Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Does Rationality/Irrationality exist in classical Socionics?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default 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:
    Why cyclothymia seem impulsive, and G. K. Jung even called it "irrational"?
    Therefore they [skizotims] seem to be more stringent, resolute, rational, their movements are faster and more angular, sharper emotions and cold.
    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.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If I remember correctly, in his "Psychological Types" Jung used the adjectives rational-irrational "predisposition" in relation to functions. He further specified that introverted rationality is radically different from extraverted rationality. So that's probably where the term comes from.

    Even if Ashura might disagree, it's rather obvious that Socionics is based on Jung's masterpiece. Actually, if you read Jung, MBTI and Socionics, you will notice that Jung's and Socionics' definitions of functions are extremely similar, while MBTI departs from both.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,418
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    If I remember correctly, in his "Psychological Types" Jung used the adjectives rational-irrational "predisposition" in relation to functions.
    He also explained that rational meant: including a judgement
    and irrational meant: noticing without judgement.

  4. #4
    EffyCold The Ineffable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wallachia
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    2,191
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Even if Ashura might disagree, it's rather obvious that Socionics is based on Jung's masterpiece. Actually, if you read Jung, MBTI and Socionics, you will notice that Jung's and Socionics' definitions of functions are extremely similar, while MBTI departs from both.
    Yes, I know, but this is the actual problem: Socionics is Socionics and Jung is Jung, fact. There are certainly similarities, but also differences. I think that to adopt Jung and anything else, these external notions must first of all fit in and be coherent, consistent with the Socionics understanding based on their explanation, to call it as "Socionics". This hasty generalization is fallacious, to take everything Jung said for granted as such (as Socionics) based on the idea that Socionics is pretty much faithful to the "masterpiece" - what happened in the Internet era of this field.

    And this is not a matter of credit, FDG. No one denies that Socionics is based on Jung, but it is arguably much improved and certainly different to a large extent - for instance, unlike Jung, Socionics explains the types through information metabolism. Therefore, the explanation of what j/p mean, is radically different across the two systems, as seen in writings like "The Dual Nature of Man".
    Quote Originally Posted by aixelsyd View Post
    I don't know but will say it makes sense to use the rationality and irrationality dichotomies to exist as qualifiers for the IMs. It's kind of hard to think of the IMs without them or to think of Model A.
    That's a habit, because we used this modified version. I'm contrasting the possible errors through misguidance of certain sources with the accuracy of the original ones. Maybe this is not even close to the best adivce to tell a Ti-PoLR, but if the true Model A doesn't include this dichotomy, we should get over it :|.
    ---

    The point is that, as far as I can tell, we don't use the original Socionics dichotomy + meaning of the J/P; Aushra never warranted the explanations and naming conventions of Jung as drop-in substitutes for hers, but some people made these replacements later. What we call "Socionics" is not the one created by its author, neither fully compatible. Aushra often clarified the differences between Socionics and Jung, therefore any future gratuitous interchange between the two systems is unjustified. So, although they arguably refer to the same types, Schizotimic/Cyclotimic is not Rational/Irrational, not even formally, unless we find authentic evidence that Aushra changed her mind - very unlikely, as she often pointed out the differences.

    Should we do something about it? What should we do? Who? - these are the questions. I expect some people to support this correction, while others to oppose it; I have no problem with either, but I think I should raise awareness on the problem - because neither I was aware of it since always.
    Shock intuition, diamond logic.
     

    The16types.info Scientific Model

  5. #5
    jughead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NC
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    894
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well what is irrationality and rationality?

  6. #6
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,682
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jughead View Post
    Well what is irrationality and rationality?
    Taken from Psychological Types, By Carl Jung

    10. Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types
    I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In this respect both the latter types have a considerable superiority over the two judging types. The objective occurrence is both law-determined and accidental.

    5. Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types
    I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and the judging functions. It is a general distinguishing mark of both types that their life is, to a [p. 453] large extent, subordinated to reasoning judgment.

    .....

    Reasoning judgment, in such a psychology, represents a power that coerces the untidy and accidental things of life into definite forms; such at least is its aim. Thus, on the one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life's happenings are essentially restricted. This limitation of sensation and intuition is, of course, not absolute. These functions exist, for they are universal; but their products are subject to the choice of the reasoning judgment.
    ~~~~~~~

    In other words, Irrationality is accepting experiences and deferring classification and restriction while Rationality places a limit on experiences to emphasize on the organization and development of the information gained from the experiences.

  7. #7
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ridiculous thread unworthy of further commentary.

Posting Permissions

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