Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Rational & Irrational

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Rational & Irrational

    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.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Angel of Lightning Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Utah
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,235
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    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.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    -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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand
    -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.

  5. #5
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,248
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    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?
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin
    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.

  7. #7
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,248
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    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!
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  8. #8
    BLauritson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    979
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
    5w4 so/sx

    "IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"

    Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
    Stickam music performances

  9. #9
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,637
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,968
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLauritson View Post
    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.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    JRiddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Indian Territory
    TIM
    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    838
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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".

    JRiddy
    —————King of Socionics—————

    Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •