Rationality and Irrationality: Normative and Positive respectively

[Ezra]

I've been reading about positivity and normativity in relation to social science, and it struck me that Rationals seem to prefer normative to positive thinking, and Irrationals vice versa:

[...]an EJ has his own views of what reality "should" be. This inclines him to be quick to take action, normally using his leading function, in order to make sure things will remain, or become, as they should be, before change can get too far.

I may have this wrong; it may not be Rationals but EJs (perhaps dynamic and rational mixed together) who think normatively. Maybe it's an "external objects" pursuit, because I get the feeling EPs see what is, but I don't think it's much of a concern for IPs and IJs.

[strrrng]

lmao @ ur sig

[JRiddy]

This is an interesting thought that certainly merits further inquiry. I know I prefer a positivist outlook on life as opposed to a normative one, but this is a fairly big claim. Though this may manifest in the way someone thinks, I would imagine their own philosophical outlook may be quite different.

I will definitely have to look at this one some more. I think I like you better as an LSE Ezra. Oh crap I'm gonna look into this because he is now my request transmitter. Arggghhhh! Socionics says that I MUST COMPLY! Crap.

[Phaedrus]

I've been reading about positivity and normativity in relation to social science, and it struck me that Rationals seem to prefer normative to positive thinking, and Irrationals vice versa:

That is true when we compare, as I have done, INTjs and INTps in relation to the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy.

INTjs belong to the Kantian tradition in philosophy, which has been the dominant one on the European continent. INTps belong to the Humean tradition, which is dominant one in Britain and the Scandinavian countries.

In a general sense, this is roughly the divide between Positivism and Hermeneutics, where INTps (Objectivism) are the former and INTjs (Subjectivists) the latter.

[Phaedrus]

interesting if true of course.

Even more interesting is that it seems to suggest that there are logical contradictions in the theory of Socionics. Observations of the real types confirm my thesis, but for example Gulenko's article on Forms of Thinking is at least partly false in that case.

[JRiddy]

Even more interesting is that it seems to suggest that there are logical contradictions in the theory of Socionics. Observations of the real types confirm my thesis, but for example Gulenko's article on Forms of Thinking is at least partly false in that case.

If there are such logical contradictions in the theory of Socionics, why have you not abandoned for your beloved MBTI? Do you believe that you have the answers that could reform socionics into a "correct" and self-coherent system? If you could bring us your guiding torch, it would be ever so meaningful...

What are these logical contradictions of which you speak anyway? Perhaps you could start another thread to let us know so that we can discuss them.

[Phaedrus]

If there are such logical contradictions in the theory of Socionics, why have you not abandoned for your beloved MBTI?

Here are two reasons:

1. MBTT has no theory of intertype relations, and they know nothing about V.I.

2. An Introverted thinker in Jung's sense is a person with a Subjectivist perspective. "Ti" in MBTT is holistic and non-linear, and the INTP has an Objectivist perspective. This and other considerations suggest that MBTT has got it totally wrong when they suggest that the INTP is an Introverted thinker in Jung's sense.

Do you believe that you have the answers that could reform socionics into a "correct" and self-coherent system?

No, at least not yet. And at least not all of them.

What are these logical contradictions of which you speak anyway? Perhaps you could start another thread to let us know so that we can discuss them.

I'm working on it. I haven't got a clear picture of what it is all about. I am close, but not quite there yet.

[Logos]

That is true when we compare, as I have done, INTjs and INTps in relation to the Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy.

INTjs belong to the Kantian tradition in philosophy, which has been the dominant one on the European continent. INTps belong to the Humean tradition, which is dominant one in Britain and the Scandinavian countries.

In a general sense, this is roughly the divide between Positivism and Hermeneutics, where INTps (Objectivism) are the former and INTjs (Subjectivists) the latter.

You're such a one-note-song.

[JRiddy]

if mbtt is defining the INTP by a set of functions then it is a different type. if however, you claim that the general description of the type matches more what should be considered an INTp, then why not present a full case with numerous type-descriptions sourced and disected?

also... are you sure you're not relying too much on the hypothesis that objectivist dichotomy = humean, subjectivist = kantean. what is the proof of this other than what seems to me to be a very loose correlation.

It doesn't matter. Phaedrus' Mind = Objective Real Truth...BWAHAHAHAHA

[FDG]

Yeah; whenever a person is using a rational function, he will be more likely normative over positive, and vice versa. However, there are some interesting implications:

- A rational function might decide that the best normative system is positivism. In that case, this basis for distinction becomes harder to use.
- A rational type uses his irrational function too, so in those cases he might appear more free-flowing.

[Phaedrus]

You're such a one-note-song.

Yes, and deliberately so. I focus on whatever problem is important not to ignore until it is solved and a consensus is reached. This is an extremely important aspect of the types, but most people haven't realized it yet.

[Phaedrus]

if mbtt is defining the INTP by a set of functions then it is a different type.

No, because the functions are arbitrary. They are just labels for whatever thought processes are taking place in the person's (the type's) brain. If every correctly typed INTP is the same empirical object as every correctly typed ILI, it doesn't matter that MBTT is "defining" (read: explaining) the INTP by another set of functions than Socionics. It is the same type anyway.

if however, you claim that the general description of the type matches more what should be considered an INTp, then why not present a full case with numerous type-descriptions sourced and disected?

I have already presented the most relevant aspects dissected in many posts in the past. Use the search function. I don't remember exactly where I posted them.

And why don't people read the type descriptions themselves? Why are you all so blind to what is really said in the type descriptions about typical behaviours and attitudes? People must ignore the functions when they compare type descriptions. You must pretend that you don't know what they mean and only try to understand what the person they are trying to describe is like in the real world.

also... are you sure you're not relying too much on the hypothesis that objectivist dichotomy = humean, subjectivist = kantean.

Yes, I'm sure of it. I am a philosopher myself, and I know what is common knowledge in the field.

what is the proof of this other than what seems to me to be a very loose correlation.

You have to study more philosophy or trust my word on this. What I have described is common knowledge to philosophers combined with what is common knowledge in Socionics. There is nothing strange or controversial about this. It's just that people are not accustomed to see the general pattern that exists here. My only real contribution is to have pointed that out.

[Ezra]

lmao @ ur sig

Glad you found it funny. I'm not surprised you didn't pick up the avatar joke too, though. I'm sure only a few people did.

I think I like you better as an LSE Ezra.

I'd like me better as LSE. It just doesn't fit properly.

INTjs belong to the Kantian tradition in philosophy, which has been the dominant one on the European continent. INTps belong to the Humean tradition, which is dominant one in Britain and the Scandinavian countries.

This is interesting. Kant had a very regimented life, which would imply Rationality, and his entire system of thought was based on doing the right thing. Hume, by contrast, was infinitely more concerned with putting things into perspective; justifying our existence "as it is". He's far more interesting to read about, because it doesn't feel like an opinion (who ever wants to know what people's opinions are?); it feels like an explanation.

bah! let the INTjs and INTps have their rigid schools of thought.

Woah. ILIs are hardly rigid.

ENTjs pick and choose what works (what is functional and pragmatic) in reality, and hence have the potential to be the most emprical.

And this was Hume's mentality; no doubt he got on well with the LIEs of his day.

Yeah; whenever a person is using a rational function, he will be more likely normative over positive, and vice versa. However, there are some interesting implications:

- A rational function might decide that the best normative system is positivism. In that case, this basis for distinction becomes harder to use.
- A rational type uses his irrational function too, so in those cases he might appear more free-flowing.

Yes.

[JRiddy]

It was kind of tongue in cheek and based on phaedrus' classification that all INTjs and INTps belong to exactly different schools of thought.

But yes I agree w/ you that ILIs usually aren't rigid.

Everyone knows that your philosophy is inherently determined you your type. Since I'm ILE, that means that I have no coherent philosophy, and I assimilate bits and pieces of whatever semi-coherent thought tickles my fancy. I am doomed to a hopeless search for meaning that can never be rationalized with my whimsical EP temperament.

[munenori2]

You have to study more philosophy or trust my word on this. What I have described is common knowledge to philosophers combined with what is common knowledge in Socionics. There is nothing strange or controversial about this. It's just that people are not accustomed to see the general pattern that exists here. My only real contribution is to have pointed that out.

Well, I've been through the philsophical gamut and while I agree with breaking Hume and Kant along Obj/Subj lines, the connection that INTp's and INTj's will fall respectively into either camp seems far less certain. Their functional viewpoints will shape the way they view the world, yes, but there are plenty of ways in which an INTj might find the Humean tradition more praiseworthy or vice versa with an INTp. I can't tell exactly how stringent a connection you're wanting to draw here, but if it's anything beyond observing each type to be more probably drawn to one school of thought than the other (say the half to two-thirds range) then I don't know what to say.

[Phaedrus]

Well, I've been through the philsophical gamut and while I agree with breaking Hume and Kant along Obj/Subj lines, the connection that INTp's and INTj's will fall respectively into either camp seems far less certain. Their functional viewpoints will shape the way they view the world, yes, but there are plenty of ways in which an INTj might find the Humean tradition more praiseworthy or vice versa with an INTp. I can't tell exactly how stringent a connection you're wanting to draw here, but if it's anything beyond observing each type to be more probably drawn to one school of thought than the other (say the half to two-thirds range) then I don't know what to say.

It would be rather easy to test this general hypothesis, wouldn't it? That's what I'd like to see be done in the future. So far I have to believe that it is true, because it fits my observations of what the types are in real life. And your claim that an INTj could find the Humean tradition praiseworthy or an INTp find the Kantian tradition praiseworthy seems to be totally unfounded.

[munenori2]

lol, I must be incapable of drawing observations of my own then I guess, like saying that I've had an INTj professor the past two semesters that finds Hume much more fascinating (he is a Hume scholar). But then, you will say I have typed him incorrectly, right?

[Phaedrus]

lol, I must be incapable of drawing observations of my own then I guess, like saying that I've had an INTj professor the past two semesters that finds Hume much more fascinating (he is a Hume scholar). But then, you will say I have typed him incorrectly, right?

Probably. But I will be very glad if you can convince me of the contrary. (Hypotheses should always be tested and potentially falsified.) Do you have pictures of your professor? Can you tell me something more substantial about him as a person that would make it seem more likely (from my perspective) that he really is an INTj?

[Ezra]

I'm much more inclined towards what philosophers like Hume and Hayek say. They don't suggest what the world "should be"; they just say "what is", but they do it in such a way that makes a lot of sense and sheds new perspective on things so that we can justify our amoral and complacent lifestyles. Perhaps this is a good example of Irrationality.

However, I'm still interested to know if IJs and IPs come into the equation, or if what I'm thinking - that EJs are into what should be and EPs are into what is, based on the fact that they both look at external objects in different ways, where EJ has a dynamic view and EP a static one - is correct.

[Phaedrus]

I'm much more inclined towards what philosophers like Hume and Hayek say. They don't suggest what the world "should be"; they just say "what is", but they do it in such a way that makes a lot of sense and sheds new perspective on things so that we can justify our amoral and complacent lifestyles. Perhaps this is a good example of Irrationality.

In my divide of philosophers into two groups -- (Objectivism) and (Subjectivism) -- both Hume and Hayek are thinkers. I haven't yet figured out exactly how Irrationality and Rationality come into the picture. It is obvious that both Russell and Popper are also thinkers, but what types are they? Are they both ENTjs? Or is one or both of them INTp? I am inclined to think that ENTj is the most likely type for both of them, but I am not completely sure. That they are both NTs is of course certain, though.

[FDG]

In my divide of philosophers into two groups -- (Objectivism) and (Subjectivism) -- both Hume and Hayek are thinkers. I haven't yet figured out exactly how Irrationality and Rationality come into the picture. It is obvious that both Russell and Popper are also thinkers, but what types are they? Are they both ENTjs? Or is one or both of them INTp? I am inclined to think that ENTj is the most likely type for both of them, but I am not completely sure. That they are both NTs is of course certain, though.

Bertrand Russel wasn't that bad at logical thinking anyway.

I think he's ENTj, too.

[Ezra]

Bertrand Russel wasn't that bad at logical thinking anyway.

I think he's ENTj, too.

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. Have you read The Problems of Philosophy? I see more of a case for LII. He's very logical - you're right about that - but it carries a kind of "I need systems" feel to it. He's an extremely clear and analytical writer. I get the feeling he's more interested in the problems of philosophy (no pun intented) than he is in making money or learning some information and applying said information. He has a style similar to Descartes.

[Phaedrus]

Hmmm, I'm not sure about that. Have you read The Problems of Philosophy? I see more of a case for LII. He's very logical - you're right about that - but it carries a kind of "I need systems" feel to it. He's an extremely clear and analytical writer. I get the feeling he's more interested in the problems of philosophy (no pun intented) than he is in making money or learning some information and applying said information. He has a style similar to Descartes.

Here we get to the essence of your misunderstanding of the functions. There is nothing at all in what you say here that would suggest that Russell is a LII, except from perhaps your perceived "'I need systems' feel to it", which is nothing but an illusion, because it doesn't exist. Russell's philosophical works have almost no systems feel at all to them, and he was in fact quite often more interested in making money out of what he wrote than in the philosophical problems themselves. Many of his books were written in a hurry, he worked fast and didn't always spend much time on digging deeply into the subjects he wrote about. The contrast with Wittgenstein's total focus on the problems and almost total indifference to the money aspect is huge (even though I am not convinced that Wittgenstein was a LII as Rick believes).

You simply don't understand the function, and you attribute it to the wrong persons ego blocks. For example when you say that Russell was "an extremely clear and analytical writer" that suggests > . Clarity is much more of a theme than a theme. Also the focus on problems is very typically .

[Logos]

Here we get to the essence of your misunderstanding of the functions. There is nothing at all in what you say here that would suggest that Russell is a LII, except from perhaps your perceived "'I need systems' feel to it", which is nothing but an illusion, because it doesn't exist. Russell's philosophical works have almost no systems feel at all to them, and he was in fact quite often more interested in making money out of what he wrote than in the philosophical problems themselves. Many of his books were written in a hurry, he worked fast and didn't always spend much time on digging deeply into the subjects he wrote about. The contrast with Wittgenstein's total focus on the problems and almost total indifference to the money aspect is huge (even though I am not convinced that Wittgenstein was a LII as Rick believes).

You simply don't understand the function, and you attribute it to the wrong persons ego blocks. For example when you say that Russell was "an extremely clear and analytical writer" that suggests > . Clarity is much more of a theme than a theme. Also the focus on problems is very typically .

Incorrect. Negativism > Positivism.

[Phaedrus]

Incorrect. Negativism > Positivism.

Not in this context.

[Ezra]

Clarity is much more of a theme than a theme. Also the focus on problems is very typically .

I'm not sure about either of these statements; most pertinently the former.

Why is this the case? How is clarity more to do with Te than Ti?

[Phaedrus]

I'm not sure about either of these statements; most pertinently the former.

Why is this the case? How is clarity more to do with Te than Ti?

How shall we answer that question? Why are there types and functions in the first place?

Maybe we could try to say that is about being objective and getting the facts straight, and that has something to do with clarity of thought. What you don't seem to grasp is the essentially subjective character of .

[Ezra]

Maybe we could try to say that is about being objective and getting the facts straight, and that has something to do with clarity of thought.

Errr, that's Ti.

What you don't seem to grasp is the essentially subjective character of .

I don't give a shit about the subjective character of Ti. I care about objective facts.

[Phaedrus]

Errr, that's Ti.

No, it is definitely not . You are clearly wrong about this aspect of the types, and that is a mistake that you need to correct.

I don't give a shit about the subjective character of Ti. I care about objective facts.

Yes. And that's why you are an ego type. That's why you are a LIE and not an SLE.

[Phaedrus]

But the types aren't defined as being objective vs. subjective. If that's how they're defined I sure as heck missed the lesson.

Who cares how the types are defined. That is irrelevant. Focus on how the types really are.

Only you're defining them that way.

I am not defining them, I am observing them.

The subjectivist/objectevist dichotomy doesn't mean subjectivist=subjective. objectivist=objective. Interpreting it that way is an act of literalism, not thorough research into the subject.

If you want to be an idiot, that's your choice. Understand the types -- that's my advice to you.

Unless you can prove through an empirically conducted study of types that the types behave this way, and that the type descriptions are wrong in this respect (particularly where they tout the objectivity of INTjs)... then your statement is just a hypothesis without any credible backing.

The type descriptions are correct in this respect. But obviously you haven't read them -- or you haven't understood what you have read.

The subjectivist description states that the person treats different types of facts as coming from different types of sources... which means he only integrates facts that are deemed alike (part of the same category) into functional paradigms. It doesn't mean that he has a subjective appreciation of individual facts, or that he thinks in an illogical manner to justify his subjective beliefs.

*sigh* ... Study Jung's Psychological Types.

What could account for your perception of subjectivity in alpha NTs is that they construct their own categories for cataloguing facts. This is a highly subjective process (and has to do more with Ne than Ti). But these categories are expected to be checked against objective reality in disciplined thinkers.

*sigh* ... *sigh* ... (Why do I have to cope with idiots?)

[Phaedrus]

If you haven't made a rigorous study of the types yourself, you are less of an arbiter as to how they really are.

So you mean that you don't know what the types are like in real life independent of the theory? Then you have something to learn ... You are only a beginnner.

What is your methodology for peering into the mind of an alpha NT?

Methodology!? Why not talk to them? That's the easiest way to understand them.

If you had ovserved them with any empirical accuracy... you wouldn't have made such blanket generalizations.

As I said, you are only a beginner.

Good advice. I suggest you take it.

I know what I'm talking about, you don't -- that's the simple truth of the matter.

Care to elaborate?

So you admit that you haven't studied the type descriptions? Well, then you have something to do in your spare time.

]*sigh* study the differences between model A and Jung's typology.[/size]

Here is an article on the subject to help get you started.

And you think that the content of that article is relevant to the aspects we are discussing here!? That means that you haven't understood.

[Phaedrus]

I've observed INTjs who's world view matches Hume's. They seemed Fe and Si valuing individuals. What the heck did I observe?

I don't know. But you haven't convinced me that what you saw was an INTj. That you believe that you have observed them valuing Fe and Si is an extremely poor argument. You must type them by other means, so how do you know that they are INTjs?

Did you talk to every single INTj, or even a statistically relevent amount before you make your generalizations about them?

I have talked to several INTjs, and I have not yet come across one single example of an INTj that does not fit the generalizations. And those generalizations are exactly what we should expect based on type profiles.

The truth is in the demonstrating.

No. Knowledge is in the demonstrating. Truth is in the structure of reality.

[Phaedrus]

Just for the record phaedrus, I think what your observing in the humean/kantian thing could have some basis in truth. I'm not entirely convinced that every INTj=kantian, every INTp=humean is true as a surface, empirical observation... but it's certainly very possible that at the cognitive core of each type these associations can be made with how the types perceive the world fundamentally... if only there was a way to combine this observation with model A or some other model of the human psyche.

If model A is a correct theory of the human psyche, there is necessarily a way to combine the observation with the theory. So what is the correct theoretical explanation for this phenomenon, assuming that it exists?

[Logos]

I have talked to several INTjs, and I have not yet come across one single example of an INTj that does not fit the generalizations. And those generalizations are exactly what we should expect based on type profiles.

How do you know that they were INTjs? You haven't convinced me that what you saw was an INTj.

[Phaedrus]

How do you know that they were INTjs? You haven't convinced me that what you saw was an INTj.

You know my methods, Watson. I have explained them before in some detail. I use interviews, test results, V.I., body type theory, Reinin dichotomies, the four dimensions, intertype relations, etc. The INTjs I have talked to would not be considered to be INTjs by me if they didn't clearly fit most or all of those type aspects.

But I seem to be almost alone in doing such a thorough research before I come to a conclusion about someone's type. Therefore I need to know how thorough other people are when they claim that a person is a certain type.

[Logos]

You know my methods, Watson. I have explained them before in some detail. I use interviews, test results, V.I., body type theory, Reinin dichotomies, the four dimensions, intertype relations, etc. The INTjs I have talked to would not be considered to be INTjs by me if they didn't clearly fit most or all of those type aspects.

But I seem to be almost alone in doing such a thorough research before I come to a conclusion about someone's type. Therefore I need to know how thorough other people are when they claim that a person is a certain type.

But if one, let's say jxrtes, were to say that he did all of that as well to show that Humean INTjs existed, would you believe him?

[Phaedrus]

But if one, let's say jxrtes, were to say that he did all of that as well to show that Humean INTjs existed, would you believe him?

Yes, if he could provide a convincing summary of the test results and how he has proceeded when typing those people, then I would believe him. I am even more interested in seeing such a summary when it comes to munenori2's typing of the professor who was an expert on Hume.

But I am still waiting for that to happen. So far I have never heard of anyone that has been so cautious and thorough in his or her typings of others as I tend to be myself.

[Logos]

Yes, if he could provide a convincing summary of the test results and how he has proceeded when typing those people, then I would believe him. I am even more interested in seeing such a summary when it comes to munenori2's typing of the professor who was an expert on Hume.

But I am still waiting for that to happen. So far I have never heard of anyone that has been so cautious and thorough in his or her typings of others as I tend to be myself.

Do you give people Socionics tests when out in the field? Has everyone you typed as an INTj taken a personality test?

[Phaedrus]

Do you give people Socionics tests when out in the field? Has everyone you typed as an INTj taken a personality test?

Most of them, yes. Almost everyone has at least commented on how they identify with the four dichotomies. I have also usually made semi-structured interviews with them to find out the relevant aspects on which to analyze in their personality. And every INTj I have typed have had the same body type, which is fairly easy to spot.

The persons I am going to accept as "INTjs" must fit much more than just one relevant dimension. Everything, or at least nearly everything, must fit -- identification with type description(s), the four dimensions, body type, V.I., test results (if available), observable behaviour including way of speaking, gestures, tone of voice, etc.

Also, every INTj I have ever met or read about is an early bird rather than a night owl.

[Logos]

You continue to push the bounds of credibility to uncharted limits.