Does Rationality/Irrationality exist in classical Socionics?
I can't remember any strong evidence that Aushra and early Socionists used this naming - and concept - to differentiate j/p types. It was indeed sometimes used for convenience, but nowdays, many people - which I would not call Socionists - take them for granted and develop based on their meaning, in most of the cases fallaciously using Jung and Myers-Briggs writings as justification, different explanations.
Apparently, in Socionics, the corresponding dichotomy has a different naming and meaning, namely Schizotim/Cyclotim. Aushra, in one of her books, offered an explanation on how Schizothymia and Cyclothymia emerge from the dichotomies of the Information Aspects (Static/Dynamic, Extroverted/Introverted) depending on their positioning as Accepting/Producing. Aushra wrote black on white:
Quote:
Why cyclothymia seem impulsive, and G. K. Jung even called it "irrational"?
Quote:
Therefore they [skizotims] seem to be more stringent, resolute, rational, their movements are faster and more angular, sharper emotions and cold.
Quote:
How shizotim easily, "rationally" changes its behavior and manifestations of emotions...
...
Additionally, the Information Elements/Aspects themselves are not even usually classified in Schizothymic/Cyclothymic - Rational/Irrational - Judging/Perceiving. They're simply eight aspects of information based on three fundamental dichotomies.
---
Now the imminent questions:
- is this really the case? Any other pro and contra evidence? (with sources)
- if yes, how did we get to use this bastardized version of Socionics?
- what can we do about it, are people willing to take on sources of information and their authors (socionics.com, wikisocion.org, socionics.us)
- how could we prevent such things happening again?
By "such things" I especially mean identifying and associating Socionics notions, concepts and explanations with their correspondents from Jung and other related Jungian theories, even if they fundamentally differ in meaning. Another example was using Jung's Objectivity/Subjectivity as an equivalent for Bodies/Fields (I think I noticed Rick and DarkAngelFireWolf69 using them, as a "more modern interpretation" of B/F), although they correspond, they're pretty much different things and by Aushra changing the naming, she changed the understanding in the respective types: the Socionics understanding.