Toggle Light / Dark / Auto color theme
Toggle table of contents sidebar
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Rationality-Irrationality by Trehov and Tsypin
¶
Written by
A. Trehov
and
P. Tsypin
from School of Structural Socionics.
Original text.
Review of Definitions and Confusions
¶
“The deep distinction between rational and irrational types  is the
orientation of the former towards past experience … and secondly
at the changes that the future brings” [7, p.46].
“For a rational type a compiled plan  is … a road, by which he …
can move into the future, not being afraid of surprises … A plan is
desirable for a rational type. It acts as an essential tool that
leads him to a goal” [7, p.46].
“… For the irrational type a plan  is a cage, an annoying obstacle
that doesn’t allow him to flexibility fit into the ever-changing flow
of events …” [7, p.47].
This is a rather strange, in our opinion, position. First of all, it is
unclear how the rational-irrational dichotomy is connected to the
orientation towards the past or the future. The factor of time in
socionics has a connection to the trait intuition-sensing, where
intuitive type is oriented at information about time. The irrational
intuitive (just as rational one) is sensitive towards the traditions, to
their changes, while rational sensing types usually take into account
the momentary situation, outside of its connection to the past
experience (that is completely intuitive factor). Moreover, it is
irrational intuitive types who are inclined to act according to habit,
on inertia, relying on their past experience or understanding of
traditions; most clearly these qualities show for TIM ILI.
Regarding planning, plans can be divided into two categories: other
people’s plans, imposed on us (plans of our supervisors, family members,
etc.), and our own plans. Plans of the first category are rarely
pleasant for people of any types. As for action plans of own “creation”,
everyone has them. Another thing is the rigidity of the plan and how
many options it provides for its implementation. Plans of irrational
types usually have many options and variations, and are reminiscent of a
“tree of goals” from management theory. Plans of rational types are
usually rigid and more tightly connected to fixed working methods. It
cannot be said that a plan for an irrational type is a kind of an
obstacle; a plan is a natural program of action for the future, and any
person, despite their level of development, whether he or she wants it
or not, makes some plans.
Furthermore, there is such a “phenomenon” as the culture of planning:
many people are unobtrusively taught this from their very childhood, and
later, when it becomes necessary, such people - despite their TIM - find
it easier to live, work, and socialize: they are more responsible,
effective, and usually more respected by their co-workers, superiors,
and friends.
Finally, one can meet quite expressed LIEs, EIEs, and other rational
types who don’t have any clear plans for the future; they are not bound
to anything, have no concrete notions, and, naturally, are rarely
successful in what they do. Inability to properly plan one’s activities
and to keep one’s word  is a significant drawback of their personal and
intellectual development, with this having no correlation to soconics
TIMs.
“Irrationality  is the integrity and continuity of the perception of
the world, the continuum, the wave, the diffuse nature of mental
functions. Associative construction of judgments, when “neighboring”
concepts are connected by probability based, causeless links.” [5,
page 186.].
“Rationality  divisiveness and organization of the perception of the
world, their discrete, consequent character. Linearity in
constructing judgments, when subsequent thought follows from the
preceding one based on the law of cause and effect.” [5, page 187.].
This definition is discriminatory in its nature: it turns out that
irrationals do not recognize the cause-and-effect relationships in the
surrounding reality. In actuality, understanding of cause-and-effect
relationships is available to any person; another thing is that the
degree of utilization of these relations in intellectual activity
depends on personal level of development. People who are ignorant
(including typical rationals!) tend to not recognize the cause-effect
relationships when these clearly go against what they already believe.
Conversely, even pre-school children (and, in addition, of irrational
types!) of high level of intellectual development quite freely operate
by simple cause-effect relationships. “Associativity in making
judgments” is also available to everyone; all people make some kind of
associations in their intellectual work; and moreover, these
associations can be almost identical for people of rational and
irrational TIMs.
“Rational types are somewhat distanced from immediate perception of
reality. Certain psychological distance exists between them and the
world, which allows them to ponder, to evaluate, to decide in
advance, to set goals and plan their actions, to subordinate actions
to certain criteria of morality, ethics, sympathies and antipathies,
etc. Everything that they plan, they consistently bring to an end. If
any circumstances interfere with rational individual carrying out his
plans, he will feel disconcerted, anxious, and dissatisfied. It even
happens that he is unable to switch from one activity to another,
even if he or she wants it, as if some unseen force doesn’t allow him
to do it; he becomes “fixated” on the same thing.
Irrational types are immediately incorporated into the flow of events
they are always “inside the flow”. Their actions depend not so much
on the previously adopted intentions, but on the contingencies of the
situation. In outward behavior, they can be unpredictable and
variable, and this variability is directly dependent on the
changeability of the world. A person of irrational type can, without
finishing, abandon one thing to get involved in other things.
In many cases, these two types of psyche manifest in diametrically
opposite ways. Here are a few characteristics of significance:
a person of rational type works systematically, dislikes taking risks; while a person of irrational type acts spontaneously, yields to momentary involvements, can take on risky activities not worrying much about how it might end for him;
a person of rational type poorly tolerates a state of uncertainty, because in such situations it is impossible to foresee and plan anything in advance, while for a person of irrational type a state of uncertainty  is his native element, while an “over-organized” life, on the contrary, is depressing and exhausting to him” [6, pp. 54-55].
First of all, making evaluations, assessments, planning actions and
activities, setting goals, are equally available to people of both
rational and irrational TIMs. Moreover, as it will be shown below, it is
people of irrational types who have the most clear or even unchanging
goals. All people making plans (even approximate ones) expect that these
plans will become realized. No one expects or wishes for their own plans
to fail (even the most “irrational irrationals”)!
Further, it is impossible to agree with the fact that irrationals
“abandon one thing without finishing it to get involved in other
activities”. Why should all people of irrational TIMs be so changeable
and unreliable in any matters? In actuality, a person of irrational
types thinks in the following manner: if some activity or undertaking
has lost its potential (Ne) or timeliness (Ni), then it can be either
temporarily or permanently “set aside”; there is no unintentionality or
unpredictability in such actions, and all (or almost all) cases of
“abandoned affairs” can be clearly explained in economic terms.
From where it follows that irrationals recklessly take risks, we do not
understand. What are they, more foolish than rationals who are inclined
to act prudently? This is highly doubtful! One can meet truly reckless
people of not too high levels of development of TIMs EIE, ESE, LIE who
are ready to take risks on any occasion only to have the so-called
“drive”. Conversely, many people of irrational TIMs SEI, SLI, ILI are
very careful and even precautionary in how they behave: their actions
are often meticulously (and all-inclusively) thought out.
Finally, the degree of severity of state of uncertainty, in our opinion,
is determined by the dichotomy of intuition - sensing: intuitive types
are more tolerant of uncertainty, than the sensing types who gravitate
towards concreteness (more about this is written in our article “The
correct understanding of the dichotomy of intuition / sensing”).
“The dynamicity of human nervous system is determined by … the
scale “rationality - irrationality”.
“Irrational people have more dynamic nervous system. They live by
undulating rhythms of ups and downs. Their performance is heavily
dependent on their mood. When they are on the decline, their
productivity falls sharply - they cannot bring themselves to work
hard. When their mood is on the rise, their strengths increase
manifold, and they make up for lost time in such moments and make big
leaps forward.
In their behavior, irrational types flexibly change their line of
actions, easily rearrange themselves along the way, changing their
line of action to the opposite if needed. They cannot do without
experimentation and improvisation, and require constant switching
from one interesting engagement to another.
Rational people have a rigid, inert nervous system. They are
characterized by stable work performance and don’t have pronounced
alternation of ups and downs. Their mood, of course, can also vary,
however, this doesn’t happen by itself, but under the influence of
external factors and does not entail drastic fluctuations in their
performance. If needed, they maintain a stable rhythm and sustain
average productivity levels for sufficiently long periods of time.
In behavior and partnership rational people are reliable and
consistent. They have a hard time adjusting if the situation has
changed, if they are already oriented at a specific action plan.
Frequent switches from one activity to another are annoying to them.
They are determined to bring what they have started to an end, even
with the loss of initial interest, and only then they switch to the
next activity” [4, p. 18].
Any correlations made between the workings of the nervous system and
socionics traits are obviously far-fetched. The nervous system does not
define the characteristics of human information processing and
motivations of thinking. “Dynamicity” of nervous system - is an
individual trait that does not influence one’s TIM. Everyday there are
examples of representatives of rational TIMs, for example LIE, who very
quickly switch their attention from one array of information to the
next, and, at the same time, there are many “slowed down” (in terms of
the reactivity of the nervous system) people with irrational TIMs, for
example ILI, SLI, and others. Thus, there is practically no confirmation
that “irrationals have a more flexible nervous system”; the speed and
variety of nervous reactions are independent of TIM.
Any behavioral characteristics of TIMs or groups of TIMs are always
conditional, because TIM gives insight into the information processing
of a human mind, and behavioral traits are not a direct result of
information processes.
Regarding mood changes: under the influence of external factors these
changes happen in extroverts, who are motivated mainly by the reality of
the external world; rationality is of scarce relation to this. In
addition, there are rational TIMs with “program” function of Fe, whose
mood determines the level of activity and performance and changes
sometimes spontaneously (at least that’s how it seems to people around
them).
The thesis about reliability of rationals in partnerships looks openly
chauvinist: it turns out that irrationals are “pathologically”
unreliable?! We will only note that such qualities as conscientiousness,
reliability, and honesty are not socionic factors  a person of any TIM
is capable of letting others down and backing out of previous
agreements, or, on the contrary, proving themselves to be reliable and
trustworthy - this depends on aspects of their personality. We also note
that in practice rational types can be engaged in a number of activities
simultaneously; modern business requires speed and efficiency, such that
all participants need to “spin around” and switch tasks. Of course,
irrationals switch from one case to another more easily, but rationals
are quite capable of doing the same.
“A person of rational type always acts with deliberation and thought,
in accordance with a verified line of behavior, and is accurate and
precise in all his assignments. Each undertaking is carefully thought
out, not leaving a single question unresolved, since unresolved
issues form a serious hindrance for him. He finds it difficult to
re-adjust; if his plan is not executed as was planned, he often
continues to operate by inertia, by the old schemes, which is why he
constantly has problems. A person of this type finds it easy to work
in a system where order and discipline are the defining factors “[8,
p.24-25].
“A person of irrational type improvises, behaves by his inspiration,
creatively adapts to the situation and relies on the moment. In
interaction he immediately comes into contact, he “breaks into” any
situation and only then begins to study people and their qualities.
Impulsivity and inconsistency are characteristic of his activities;
he likes to be free of obligations. He acts effectively only under
the influence of his feelings and passions. He always has many
undertakings, the resolution of which he postpones until the last
moment and is not always able to complete them, because, due to his
curiosity, he most of all loves to take on new projects and business
for himself “[8, p.25].
Generally, in our view, words such as “always” or “under any
circumstances” are unacceptable to use in socionics: a person’s TIM is
rarely manifested literally and all-extensively, making all socionic
traits be relative and speculative. A person of a rational TIM is
capable of behaving recklessly, especially if it is a rational
extrovert. Intellectually developed irrational usually behaves
consistently. Only people who are immature and carefree rely only on
chance; these qualities have nothing to do with socionics TIMs. In
practice, carefree attitude may be shown by representatives of TIMs LSI
and ESI, and their carefreeness is not hindered by rationality,
introversion, or sensing traits. Of course, it is absolutely absurd to
attribute inconsistency to irrationality; if a person works, then,
regardless of his TIM, he finds the most optimal course of action, that,
while being particular to each individual - will be quite effective.
The issue of bringing undertakings to completion has a relations to
dichotomy
process-result
; the “left” result
type irrationals are much more prone to quickly finish their tasks than
the “right” process type rationals.
Finally, curiosity is not a socionic trait but an individual quality.
Our positions
¶
1. For all rational TIMs the rational aspects are located in
accepting channels
of model A, while irrational TIMs
have irrational aspects located in these channels. Rational aspects,
especially Te, express the methodology of action. Irrational aspects,
especially Ne, express the purpose of action. It turns out that for the
rationals the methods remain unchanged, but purposes - are the subject
of endless manipulation; while for the irrational, conversely, the
purpose remains unchanged, even “holy”, while the methods are variable
and subject to manipulation.
Examples:
K. Rileyev, who was apparently of an irrational TIM, during an
interrogation said the following to Emperor Nicholas: “Perhaps our
[Decembrists’] methods were not good, but the goals were noble!”
Rational Stalin would say: “”There are no fortresses that Bolsheviks
cannot take.” Translated into the language of socionics it sounds as
follows: if one has at their disposal the Bolshevik method of action,
you can achieve any goal. The method for Stalin - is unchanged, the goal
- is arbitrary, dictated by the situation at hand.
St. Ignatius of Loyola reasoned like a typical irrational TIM, putting
forward the slogan “the end justifies the means”. Irrationals, due to
the location of the methodological aspects in
producing channels
of model A, are in general
undiscerning in methods used. And what forms the purpose for the
rational? The triumph of his method! For Stalin - the triumph of the
Bolshevik method, for Hitler (EIE) - the triumph of National Socialism
method, for Trotsky (EIE) - the triumph of the ideas (and method) of the
world proletarian revolution, and so on.
For comparison, here are the purposes of irrationals. Lenin (SLE): The
construction of the socialist state (its systematic foundations) in a
particular country; Churchill (SLE or perhaps ILE): Saving the relative
immunity of the UK in terms of the Second World War; Khrushchev (SEI):
the establishment of communism by year 1980; Gorbachev (SEE): the
implementation of produce program, “every family gets a separate
apartment by the year 2000”.
For an irrational it is quite possible that there is a clear and
realizable goal, but for a while there are no methods of achieving it.
For the rational, on the contrary, such situation is highly unlikely,
but it is often the case when there is some wonderful method that, for
the time being (and perhaps for some considerable time) has nowhere to
be applied.
Let us note that conventional meaning of being “goal-oriented” is
inherent to all TIMs: it is only that the goals differ, particularly -
rational goals or irrational goals.
1. Traditionally, it is assumed in socionics that irrationality is a
direct and unmediated perception of information, and rationality - is
mediated judgment.
Taking a look at the cause-effect links of model A: for all irrational
TIMs the rational elements are functionally dependent on the irrational
ones, that is, self-sufficient perception is primary and judgement is
secondary. For the rational TIMs this is in reverse: judgment is
primary, while perception is functionally dependent on it. A rational or
“rationally thinking person” first makes a thought-effort, and then
feels or perceives, while an irrational person, on the contrary, first
experiences something, and then thinks it over in his mind. Rationals
pre-program themselves to “perceptions”, invent them, adjusting their
experiences and perceptions to preconceived “rules”. Irrationals seek to
try and percept something first, and only then draw conclusions,
speculate, and think of explanations for it.
This means that the distinction is not in that one is oriented at
perception, and the other - at judgment, but in what comes first.
Consequently,
Rational  is the one for whom mediated judgement is primarily, and
perception is subordinated to this judgment.
Irrational  is the one for whom unmediated perception functionally
predefines judgment.
3. One of the traditional misconceptions about this dichotomy is that
only rationals plan, while irrationals live “on a whim” - thinking of
something in advance is not for them in principle. From where such crazy
conclusions come from, we do not understand, but the harm that comes
from them is apparent and very significant [especially in typing
process]. So what happens in actuality?
Planning, of course, is done by people of all TIMs. The difference is in
how they relate to the possibility of changing their plans under the
influence of circumstances. Rationals desire literal realization of
their plans, even if the circumstances have changed. Irrationals, while
planning, are ready for the fact that their plans will undergo revisions
or lose their meaning. They then quickly reorient by the new situation
and work out a new plan. You could say that: irrationals engage in
flexible, contingency planning, and rationals engage in legislative,
unidirectional planning.
It is notable that the very concept of planning differs for rationals
and irrationals. Rationals by planning understand methodologically
verified sequence of actions in time, while irrationals understand
planning as an approach to an important target or goal for them.
An example:
Rational type plan: “On Sunday I will write the article  in the first
half of the day I will be choosing materials for it, then I will have
dinner, then I will generalize the materials and type the text. If
someone calls to talk in the morning, I will tell them that I am a
little busy and return to my work.” Irrational type plan: “On Sunday I
will write the article  in principle, everything about it is clear, I
just need to sit down at the computer and type the text, while looking
through the materials. It can be finished in a day. If someone calls and
wants to come over or meet up, I will agree and finish the article the
next day  if time permits it.”
It may seem that irrationals easily abandon their plans. This is not so
in fact: a person of irrational type, switching his attention to a new -
not planned in advance kind of activity - weighs the importance of the
two activities, the old one and the new one that has come up, and makes
a decision which one is of higher priority. If he is offered to abandon
an important matter for something non-essential, he keeps with previous
activity. Rationals, in general, dislike switching from one thing to
another without a compelling necessity. But - once again - if such a
switch is warranted, they are capable of stopping the activity and
starting on something else - though reluctantly and without much
pleasure.
About spontaneity and predictability
¶
It is generally considered that irrationals behave themselves
spontaneously, that their actions are difficult to predict and often
absurd from the standpoint of reason, and that rationals, by contrast,
are always consistent. In particular, V. Gulenko writes:
“… In socionics sense, rational, as thought out, predictable,
deliberate, systematic, analytic, is the opposite of irrational, as a
disordered, spontaneous, integral, unconscious, synthetic” [1, p.
51].
This position seems to us as not completely objective. Firstly, it is
necessary to figure out this terminology: what is considered to be
“spontaneous”? Apparently, those actions, words, and thoughts that do
not follow directly from the current situation. But then the two poles
of this dichotomy are actually on equal footing: it’s simply that the
actions, words, and thoughts are caused by different reasons. For
rationals - they are the fruits of judgment, while the irrationals - the
outcome of immediate perception of reality. The problem is that to
understand the motivations of the other pole is very difficult. From
point of view of a rational, for example, a sudden change in plans for
the day by irrational type seems spontaneous and poorly conceived. In
actually, the irrational person has carefully analyzed his actions and
evaluated the opportunities and prospects of various options of action
in a changing environment. Irrationals don’t view each other as
unpredictable and unexpected. For them it is the rational person who
seems unpredictable, for example, changing his plans based on his
rapidly transforming emotional evaluations (which is completely
incomprehensible to irrationals).
Thus, predictability, and all related concepts are, of course, relative.
Secondly, the trait of rational / irrational is rather “rheostat” (to
use the terminology G. Schulman [3]).
In particular, 4 “groups of rationality” stand out:
Group 1  “Pure Rationals”  Representatives of expressed rational
subtypes of rational types (e.g. Ti-LSI) [2]. They are inclined
towards rigid sequencing of mental operations and (in part) of their
actions. They are most likely to be rational in everyday sense.
Group 2  Representatives of irrational subtypes of rational types
(e.g. Ni-EIE). Here, the subtype’s temperament becomes expressed
(flexible-maneuvering for introverted rationals, e.g. Ne-EII, and
receptive-adaptive for extroverted rationals, e.g. Ni-EIE), which
significantly alters external characteristics of information
metabolism toward irrationality. Such people are very often mistaken
(and mistake themselves) for irrational types (e.g. Ni-EIE typing as
ILI or IEI).
Group 3  Representatives of rational subtypes of irrational types
(e.g. Fe-IEI). Here, the subtype’s temperament is also expressed
(linear-assertive for introverted irrationals, e.g. Te-SLI, and
balanced-stable for extroverted irrationals, e.g. Ti-ILE). These
people are often mistaken (and mistake themselves) for rational types
(e.g. Fe-IEI typing as EIE or ESE).
Group 4  “Pure Irrationals”  Representatives of irrational subtypes
of irrational types (e.g. Ni-ILI) They may indeed be extremely
spontaneous and little predictable to others. This is irrationality
even in the everyday sense.
Concluding remarks
¶
Irrationality  is not the lack of goals and expediency, but
indivisibility and integrated approach in perception of reality.
Rationality implies awareness of the world on the basis of discreteness,
“phasicity”, when thinking sequentially goes through a series of stages
from one to the next consideration. If we use an “electrical-technical”
analogy, the rational mind is similar to serial connection of the
circuit elements, and irrational mind is similar to a parallel one.
The socionics dichotomy of rational / irrational has nothing to do with
the conventional understanding of concepts of “being rational / being
irrational” in the usual sense of these words, as these words do not
reflect the innate properties of thinking, but the situational
assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of a particular action or
behavior.
Definitions:
Rationality is the causation of perception following from
judgment.
Irrationality is the causation of judgment following from
perception.
Literature
¶
Gulenko V. V. Structural and Functional Socionics: Development of a
method of combinatorics polarities. - K .: Transport of Ukraine, 1999. -CH.1.
Menchov T. I., Tsypin P. E., Levin J. V. Secrets typing. - M .: Good
Word 2004.
Shulman G. A. Socion Model // Socionics, Mentology and Personality
Psychology, 3, 1995.
Meged V. V., Ovcharov A. A. Learn to manage people effectively. -
Exactly: PPF “Volinski charms” 2000.
Rumyantsev E. A. On the way to mutual understanding: socionics -
teachers and parents. - M .: Armada-press, 2002.
Filatova E. S. Socionics for all. Science communication,
understanding and consent. - SPb .: B & K 1999.
Udalova E. A. Lessons Socionics, or most importantly, what we have
not been taught in school / E. A. Udalova, L. A. Beskova - M .:
Astrel 2003.
Ivanov Y. V. Business socionics. - M .: JSC “Business School”,
“Intel-Synthesis”, 2001.
Additional Links
¶
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Extroversion-Introversion by Trehov and Tsypin
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Logic-Ethics by Trehov and Tsypin
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Intuition-Sensing by Trehov and Tsypin
On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Rationality-Irrationality by Trehov and Tsypin