here is typical of a rational type. It is perfectly in line with the subject/agent perspective I have said repeatedly is at the core of the INTj type. It usually entails a belief in the existence of a free will, a more positive than negative world outlook and view on humans, and it usually also entails a negative attitude towards viewing humans as "objects" -- which by the INTj is associated with a neuropshychiatric approach and a biological explanatory framework. That's why INTjs are drawn to more idealistic views on humans, for example those emanating from humanistic psychology. We see a rather clear example of such an attitude in the Unabomber's manifesto, which can be read on the Internet.

My view is more like the exact opposite and rather typical of how INTps are described in the literature. I don't believe in the existence of a free will, I tend to view humans as material objects whose behaviour is either due to chance or (which I wouldn't mind) strong determinism. My world outlook is more pessimistic and positive, and I strongly favour a biological explanatory framework, a neuropsychiatric approach, and I believe that most idealistic views on humans are, essentially, pure bullshit. That means that I don't really think that thought determines behaviour in more than a very trivial way. We are not free agents in the metaphysical sense of that concept.

-A P type pressured to act J can indeed fake being a J type, and defend his right to be a J type on tests.

Yes, that can happen. But once you truly understand the J/P dimension correctly, the P type will realize his or her mistake. It is not really reasonable to be in doubt about whether you are a J or a P type when you have understood what it is all about. The rationality/irrationality divide is clearly visable in the behaviours and attitudes of real life people, including your own, and it is probably the most important of the four dimensions to understand and to be aware about in the typing process.

[Rubicon]

The attitude you express here is typical of a rational type. It is perfectly in line with the subject/agent perspective I have said repeatedly is at the core of the INTj type. It usually entails a belief in the existence of a free will, a more positive than negative world outlook and view on humans, and it usually also entails a negative attitude towards viewing humans as "objects" -- which by the INTj is associated with a neuropshychiatric approach and a biological explanatory framework. That's why INTjs are drawn to more idealistic views on humans, for example those emanating from humanistic psychology. We see a rather clear example of such an attitude in the Unabomber's manifesto, which can be read on the Internet.

My view is more like the exact opposite and rather typical of how INTps are described in the literature. I don't believe in the existence of a free will, I tend to view humans as material objects whose behaviour is either due to chance or (which I wouldn't mind) strong determinism. My world outlook is more pessimistic and positive, and I strongly favour a biological explanatory framework, a neuropsychiatric approach, and I believe that most idealistic views on humans are, essentially, pure bullshit. That means that I don't really think that thought determines behaviour in more than a very trivial way. We are not free agents in the metaphysical sense of that concept.

I think the statement that 'thought determines behaviour' is more true for rationals than irrationals - although it obviously influences us all to some degree. Just because you don't work that way, Phaedrus, doesn't mean that other people don't utilise free will. By the way, when you say 'strong determinism', doesn't that imply the existence of a free will?

[Phaedrus]

I think the statement that 'thought determines behaviour' is more true for rationals than irrationals - although it obviously influences us all to some degree. Just because you don't work that way, Phaedrus, doesn't mean that other people don't utilise free will.

Either both rational and irrational have utilise free will or none of us do. Either free will exists or it doesn't. And the arguments for its non-existence are much stronger than the arguments for its existence. So, of course it means that no people utilise a free will, if free will is an illusion. I don't believe that you have a free will, chopin, but I believe that you believe that you have.

By the way, when you say 'strong determinism', doesn't that imply the existence of a free will?

No. Most defenders of strong determinism have denied the existence of free will, even though a few have tried to believe in both. But the concept of a free will is essentially logically incoherent, if not used in a very trivial way to mean nothing but the absence of other people's forcing you to act in a certain way. There can't be a free will in the metaphysical sense, becuase it is a logical impossibility. It is based on the confusion of two incompatible perspectives: the objective and the subjective.

[Rubicon]

I don't believe that you have a free will, chopin, but I believe that you believe that you have.

Ha! You're right, I do.

No. Most defenders of strong determinism have denied the existence of free will, even though a few have tried to believe in both. But the concept of a free will is essentially logically incoherent, if not used in a very trivial way to mean nothing but the absence of other people's forcing you to act in a certain way. There can't be a free will in the metaphysical sense, becuase it is a logical impossibility. It is based on the confusion of two incompatible perspectives: the objective and the subjective.

I don't fully understand where you're coming from here. You believe in some sort of fate or destiny then? And by free will, you're meaning our ability to make our own decisions?

I don't think objectivity and subjectivity are incompatible. Subjectivity may be just one particular perspective of the whole picture. Seeing one side of a situation. That doesn't make the view incompatible with reality - it just makes it incomplete - one dimension of a 3d object. Plus it's possible that we may light upon an objective view of a situation while thinking subjectively.

[Ezra]

-Thought determines behavior.
-A P type pressured to act J can indeed fake being a J type, and defend his right to be a J type on tests.

Incorrect. In socionics, you can't "fake being a J type". There's no such thing as a "J type". When people start using the three-letter code, these shitty little misconceptions disappear from socionics.

Yes, clearly. One of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics is that you can just interpret all the terms according to the plain meaning of the English words.

Socionics "rationality" has nothing to do with acting "rationally" in the sense of acting in a way that's logical, wise, or has a good reason behind it.

Right, explain why they're called Rationality and Irrationality.

[Phaedrus]

I don't fully understand where you're coming from here. You believe in some sort of fate or destiny then?

Not exactly. I believe in the general superiority of external perspectives in science -- that is actually a necessity if we want to pursue any kind of serious research in science. I believe that everything we do can ultimately be explained by reference to the laws of physics (those we already know or those that we will discover to be true). We are nothing but matter/energy after all. We have no "souls" that are essentially different from other material objects.

And by free will, you're meaning our ability to make our own decisions?

In a trivial sense most of us have that kind of "free will", but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the philosophical problem concerning the existence of a free will, which is rather complicated.

I don't think objectivity and subjectivity are incompatible.

The sense in which I am talking about these concepts here, has been well explained by Thomas Nagel. If you read what he has written on the subject, you will realize in why, and in what sense, they are incompatible. in his most famous essay http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html he doesn't seem to exclude entirely the possibility of uniting the objective perspective with the subjective, but the correct conclusion to draw when you think more deeply about the problem, and read his other essays on the subject, is almost certainly that the third-person perspective (= the objective perspective) is impossible to reconcile with the fist-person perspective (= the subjective perspective) in the same overall explanatory framework.

[Outside]

Incorrect. In socionics, you can't "fake being a J type". There's no such thing as a "J type". When people start using the three-letter code, these shitty little misconceptions disappear from socionics.

.

It can still mean Rational or Irrational in Socionics....

By the way Rationality and Irrationality in Socionics means something like this ... (to put it simply)

Rationals are defined by the rules and they follow the rules. They create state-of-mind (?) based on the rules they follow.

Irrationals are not defined by the rules and they define the rules. They create rules based on their state-of-mind.

Or something like that.

[Jonathan]

Right, explain why they're called Rationality and Irrationality.

Jung came up with the terms. Ask him.

This is what Jung wrote about it in his essay about psychological types upon which this whole thing is based:

Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience.

So there, he said it very succinctly. As he puts it, "irrational" does not mean "unreasonable" but is rather closer to "empirical." It is not unreasonableness that characterizes irrational types; indeed, a rational type may seem to others to be unreasonable by virtue of the fact that some rational types may hold fast to a certain position even if others believe it is incorrect. Rather, the irrational types tend to take in more data than they can immediately make judgments on.

So, that's what he said, and he came up with the terms. Socionics may differ from Jung in some ways, but I see no evidence that it would differ from Jung on this point. In fact, if there are differences, they would be in the direction of the Socionics definitions softening the original concept a little, rather than any indication that irrational types are unreasonable.

Reference: http://www.e-mbti.com/jung_psycholog...chapter_10.php

[Ezra]

What is judgment, as defined here?

[Jonathan]

What is judgment, as defined here?

Generally, judgment in Jungian typology is understood as having to do with making a choice about something. So, if we think of the irrational functions as pertaining to the "data," (look at all this stuff around us...isn't this interesting...I bet you could do this...or maybe this...oh look at that there...this idea popped into my head), the rational functions have to do with choosing one alternative over another (this is what I want...this choice is more consistent with my beliefs....this option will work out the best....I feel like doing this).

In the original model, it's really quite simple. However, in Socionics discussions, it gets more complicated. One problem is that in a sense everything is a "choice." So even if a person decides just to soak up all the sensations around him or her, that's still choosing something one behavior over another. For that reason, we might think of judgment as the structural component involved in the choice...the language or framework of the decision. But that is not to say that it necessarily logic-based (could be more personal, subjective, emotional).

But that gets into other difficulties because the structures by which one might choose something may be viewed "perceptively"...I.e., one may become an expert on the reasons for choosing things without actually deciding one over another. For this reason, there were all those zillions of posts with people arguing that LIIs are quite indecisive, go-with-the-flow, etc. However, I believe the solution there is that if a person is an "expert" in a judging function but is not in fact judging, that person probably does not have that function as a base function. It may be a creative function, or id (strong but not valued...therefore the person understands the reasons for making the choices but ignores them), or something else (e.g., HA, as Expat has suggested in some posts).

Extraversion and particularly Se may also make a person seem to take more decisive action in the external world, which may relate to the appearance of decisiveness and get confused with rationality.

Another complicating factor is that Socionists have introduced some other ideas that seem to contradict rationality/irrationality, such as Reinin dichotomies that appear similar, or descriptions of IM elements that don't seem to fit...for example, some people might say "Si is the faculty by which one makes a decision to chose between whether one thing is more aesthetically pleasing than something else."

Overall, I believe that's a quite flawed definition of Si, as it states it in a clearly judging way (and also ignores the breadth of criteria by which one might consider something "aesthetically pleasing"). In the case of an SEI who happens to be an artist (not all SEIs necessarily are), Fe plays a significant role in the concept of projecting a certain conception of the artist's "aesthetic" viewpoint.

[Ezra]

This is actually very interesting. It shakes up a lot of myths for me about J types in MBTT. For example, I think the testing methods in MBTT are rather poor. I think they too should concentrate on the functions. This stuff about judging makes me think I'm not actually an ENTJ after all, and that the descriptions of the ENTP and the ESTP are pretty crap. Perhaps you could elaborate even further than you have done, Jonathan, and explain your position regarding MBTI itself (as opposed to MBTT).

[Jonathan]

This is actually very interesting. It shakes up a lot of myths for me about J types in MBTT. For example, I think the testing methods in MBTT are rather poor. I think they too should concentrate on the functions. This stuff about judging makes me think I'm not actually an ENTJ after all, and that the descriptions of the ENTP and the ESTP are pretty crap. Perhaps you could elaborate even further than you have done, Jonathan, and explain your position regarding MBTI itself (as opposed to MBTT).

Well, I've always taken the MBTI instrument itself with a grain of salt, in part because I score so close to the line on some of the dichotomies. As we all know, MBTI and the theory behind it ("MBTT") get a lot of flack from Socionists. On the positive side, the MBTI folks really did a lot of statistical analysis in devising the questions. It is difficult to create an accurate self-report questionnaire to determine type. Some experimental "tests" that people have come up with for Socionics try to test for individual IM elements, but they don't necessarily end up with more accurate results.

As you know, the J/P scale in MBTI was not meant to test rationality/irrationality. Rather, according to MBTT, people with an extraverted rational function would tend to direct their ability to choose between alternatives (or to have a well-developed framework to do so) towards external things...and therefore would appear more structured "on the outside," and MBTT postulates that this would show up on test questions as well.

Socionists tend to dispute that interpretation, but similar strains of thought exist in Socionics as well. Basically, there are simply different views about how these theoretical concepts manifest themselves in behavior. Generally, those who view dynamic types as being more judgment-oriented tend to be working from a mental model in which the ego block functions are co-equal, whereas those who view only rational types as judgment-oriented tend to be working from a mental model in which the base function is much more important in determining actual behavior than the creative function.

In my experience, people who are into MBTI tend to be divided on how they see this question, and that affects their test result too. So, there might be one person who considers himself INFP who is really FiNe (as it should work in MBTI), and another person who also considers himself INFP and is really NiFe (as it would work in Socionics).

[Phaedrus]

Well, I've always taken the MBTI instrument itself with a grain of salt, in part because I score so close to the line on some of the dichotomies.

Yes, but you don't get an incorrect result. You still get INTP, or, in some cases, an indeterminate result (like for example a borderline J/P, which I often get, but that is the same as an INTX result). An indeterminate result is not misleading, it just means that the test was not good enough to determine your correct type. A person who understands the test questions correctly and also has a correct understanding of his or her behaviours and attitudes can never get an incorrect result, only an indeterminate result in some cases. You can never get a result on an MBTI test that is totally different from your correct type. And that's why it is logically impossible that both Ezra's ENTJ results and him being an SLE can both be correct. One or the other is necessarily false.

Some experimental "tests" that people have come up with for Socionics try to test for individual IM elements, but they don't necessarily end up with more accurate results.

The contrary is true. They are unquestionably less accurate than an MBTI test, and they are also clearly less accurate than Ganin's Turbo test or a simple comparison of the four scales.

As you know, the J/P scale in MBTI was not meant to test rationality/irrationality.

In a sense that is correct, but it is also irrelevant, because the J/P scale does in fact test for rationality/irrationality.

Rather, according to MBTT, people with an extraverted rational function would tend to direct their ability to choose between alternatives (or to have a well-developed framework to do so) towards external things...and therefore would appear more structured "on the outside," and MBTT postulates that this would show up on test questions as well.

And it does. And it is the exact same phenomenon as the difference between rational and irratonal behaviour in Socionics.

[Ezra]

Generally, those who view dynamic types as being more judgment-oriented tend to be working from a mental model in which the ego block functions are co-equal, whereas those who view only rational types as judgment-oriented tend to be working from a mental model in which the base function is much more important in determining actual behavior than the creative function.

This is interesting. Regardless of whether or not you were implying it, do you believe the ego block functions are or can be co-equal?

In my experience, people who are into MBTI tend to be divided on how they see this question, and that affects their test result too. So, there might be one person who considers himself INFP who is really FiNe (as it should work in MBTI), and another person who also considers himself INFP and is really NiFe (as it would work in Socionics).

I'd say the flaws of MBTT lay in MBTI. The fact is, because of the borderline dichotomy analysis people often receive - due to the simplicity of the questions asked - there are people who are absolutely clueless as to what their dominant and auxiliary functions are.

[Brilliand]

This is interesting. Regardless of whether or not you were implying it, do you believe the ego block functions are or can be co-equal?

As I see it, the dominant function is "always on" (or very nearly so), whereas the creative function can overwhelm the dominant function in short bursts.

So the ego functions can be coequal, at times, but more often than not the dominant function is in charge.

[Phaedrus]

This is interesting. Regardless of whether or not you were implying it, do you believe the ego block functions are or can be co-equal?

We know for sure -- from experience, from empirical observations, from type descriptions, from correct knowledge of the types ... -- that the ego block functions are certainly not co-equal. This is not a matter of opinion, where there is no consensus. It is a clear example of an issue where no side is totally right, and the other side is totally wrong. Those who believe that the ego functions are co-equal simply don't understand the types and their behaviours. They are basically uneducated and ignorant.

I'd say the flaws of MBTT lay in MBTI.

No. Definitely not.

The fact is, because of the borderline dichotomy analysis people often receive - due to the simplicity of the questions asked - there are people who are absolutely clueless as to what their dominant and auxiliary functions are.

Exactly as the situation is in Socionics. One obvious example of such a person is you yourself.

[717495]

Old thread.

I think...

Judicious Ne/Si types, take longer to decide, relaxed
Decisive Se/Ni types, decide quickly, are ready

this however might be less consistent than the theme for rational vs irrational:

Rationals tend to stick with those decisions that are made, show more consistent opinions, thus have a stronger sense of certainty and conclusiveness
Irrationals will tend to change their mind more, and their uncertainty/inconsistency becomes obvious after some time, indecisive in the sense of lacking a stable foundation

Subtype P/J doesn't seem to matter too much here.

Here's a temperament chart I made for subtypes, however:

It's a little vague, but basically it's more about the direction of the energy, where attention gets carried.

the rotating arrows for IP-sub isn't actually about rotation, but about a sort of close psychological attentiveness around or within the self

for EJ-sub, the attention and energy is almost completely reliant on the self; it flows through the self as the self operates, smoothly and dynamically