Socionics For Dummies

[Bertrand]

that's a good question but I think a lot of it goes to cognitive style, and whether you're rational/irrational. 4d fi 2d ti is going to look a lot different than 3dfi 1dti, the latter being far more flexible in how it approaches what words function to do. i think a lot of my criticisms of olimpia have a built in preconception of what language functions to do and how it ought to operate, which is informed by that rational character. i took a lot of formal logic as an undergrad which more than fleshing out thinking per se it more honed rationality, which beleive it or not influences how feeling processes the world. the feeler when they make judgements still operates with sufficient->necessary chains. they still reason, it just works from base ethical material

keep in mind the philosopher hegel was typed EIE, same with Nietzsche. their reasoning tended to be complex and sound, it was the base concern and material they drew on that lent it its ethical character... I think when people think of ethicals they assume reasoning goes out the window, but between rational types, the reasoning should be roughly equally rigorous it should just more or less focus on different topics, perhaps with different appurtenant symbolism and jargon (which may look like nonsense--whereas "thinking" style jargon carries with it the air of "authority" and ethical jargon tends to be downplayed as less valid--and yet certain poeticisms retain much of their force over the heart)...

"the heart has its reasons which reason does not know" etc

this is I think a true statement in regard to my second paragraph, but it came out in the 17th century, prior to Jung. Now we could say I think more accurately, "the heart has its reasons which thinking does not know"

but there is still a form of reasoning underlying it, which I think can be honed via feedback. the flipside to Fi is Te and I think that is how it handles refining itself in time. in other words Fi develops via Te feedback from the universe in time, and this development is a rational process (interestingly enough Hegel would say it is a historical-dialectical process, which is just another way to put exactly what I said here) "the real is rational and the rational is real"-- this quote used to mystify me for years, but now I think I finally understand it.. what he's saying is you can understand the development of "spirit" (roughly, feeling E or I) as the process in time through which it receives feedback and rationally progresses, which means resolving its inner contradictions, Ti or Te are just the psychic counterweights to feeling which serve as the opposing pole where the dichotomous feeling functions understands the feedback to "come from"

the deal with irrationality is it entails all sorts of inner contradictions and an irrational dominant tends not to be concerned with resolving them, whereas the rational makes it a priority to root out and resolve such tensions wherever they are perceived if at all possible. the sisyphean nature of this makes "rationality" something of an irrationality, and irrationality something of a rational option, hence how we color them is mainly a sign for how they tend to go about living their life, not that one is inherently superior to the other

God is in some sense an ultimately rational concept because it functions to resolve the above inner contradiction (the rational approach being inherently irrational), which is why certain types tend to come to God, because it seems to be a underlying necessary condition of the universe as a rational requirement emerging from a rational temperament... from the irrational perspective there is simply no need for God, because they are comfortable with the universe as is and aren't trying to rationally traverse time... thus from their point of view imposing such a requirement where there need be none, by their temperament, is irrational. this is how you can have holy wars and purges where the parties each individually believe in their own rightness and it goes right to their concept of God, or enlightenment, which confers "absolute" authority hence genocide and so forth... I'd say we're living in an age that is the irrational counterstroke to the ideological conflicts of the 20th century, culminating in the cold war, which basically exhausted people and cast doubt on any rational progression (because it seemed like man was about to anihilate himself via MAD, thus "what rational progression?" became self evident--this is the basis for much of 20th century existentialism)... right now we're starting to see some rational blowback because it seemed like total irrationality just invited jihadism and other forms of extremism in, for lack of a more moderate alternative. the options seem to have been post modernism or fundamentalism... now we're starting to see a rational dialectical emergence of a radical moderation, which Jung represents the seed of in the form of unification