Quote Originally Posted by Varlawend View Post
No, open-mindedness and friendliness are not associated with Irrationality to my knowledge. They seem like good personality traits in an uncontroversial, general sense.
They are more controversial than you might think. You see, the competitive, dominating nature of Se is directly opposed to open-mindedness. When you want to win or beat the other guy, you don't want to be "friendly" with him. And you don't want to be "open" to him winning or being right, either, you want you to win and not him, because then you lose. That's Se, which is directly opposed to Si and Ne.

Cooperating to see something can revolve around Ethics, I would say. Or the Central dichotomy, in some cases, an Ni sacrifice of the self for a greater cause or ritual. Or Fe and Ti, purposeful collective uses of emotional energy. Or tightly knit Aristocratic communities. I suppose it depends.
The fact that you're not sure suggests that the system you're using isn't quite as tight or illuminating as you say.

Being aware of one's assumptions (and especially growing more awareness of this) would be an example of philosophical intuition (Ni), especially Ni-, which well sees contradictions in abstract categories.
It's not about contradictions though, it's about seeing things from an outside point of view - which is Ne. Ne is also about openness to possibilities, such as the different ways of interpreting typology.

The problem with Gulenko's new stuff is that it goes against the basic definitions of the IM elements and what it means to value them. If you don't have a good definition of Se and Si and why they conflict, then quadras simply don't work, there is no explanation for why ILIs should conflict with ESEs (if they even do anymore), etc. And Gulenko has said as much: he thinks DCNH (!!) has more of an impact on relationships than the basic types! This suggests a very serious break from classical socionics and its truly illuminating relationship structure.