Sensing-Intuition and Logic-Ethics dilemmas for Rational and Irrational types

[Hugo]

At http://www.socionics.com/advan/ic47.htm it states that you are a rational type if you:

often feel the need, but find it rather difficult to maintain a steady balance between the physical and spiritual self.

And you are an irrational type if you:

often feel the need, but find it rather difficult to maintain a steady balance between the emotional and intellectual self.

Does it work for you?

[diamond]

Good one! Yes it works.

[CuriousSoul]

Here I go again... but I think some examples would be appreciated: balancing the physical and spiritual can mean an awful lot of things to different people. In my humble opinion this is somewhat misleading because as Siegmund Freud put it:
Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...fre165464.html
Most psychological problems people have tend to at least reflect on their ability to work and maintain close relations.

[Hugo]

Here I go again... but I think some examples would be appreciated: balancing the physical and spiritual can mean an awful lot of things to different people. In my humble opinion this is somewhat misleading because as Siegmund Freud put it:
Love and work are the cornerstones of our humanness.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...fre165464.html
Most psychological problems people have tend to at least reflect on their ability to work and maintain close relations.

Dear Curious,

Does it work for you?

[science as magic]

It works for me but I have to think about it too much. If I was less self aware I'd probably say it didn't.

[CuriousSoul]

I' ll have to say that it kind of works for me now when I can interpret my behavior more accurately according to my current understanding of socionics theory. At the time I first read it I thought it confirmed that my type is INFP. Earlier Cone analyzed the way ENTPs and INTJs talk when they try to explain something theoretical, your second function hits my first in this way etc.. (See if you can find the link) I think this abstract approach just is not going to work that well for most people - and generally rational types are quite likely to conclude that they are irrationals if they try to analyze themselves having read this. Try to think of examples to demonstrate how these things could manifest, please...
Now
Soon?

[Cone]

Yes, it works. This came up for me at the Socionics test when I still wasn't exactly sure of my type.

Earlier Cone analyzed the way ENTPs and INTJs talk when they try to explain something theoretical

Wait--I did?

[Hugo]

So if it works, why isn't it used for determining type???

[science as magic]

You have to think about it tooo much a novice wouldn't know *how* to respond.

[CuriousSoul]

Yes, it works. This came up for me at the Socionics test when I still wasn't exactly sure of my type.

I think it has been established by now that it works for irrational types. I am not so sure whether it actually works for rational types...

Earlier Cone analyzed the way ENTPs and INTJs talk when they try to explain something theoretical

Wait--I did?

You did indeed. You should always remember all your old posts!
This site could also do with a better search engine, now there are so many posts here and there that I can know longer remember who wrote what and where. Here is the money shot: :wink:

I am often struck by how sometimes people explain things by showing you the general structure, void of any details. Often times I will see things explained like this on this forum:

Can someone please explain how a mirror relation between an ENTp and an INTj helps one another?

Sure, it goes like this. The INTj's Ti is their area of confidence and for ENTps, it's their area of creativity. So, when the INTj processes information through Ti, he sees it as complete and non-negotiable, whereas the ENTp sees it as variable and changeable. This works likewise for Ne in both types, only the INTj is the creative one now.
(Emphasis added)

I hope that explains everything.

Sorry, but it didn't. If I wanted that description, I could have looked it up. No examples, no correlations to other concepts to help reinforce this concept.

I know how hard this may be for you, but I wish you would give examples on some of your generalizations, Transigent. It's hard enough to rack my brain trying to understand what you said and how I can derive examples from that (I guess deriving examples is an Ni thing, if I remember correctly.)

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3...er=asc&start=0

[Cone]

Actually, CuriousSoul, I was paraphrasing something an ENFp or INFp said once on this site.

[CuriousSoul]

I do not think the post mentioned you were paraphrasing anyone.
Anyway I like being pedantic once in a a while...

[Hugo]

I think it has been established by now that it works for irrational types. I am not so sure whether it actually works for rational types...

On the basis of what Curious Soul said, that would mean that you could work out if a person is a rational or irrational type by asking the following question:

Do you often feel the need, but find it rather difficult to maintain a steady balance between the emotional and intellectual self?

If you answer "Yes" then you are an irrational type. If you answer "No" then you are a rational type.

[discourse]

Do you often feel the need, but find it rather difficult to maintain a steady balance between the emotional and intellectual self?

Yes it will work though you can't ask directly weather or not somebody finds this balance because emotional and intellectual are too vauge concepts. I suggest for you to ask indirect questions related to emotional and intellecutal balance and then calculate the rationality irrationality out.

[Hugo]

So what you are saying is, is that it dosen't really work then?

[CuriousSoul]

On the basis of what Curious Soul said, that would mean that you could work out if a person is a rational or irrational type by asking the following question:

Do you often feel the need, but find it rather difficult to maintain a steady balance between the emotional and intellectual self?

If you answer "Yes" then you are an irrational type. If you answer "No" then you are a rational type.

Sorry, I should have been more specific, what I meant was that irrational types appear to regularly realize that they: often feel the need, but find it rather difficult to maintain a steady balance between the emotional and intellectual self rather than spiritual and physical but many people with rational types will also think this way.

So maybe the conclusion we can draw is that if you answer that you: often feel the need, but find it rather difficult to maintain a steady balance between the physical and spiritual self. - then you are indeed a rational type, but if you think the emotional-intellectual side presents problems for you, you may still very well be a rational type. Unless - of course - the concepts can be better explained by practical examples...

[discourse]

So what you are saying is, is that it dosen't really work then?

I wouldn't say so, I rather say that there should be a way to make clear for the chooser what does these terms emotional and intellectual mean.

[Creepy-]

... and the terms "physical" and "spiritual".

[Hugo]

I find that p types have difficulty figuring out if they are N or S, and that j types have difficulty figuring out if they are F or T.

I think this is because, for example, xxTj types are attracted to F types, and try to be F as well as T (although they are weak at balancing F and T characteristics).

For this reason it is better to ask a person that has difficulty determining whether they are F or T whether they would like their ideal companion to have F characterisitcs or T characteristics. If they say F then they are T. If they say T then they are F. You will also know that they are a j.

Same goes for p types and S and N.

[Angel von Himmel]

Woah! that is so weird! I was just wondering the other day whether I perfer girls who are touchy feely or are more in touch with their intellectual side.

But then, I am also debating with myself whether I am more P or J ...

[science as magic]

I never *really* questioned my T. Whenever I question my introversion, intuition, or whatever something happens that will make me realize how I am acting objectively and will laugh about it. One day I was walking to get some food thinking about how much of an extravert I *really* am with my hands in my pockets not looking at the faces of anyone around me etc etc. I started laughing. Things like that remind me of how introverted my mindset is.

Of by the way for reference sake when I was still "deciding" my type I considered INTJ, ENTP, INTP, INFJ, and ISTJ.

[Hugo]

But Pedro, do you find that you are definately not S, but that you can see F in yourself.

[science as magic]

No at the time I was quite depressed. I felt emotions a lot and confused this with "being F." I also thought I might be an ISTJ because well I act like that when I was little. I remembered reading something about ISTJs not liking people moving their things and I was a lot like that as a kid.

[Hugo]

Pedro, leaving aside type descrptions, would you choose S over N? Do you see any S within yourself, or do you definately not see S wihin yourself?

[Hugo]

That's me above.

[science as magic]

As of now? I see S in myself as an unstable weak characteristic.

[Hugo]

That's what I am talking about.

From what you say, it appears you see more of F in yourself than S.

Is that rights?

If so, you being a j type, there is more of a balance between T/F than S/N.

[science as magic]

Currently I see more Si in myself than Fe but I think Fi is stronger than Si. Se is ever present and influences things but I don't act for it.

[Hugo]

Pedro: So is it right to say that you clearly have more of a T/F balance than an S/N balance (leaving out the 8 functions)?

[science as magic]

I'm not sure how I would respond to this if I did not know socionics.

[Hugo]

Do j types find it difficult to take regular breaks compared to p types?