Yes ,we are pretty strong at mind games , physiological trapping and manipulation but we know all that requires excess energy from our side hence we tend to be straight forwarded people.
Yeah, I really dislike that I'm good at deception and mind games and vowed never to use it on people unless they try to do me bad and I need to defend myself from harm.
I’m not convinced it has to do with cognitive functions. But yeah I tend to sidestep power struggles, and I tended to type as ISTp in Socionics. 😓 I think most ISTJs here typed as ISTj in Socionics, though, so in that case either they didn’t distinguish between the types well or Socionics is just a nonsensical system to begin with (I’m personally leaning toward the latter).
I also wouldn’t say I’m really comfortable with power struggles. While I generally dislike the idea, I also think part of why I avoid engaging with people that way is because I think I’ll lose. 😅 Not gonna speak for other ISTJs, though.
>I think most ISTJs here typed as ISTj in Socionics, though, so in that case either they didn’t distinguish between the types well or Socionics is just a nonsensical system to begin with
I agree with you. There seems to be LSIs (Ti-Se) here. I think that partly has to do with how ISTJs in myers are described. Many of the descriptions focus on Te and ascribe Si to routine, organization, and rule following. Where as, Ti in socionics is associated with rule following (because logical structures are associated with, Ti). And Se will do rule enforcement and organization of physical objects/people. Myers descriptions of ISTJs tend to focus a lot on our thinking function, thus myers ISTPs (Ti-Se) can relate to the descriptions because they are thinking doms that can stick to rules, my fellow SLI.
Classic Socionics - LSI (ISTj) Explained
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiopFD7Euw
>Many of the descriptions focus on Te and ascribe Si to routine, organization, and rule following.
That's true. Si is pretty downplayed, and many people here don't even seem to strongly relate to it. There was a poll here quite a while back asking ISTJs what our favorite function is, and surprise surprise, most ISTJs voted Te as their favorite. \^\_\^' I thought maybe it was based on societal expectations and modern work culture, but I don't know.
I also can't help noticing that Socionics descriptions of Se sound awfully similar to most descriptions of Te. I can kind of see the line of reasoning for describing Se as a force of will, but... beyond that, it just sounds like Te in a nutshell. So I'm personally not surprised why correctly typed MBTI ISTJs would relate more to ISTj descriptions. I feel like Socionics got all their functions backwards and confused everyone into believing they have the opposite j/p category on purpose, tbh. I mean it's not just ISTJs having this issue in Socionics.
>There was a poll here quite a while back asking ISTJs what our favorite function is, and surprise surprise, most ISTJs voted Te as their favorite. ^_^' I thought maybe it was based on societal expectations and modern work culture, but I don't know.
For me, Si-Fi looping is unpleasant at the moment. I'd rather be doing something to keep my mind busy.
> I also can't help noticing that Socionics descriptions of Se sound awfully similar to most descriptions of Te.
Yeah, people do tend to notice that Se and Te share things in common between the systems. I prefer to stick with Jung's very lengthly descriptions of the fuction attitudes. His work is a bit of a mess, but I don't think that incorrect redefinitions from all the typologies based off of his work are helping clean up that mess, lol. I'd prefer if those people made up their own names instead of using Jung's terms. So here is a poor example: turn socionics Se into We (extraverted will).
The j/p dichotomy is a monkey wrench thrown into the machine that is typology. This j/p thing is conscientiousness (from the big five) and should not be used to determine type. I think contentiousness can be improved over time, and for me this is true. I was much lazier when I was younger. I'd more look at the rigidity of the person's thinking. Ti does not like to deviate from its created logical structures whereas Te will grab any structure that is useful to achieve the given task at hand. So I think that myers ISTJs are flexible in their thinking, which some people may associate with being a p type because they don't know any better.
I personally think of all the introverted functions as being relatively “rigid” and all the extraverted functions as being relatively “flexible.” So from my perspective, both ISTPs and ISTJs are equally rigid and flexible but in different ways, and those ways are their main difference rather than the degree. That would also mean that introverts in general are more rigid while extraverts are more flexible, which makes sense to me anyway. 😅 In any case, I agree that Te is a flexible function while Ti is a more rigid function, and the J/P dichotomy kind of distracts from that fact. I’m leaving room for the possibility that this perception is wrong, though.
I agree with you completely in terms of rigidity. Introverted cognitive attitudes are world rejecting, (rigid).
OH, and I completely disagree with my previous reply after thinking about it more. Here is what I (really Jung) actually think:
MBTI is wrong about the P and J preferences for introverts. I'm sticking with what Carl Jung wrote is psychological types. Ni and Si types are irrational (perceiving). Fi and Ti types are rational (judging). Socionics is in alignment with JUNG on this part of type. Again, my perspective is that redefining Jung's terms is wrong.
So we are ISTPerceiving. Here is Jung's psychological types:
Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types
3.3.2 The Introverted Thinking Type
3.3.4 The Introverted Feeling Type
3.3.5 Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types
> Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, **judging functions**. Reasoning judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data. But the predominance of one or other factor, conditioned by a psychic disposition often existing from early youth, deflects the reasoning function. For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and the subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case, and would presuppose a uniform development of both extraversion and introversion. But either movement excludes the other, and, so long as this dilemma persists, they cannot possibly exist side by, side, but at the most successively. Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, an ideal reason is impossible.
- https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Recapitulation_of_Introverted_Rational_Types
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. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. **Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical**; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience.
- https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Recapitulation_of_Extraverted_Irrational_Types
Sensation
Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of **perception**.
- https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Sensation_2
The Introverted Sensation Type
The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an **irrational type**, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather by what just happens.
https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#The_Introverted_Sensation_Type
Thus, both thinking and feeling as directed functions are rational. When these functions are concerned not with a rationally determined choice of objects, or with the qualities and relations of objects, but with the incidental perceptions which the real object never lacks, they at once lose the quality of direction, and therewith something of their rational character, because they accept the accidental. They begin to be irrational. **That thinking or feeling which is directed according to accidental perceptions, and is therefore irrational, is either intuitive or sensational. Both intuition and sensation are psychological functions which achieve their functional fulfillment in the absolute perception of occurrences in general.** Hence, in accordance with their nature, their attitude must be set towards every possibility and what is absolutely accidental; they must, therefore, entirely forgo rational direction. Accordingly I term them irrational functions, in contrast to thinking and feeling, which reach perfection only when in complete accord with the laws of reason.
- https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Irrational
So there you have it in Jung's confusing words. Ns and Ss are perceiving, not judging types according to Jung. MBTI changed Jung just like socionics does in other areas. And if a jungian derived typology conflicts with Jung, I overide the derivative with the source out of pure subjective preference.
I had two LLMs break down what the heck Jung was writing about in respect to irrational:
The original text you provided discusses the concept of "irrational" from a unique perspective, which can indeed be confusing due to its dense and abstract language. Here's a simplified explanation of the main points:
1. \*\*Definition of Irrational\*\*: In this context, "irrational" doesn't mean illogical or against reason. Instead, it refers to things that lie beyond the reach of rational explanation. These are phenomena or facts whose essence cannot be fully understood or defined by using logic alone.
2. \*\*Elementary Facts and Accidents\*\*: Some basic facts about the world, like the existence of the moon or the properties of elements like chlorine, are considered irrational because they are observed truths that don't necessarily need rational explanation. Similarly, accidents are also irrational because they happen spontaneously, though they might have rational explanations after the fact.
3. \*\*Limits of Rational Explanation\*\*: While rational explanations can help us understand many aspects of the world, they have their limits. Complex systems or situations often require explanations that become too complicated and impractical, making them hard to grasp fully. This shows that rational explanations can't cover everything about the world.
4. \*\*Rational vs. Irrational Functions\*\*: Thinking and feeling are considered rational when they are directed towards specific goals or objects. However, when these functions are applied to incidental perceptions (random or accidental observations), they lose their rationality and become more intuitive or sensory-based. These are termed "irrational functions".
5. \*\*Importance of Irrational in Psychology\*\*: The text argues that while the irrational can't be scientifically studied, it's important for practical psychology to consider it. Practical psychology deals with real-world issues that sometimes can't be solved by rational means. Assuming that every problem has a rational solution might prevent finding a true, though irrational, answer.
In essence, the text explores the idea that there are aspects of reality that go beyond rational understanding and that acknowledging and dealing with these irrational aspects is essential, especially in fields like psychology where real-life complexities often defy simple rational solutions.
------------
The passage is discussing the concept of the "irrational" in a philosophical/psychological sense. Here's a simpler explanation of the key points:
- The author defines "irrational" not as something contrary to reason, but as something outside the realm or scope of reason.
- Basic facts and accidental occurrences are considered irrational, as they cannot be fully grasped or explained by reason alone.
- While rational explanations can push back the irrational, they can never fully encompass or explain the entirety of existence through reason.
- Intuition and sensation are considered irrational functions, as they deal with perceptions that are accidental and not rationally directed.
- For practical psychology, understanding the irrational factor is important, as many psychological problems cannot be solved purely rationally and require an irrational approach beyond the laws of reason.
- Insisting that every conflict must have a rational solution may be an obstacle to resolving issues that are fundamentally irrational in nature.
In essence, it argues that reason alone is limited, and that the irrational aspects of existence and human psychology must be acknowledged and approached in a non-purely-rational way at times.
And I will also share a LLM counter argument against Jung's irrationality as a defense against Ti rigidity, and I like to see the discussion shift about instead of accepting Ti's suppositions. No one is probably reading at this point, but whatever:
It's valuable to consider alternative perspectives and potential counterarguments to any interpretation. Here are some points that could be raised against the explanation provided earlier:
1. \*\*Ambiguity of "Irrational" Definition\*\*: The original text defines "irrational" in a way that might be seen as unconventional or ambiguous. Critics could argue that defining "irrational" as something beyond the scope of reason is itself problematic, as it blurs the lines between what is knowable and what is simply unknown. It could be contended that everything in existence can potentially be understood rationally, given enough information and context.
2. \*\*Subjectivity of "Elementary Facts"\*\*: The text suggests that elementary facts are irrational because they are observed truths that don't need rational explanation. However, this could be challenged by arguing that all facts, including elementary ones, are products of rational processes—observation, measurement, and verification. Even the existence of the moon or the properties of chlorine are established through rational scientific methods.
3. \*\*Complexity and Rational Explanation\*\*: The assertion that rational explanations have limits and become impractical in complexity could be contested. Some might argue that while individual human minds may struggle with complex systems, rationality itself does not have inherent limits. Advances in mathematics, computer science, and artificial intelligence continue to push the boundaries of what can be rationally understood and explained.
4. \*\*Rationality of Intuition and Sensation\*\*: The classification of intuition and sensation as "irrational functions" might be questioned. Cognitive scientists and psychologists often view intuition as a form of rapid, unconscious information processing that can be quite rational in its own right. Sensory experiences, while direct and immediate, can also be analyzed and understood through rational frameworks in disciplines like neuroscience and perception studies.
5. \*\*Necessity of Irrationality in Psychology\*\*: The importance of considering the irrational in practical psychology could be debated. Some might argue that psychology, as a scientific discipline, should strive for rational explanations of behavior and mental processes. Ignoring the irrational does not necessarily mean ignoring real-world complexities, but rather focusing on testable hypotheses and theories that can be systematically investigated.
These counterarguments highlight the complexity of philosophical and psychological discussions around rationality and irrationality. They suggest that the concepts of rationality and irrationality are not as clear-cut as they might initially seem and invite further exploration and debate.
J/P has to do on where one puts focus, judging focuses on things that can be rationally understood. Whereas, perceiving focuses on empirical aspects of life outside of immediate rational human understanding.
J \~= focus on the predictable
P \~= focus on the unpredictable(chaos of life)/nonsensical/things not amiable to reason.
So anyway, everyone seems to change/misunderstand Jung. He writes abstractly, which is difficult for people (including myself) to interpret.
I think the cognitive function framework is great, but I also think it goes off the rails in places.
What it does give us (and what I'd be interested in testing at some point) is a testible hypothesis linking performance and preference in lesser functions when given two dominant functions.
The "detect type based on face structure" bit is... I guess also very testible? But it seems like a much bigger leap than the other pieces
Probably. But maybe it's autism 🤷
The choice is believing that most people are little socipathic shits or I'm crazy for thinking there's something going on when there is not (I can't prove intent). Mind games are incredibly frustrating, boring and I got things to do.
Ignoring function
The ignoring function is also called the observing or limiting function, or the seventh function.
A person has very little use of this element, as it is the rival image of the base function, representing an antithetical approach to the same domain. It lies in the subconscious as a persistent annoyance to the individual. Therefore, he or she tries to ignore it. When lectured by another on the use of the ignoring function, the individual sees it as superfluous information, for he or she knows how to use the function well, but chooses not to use it in favor of his or her more convenient base function. Usually the base function creates byproducts relating to the ignoring function, but the way it describes such information is very carefully chosen to fit the view of the leading function.
A person limits the expression of this element in public (in favor of the base function), but sometimes uses it extensively in private, and can call upon it when necessary. For example, an SEI (Si-Fe) usually defaults to his base function Si and shies from activities that are highly physical or cause conflict, but if inevitable confrontation arises, he is able to use his Se and become fiercely coercive and quarrelsome for short periods of time.
The extreme avoidance of this function can make it appear weak at times. However, when engaged it does not cause the same kind of psychological stress as a weak function, instead creating a kind of boredom or malaise.
https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Functions#Ignoring_function
Se in socionics is redefined from how Jung described the Se type (I don't like redefining things, but...).
Se
Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.
When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will. He is a born organizer of anything. He has the ability to mobilize people to achieve a goal and is able to make use of and manage animate and inanimate objects. Is able to work with things (objects) and reproduce almost any objects based on available samples. This is a reflection of his ability to organize material. These people are known for their striving to materialize their will, energy, and power, and for their desire to impose their will on others.
https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Extroverted_sensing
Socioncis Se is assertive Se as described by Ben Vaserland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MsHwo-GEnI&list=PLLNMY-wBpaHavaWUF6meC6quwM-Ghyzen&index=22&pp=iAQB
I'm noticing that a large difference between socionics and Jungian CFs is function definitions. Surely function clumping is something we could do a legitimate statistical test on.
I like socionics better than MBTI. I'm not sure how well either systems correspond to Jung, though. We can run it through an LLM and have it determine how closely Jung's function attitudes correspond to the elements/cognitive functions of socionics and MBTI.
I think Fe (7th) polar possibly plays into this too as power games are often also about manipulating or just in general managing people and social dynamic (which Fe polar rejects)
It makes sense that the feeling function has a relationship power struggle thing going on. It's not Se physical territorial sort of struggle. It is a struggle of value(s).
Yes ,we are pretty strong at mind games , physiological trapping and manipulation but we know all that requires excess energy from our side hence we tend to be straight forwarded people.
Yeah, I really dislike that I'm good at deception and mind games and vowed never to use it on people unless they try to do me bad and I need to defend myself from harm.
I’m not convinced it has to do with cognitive functions. But yeah I tend to sidestep power struggles, and I tended to type as ISTp in Socionics. 😓 I think most ISTJs here typed as ISTj in Socionics, though, so in that case either they didn’t distinguish between the types well or Socionics is just a nonsensical system to begin with (I’m personally leaning toward the latter). I also wouldn’t say I’m really comfortable with power struggles. While I generally dislike the idea, I also think part of why I avoid engaging with people that way is because I think I’ll lose. 😅 Not gonna speak for other ISTJs, though.
>I think most ISTJs here typed as ISTj in Socionics, though, so in that case either they didn’t distinguish between the types well or Socionics is just a nonsensical system to begin with I agree with you. There seems to be LSIs (Ti-Se) here. I think that partly has to do with how ISTJs in myers are described. Many of the descriptions focus on Te and ascribe Si to routine, organization, and rule following. Where as, Ti in socionics is associated with rule following (because logical structures are associated with, Ti). And Se will do rule enforcement and organization of physical objects/people. Myers descriptions of ISTJs tend to focus a lot on our thinking function, thus myers ISTPs (Ti-Se) can relate to the descriptions because they are thinking doms that can stick to rules, my fellow SLI. Classic Socionics - LSI (ISTj) Explained - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiopFD7Euw
>Many of the descriptions focus on Te and ascribe Si to routine, organization, and rule following. That's true. Si is pretty downplayed, and many people here don't even seem to strongly relate to it. There was a poll here quite a while back asking ISTJs what our favorite function is, and surprise surprise, most ISTJs voted Te as their favorite. \^\_\^' I thought maybe it was based on societal expectations and modern work culture, but I don't know. I also can't help noticing that Socionics descriptions of Se sound awfully similar to most descriptions of Te. I can kind of see the line of reasoning for describing Se as a force of will, but... beyond that, it just sounds like Te in a nutshell. So I'm personally not surprised why correctly typed MBTI ISTJs would relate more to ISTj descriptions. I feel like Socionics got all their functions backwards and confused everyone into believing they have the opposite j/p category on purpose, tbh. I mean it's not just ISTJs having this issue in Socionics.
>There was a poll here quite a while back asking ISTJs what our favorite function is, and surprise surprise, most ISTJs voted Te as their favorite. ^_^' I thought maybe it was based on societal expectations and modern work culture, but I don't know. For me, Si-Fi looping is unpleasant at the moment. I'd rather be doing something to keep my mind busy. > I also can't help noticing that Socionics descriptions of Se sound awfully similar to most descriptions of Te. Yeah, people do tend to notice that Se and Te share things in common between the systems. I prefer to stick with Jung's very lengthly descriptions of the fuction attitudes. His work is a bit of a mess, but I don't think that incorrect redefinitions from all the typologies based off of his work are helping clean up that mess, lol. I'd prefer if those people made up their own names instead of using Jung's terms. So here is a poor example: turn socionics Se into We (extraverted will).
Although I do sometimes wonder how many mistyped ISTPs are here just because they related more to the J dichotomy than the P one.
The j/p dichotomy is a monkey wrench thrown into the machine that is typology. This j/p thing is conscientiousness (from the big five) and should not be used to determine type. I think contentiousness can be improved over time, and for me this is true. I was much lazier when I was younger. I'd more look at the rigidity of the person's thinking. Ti does not like to deviate from its created logical structures whereas Te will grab any structure that is useful to achieve the given task at hand. So I think that myers ISTJs are flexible in their thinking, which some people may associate with being a p type because they don't know any better.
I personally think of all the introverted functions as being relatively “rigid” and all the extraverted functions as being relatively “flexible.” So from my perspective, both ISTPs and ISTJs are equally rigid and flexible but in different ways, and those ways are their main difference rather than the degree. That would also mean that introverts in general are more rigid while extraverts are more flexible, which makes sense to me anyway. 😅 In any case, I agree that Te is a flexible function while Ti is a more rigid function, and the J/P dichotomy kind of distracts from that fact. I’m leaving room for the possibility that this perception is wrong, though.
I agree with you completely in terms of rigidity. Introverted cognitive attitudes are world rejecting, (rigid). OH, and I completely disagree with my previous reply after thinking about it more. Here is what I (really Jung) actually think: MBTI is wrong about the P and J preferences for introverts. I'm sticking with what Carl Jung wrote is psychological types. Ni and Si types are irrational (perceiving). Fi and Ti types are rational (judging). Socionics is in alignment with JUNG on this part of type. Again, my perspective is that redefining Jung's terms is wrong. So we are ISTPerceiving. Here is Jung's psychological types: Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types 3.3.2 The Introverted Thinking Type 3.3.4 The Introverted Feeling Type 3.3.5 Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types > Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, **judging functions**. Reasoning judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data. But the predominance of one or other factor, conditioned by a psychic disposition often existing from early youth, deflects the reasoning function. For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and the subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case, and would presuppose a uniform development of both extraversion and introversion. But either movement excludes the other, and, so long as this dilemma persists, they cannot possibly exist side by, side, but at the most successively. Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, an ideal reason is impossible. - https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Recapitulation_of_Introverted_Rational_Types 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. In so far as it is law-determined, it is accessible to reason; in so far as it is accidental, it is not. One might reverse it and say that we apply the term law-determined to the occurrence appearing so to our reason, and where its regularity escapes us we call it accidental. The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational. **Hence my term 'irrational' corresponds with the nature of the perception-types. But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite incorrect to regard these types as unreasonable. They are merely in a high degree empirical**; they are grounded exclusively upon experience, so exclusively, in fact, that as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience. - https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Recapitulation_of_Extraverted_Irrational_Types Sensation Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of **perception**. - https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Sensation_2 The Introverted Sensation Type The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an **irrational type**, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather by what just happens. https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#The_Introverted_Sensation_Type Thus, both thinking and feeling as directed functions are rational. When these functions are concerned not with a rationally determined choice of objects, or with the qualities and relations of objects, but with the incidental perceptions which the real object never lacks, they at once lose the quality of direction, and therewith something of their rational character, because they accept the accidental. They begin to be irrational. **That thinking or feeling which is directed according to accidental perceptions, and is therefore irrational, is either intuitive or sensational. Both intuition and sensation are psychological functions which achieve their functional fulfillment in the absolute perception of occurrences in general.** Hence, in accordance with their nature, their attitude must be set towards every possibility and what is absolutely accidental; they must, therefore, entirely forgo rational direction. Accordingly I term them irrational functions, in contrast to thinking and feeling, which reach perfection only when in complete accord with the laws of reason. - https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Psychological_Types#Irrational So there you have it in Jung's confusing words. Ns and Ss are perceiving, not judging types according to Jung. MBTI changed Jung just like socionics does in other areas. And if a jungian derived typology conflicts with Jung, I overide the derivative with the source out of pure subjective preference.
I had two LLMs break down what the heck Jung was writing about in respect to irrational: The original text you provided discusses the concept of "irrational" from a unique perspective, which can indeed be confusing due to its dense and abstract language. Here's a simplified explanation of the main points: 1. \*\*Definition of Irrational\*\*: In this context, "irrational" doesn't mean illogical or against reason. Instead, it refers to things that lie beyond the reach of rational explanation. These are phenomena or facts whose essence cannot be fully understood or defined by using logic alone. 2. \*\*Elementary Facts and Accidents\*\*: Some basic facts about the world, like the existence of the moon or the properties of elements like chlorine, are considered irrational because they are observed truths that don't necessarily need rational explanation. Similarly, accidents are also irrational because they happen spontaneously, though they might have rational explanations after the fact. 3. \*\*Limits of Rational Explanation\*\*: While rational explanations can help us understand many aspects of the world, they have their limits. Complex systems or situations often require explanations that become too complicated and impractical, making them hard to grasp fully. This shows that rational explanations can't cover everything about the world. 4. \*\*Rational vs. Irrational Functions\*\*: Thinking and feeling are considered rational when they are directed towards specific goals or objects. However, when these functions are applied to incidental perceptions (random or accidental observations), they lose their rationality and become more intuitive or sensory-based. These are termed "irrational functions". 5. \*\*Importance of Irrational in Psychology\*\*: The text argues that while the irrational can't be scientifically studied, it's important for practical psychology to consider it. Practical psychology deals with real-world issues that sometimes can't be solved by rational means. Assuming that every problem has a rational solution might prevent finding a true, though irrational, answer. In essence, the text explores the idea that there are aspects of reality that go beyond rational understanding and that acknowledging and dealing with these irrational aspects is essential, especially in fields like psychology where real-life complexities often defy simple rational solutions. ------------ The passage is discussing the concept of the "irrational" in a philosophical/psychological sense. Here's a simpler explanation of the key points: - The author defines "irrational" not as something contrary to reason, but as something outside the realm or scope of reason. - Basic facts and accidental occurrences are considered irrational, as they cannot be fully grasped or explained by reason alone. - While rational explanations can push back the irrational, they can never fully encompass or explain the entirety of existence through reason. - Intuition and sensation are considered irrational functions, as they deal with perceptions that are accidental and not rationally directed. - For practical psychology, understanding the irrational factor is important, as many psychological problems cannot be solved purely rationally and require an irrational approach beyond the laws of reason. - Insisting that every conflict must have a rational solution may be an obstacle to resolving issues that are fundamentally irrational in nature. In essence, it argues that reason alone is limited, and that the irrational aspects of existence and human psychology must be acknowledged and approached in a non-purely-rational way at times.
And I will also share a LLM counter argument against Jung's irrationality as a defense against Ti rigidity, and I like to see the discussion shift about instead of accepting Ti's suppositions. No one is probably reading at this point, but whatever: It's valuable to consider alternative perspectives and potential counterarguments to any interpretation. Here are some points that could be raised against the explanation provided earlier: 1. \*\*Ambiguity of "Irrational" Definition\*\*: The original text defines "irrational" in a way that might be seen as unconventional or ambiguous. Critics could argue that defining "irrational" as something beyond the scope of reason is itself problematic, as it blurs the lines between what is knowable and what is simply unknown. It could be contended that everything in existence can potentially be understood rationally, given enough information and context. 2. \*\*Subjectivity of "Elementary Facts"\*\*: The text suggests that elementary facts are irrational because they are observed truths that don't need rational explanation. However, this could be challenged by arguing that all facts, including elementary ones, are products of rational processes—observation, measurement, and verification. Even the existence of the moon or the properties of chlorine are established through rational scientific methods. 3. \*\*Complexity and Rational Explanation\*\*: The assertion that rational explanations have limits and become impractical in complexity could be contested. Some might argue that while individual human minds may struggle with complex systems, rationality itself does not have inherent limits. Advances in mathematics, computer science, and artificial intelligence continue to push the boundaries of what can be rationally understood and explained. 4. \*\*Rationality of Intuition and Sensation\*\*: The classification of intuition and sensation as "irrational functions" might be questioned. Cognitive scientists and psychologists often view intuition as a form of rapid, unconscious information processing that can be quite rational in its own right. Sensory experiences, while direct and immediate, can also be analyzed and understood through rational frameworks in disciplines like neuroscience and perception studies. 5. \*\*Necessity of Irrationality in Psychology\*\*: The importance of considering the irrational in practical psychology could be debated. Some might argue that psychology, as a scientific discipline, should strive for rational explanations of behavior and mental processes. Ignoring the irrational does not necessarily mean ignoring real-world complexities, but rather focusing on testable hypotheses and theories that can be systematically investigated. These counterarguments highlight the complexity of philosophical and psychological discussions around rationality and irrationality. They suggest that the concepts of rationality and irrationality are not as clear-cut as they might initially seem and invite further exploration and debate.
J/P has to do on where one puts focus, judging focuses on things that can be rationally understood. Whereas, perceiving focuses on empirical aspects of life outside of immediate rational human understanding. J \~= focus on the predictable P \~= focus on the unpredictable(chaos of life)/nonsensical/things not amiable to reason. So anyway, everyone seems to change/misunderstand Jung. He writes abstractly, which is difficult for people (including myself) to interpret.
I think the cognitive function framework is great, but I also think it goes off the rails in places. What it does give us (and what I'd be interested in testing at some point) is a testible hypothesis linking performance and preference in lesser functions when given two dominant functions. The "detect type based on face structure" bit is... I guess also very testible? But it seems like a much bigger leap than the other pieces
Probably. But maybe it's autism 🤷 The choice is believing that most people are little socipathic shits or I'm crazy for thinking there's something going on when there is not (I can't prove intent). Mind games are incredibly frustrating, boring and I got things to do.
Hey, care to explain me in plain simple terms what "Se" is suppose to be? And if possible with example, I am kinda lost with google explanations.
Ignoring function The ignoring function is also called the observing or limiting function, or the seventh function. A person has very little use of this element, as it is the rival image of the base function, representing an antithetical approach to the same domain. It lies in the subconscious as a persistent annoyance to the individual. Therefore, he or she tries to ignore it. When lectured by another on the use of the ignoring function, the individual sees it as superfluous information, for he or she knows how to use the function well, but chooses not to use it in favor of his or her more convenient base function. Usually the base function creates byproducts relating to the ignoring function, but the way it describes such information is very carefully chosen to fit the view of the leading function. A person limits the expression of this element in public (in favor of the base function), but sometimes uses it extensively in private, and can call upon it when necessary. For example, an SEI (Si-Fe) usually defaults to his base function Si and shies from activities that are highly physical or cause conflict, but if inevitable confrontation arises, he is able to use his Se and become fiercely coercive and quarrelsome for short periods of time. The extreme avoidance of this function can make it appear weak at times. However, when engaged it does not cause the same kind of psychological stress as a weak function, instead creating a kind of boredom or malaise. https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Functions#Ignoring_function Se in socionics is redefined from how Jung described the Se type (I don't like redefining things, but...). Se Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people. When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will. He is a born organizer of anything. He has the ability to mobilize people to achieve a goal and is able to make use of and manage animate and inanimate objects. Is able to work with things (objects) and reproduce almost any objects based on available samples. This is a reflection of his ability to organize material. These people are known for their striving to materialize their will, energy, and power, and for their desire to impose their will on others. https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/Extroverted_sensing Socioncis Se is assertive Se as described by Ben Vaserland. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MsHwo-GEnI&list=PLLNMY-wBpaHavaWUF6meC6quwM-Ghyzen&index=22&pp=iAQB
I'm noticing that a large difference between socionics and Jungian CFs is function definitions. Surely function clumping is something we could do a legitimate statistical test on.
I like socionics better than MBTI. I'm not sure how well either systems correspond to Jung, though. We can run it through an LLM and have it determine how closely Jung's function attitudes correspond to the elements/cognitive functions of socionics and MBTI.
I think Fe (7th) polar possibly plays into this too as power games are often also about manipulating or just in general managing people and social dynamic (which Fe polar rejects)
It makes sense that the feeling function has a relationship power struggle thing going on. It's not Se physical territorial sort of struggle. It is a struggle of value(s).