On the Correct Understanding of Dichotomy Rationality-Irrationality by Trehov and Tsypin¶

Written by A. Trehov and P. Tsypin from School of Structural Socionics.

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.