Rational versus Logical

Rational versus Logical

I take slight issue with introverted functions being considered subjective. Now I understand by their very definition that introverted functions are subjective, but just because they are internal, does not mean that they are incapable of being void of personal bias. Subjective simply means something that takes place in one's mind, or something that is riddled with prejudice.

I am not one to normally complain about connotation and what not. However, I have seen a consistent misunderstanding with the use of subjective and objective to define the processes of internal and external functions. Because of this, I felt compelled to redefine these for better clarification. This is where Rational versus Logical comes into play.

Rational is understood as a soundness of ones mind, where as Logical is a reasoning that is outside one's self. So to disambiguate the understanding of internal and external functions, it would be more apt to say introverted functions are rational and extroverted functions are logical. Now this allows for either to be applied to the connotative understanding of subjective and objective. One can rationalize an action, but that does not mean that are right, as well as someone can come to a logical conclusion that is not necessarily the correct one.

Any misgivings about this? Any thoughts, ideas, comments?

If you're going to use the terms "logical" and "rational" to apply to external and internal functions respectively, then I think you need to flesh out your definitions more. I know you're just throwing things out there, but in everyday usage logical and rational are synonymous to each other so it would be redundant to deem the functions with words that mean the exact same thing.

For instance to word logical simply means pertaining to logic. And the whole study of logic can be subdivided into inductive and deductive logic. So by deeming all external functions as logical, you are saying they are both inductive and deductive. What would that make internal functions? I'm just curious as to were you got your definition for rationality, seeing as pretty much all the definitions I have come across for rational and rationality link it back to logic and logical.

If you want to change the terminology to describe external vs. internal functions, I think more apt descriptors would be inductive vs. deductive respectively. Since introverted functions rely on introspective reasoning they would be deductive since deductive reasoning is reliant on a priori truths (especially true for introverted thinking), while extroverted functions would be inductive since they rely on external stimuli to make decisions and perceive their world.

And for the record, I have no problem with the subjective/objective terminology. I just think that too many people don't realize that Jung terminology, does not have the same everyday connotations that we associate with these words.

Originally Posted by Harley

If you're going to use the terms "logical" and "rational" to apply to external and internal functions respectively, then I think you need to flesh out your definitions more. I know you're just throwing things out there, but in everyday usage logical and rational are synonymous to each other so it would be redundant to deem the functions with words that mean the exact same thing.

For instance to word logical simply means pertaining to logic. And the whole study of logic can be subdivided into inductive and deductive logic. So by deeming all external functions as logical, you are saying they are both inductive and deductive. What would that make internal functions? I'm just curious as to were you got your definition for rationality, seeing as pretty much all the definitions I have come across for rational and rationality link it back to logic and logical.

First of all, thank you for responding. Unfortunately I tend to come across as vague, but I will do my utmost to be more descriptive and precise. Like you said, I was throwing this out there to get some feedback. I had this idea, but I was not able to articulate it. I was searching for the words, but they were lost to me. However, I understood the dichotomy in what I was grasping at, and so I searched out something similar. I realize that logical and rational are usually synonyms colloquially, and that is why I was not content with using these definitions. Though, the system still stands. I was more using the idea of the words logical and rational, then what is commonly know as their definitions. I have a friend who is an INFP; he is a great writer. He can put words together better then anyone I know. Conversely, I have difficulty arranging words in a nice flowing order sometimes, but I understand the essence of words to a ridiculous extent, to which he will even admit. Though logical and rational can mean the same thing, they are both unique words that when you get down to the core of them, they become noticeably distinct. I was not using the definition of logic proper(which is a structured and philosophic system). The idea of logic is reasoning that is critique externally, hence why it would relate to extroverted functions(especially Te). Rational can be more personal, referring to the sanity and soundness of reason of an individual. Its not necessarily influenced by outside ideas, and thus I associated it with introverted functions. However, as you said, logical and rational are commonly considered the same idea, and reasoning can also be considered a synonym of logical and rational, which leads to more ambiguity. Unfortunately I did not know how to resolve this.

Originally Posted by Harley

If you want to change the terminology to describe external vs. internal functions, I think more apt descriptors would be inductive vs. deductive respectively. Since introverted functions rely on introspective reasoning they would be deductive since deductive reasoning is reliant on a priori truths (especially true for introverted thinking), while extroverted functions would be inductive since they rely on external stimuli to make decisions and perceive their world.

Yes, yes, this is what I was searching for! You articulate it perfectly! Thank you. Inductive versus deductive is a beautiful contrast that exactly resonates with extroverted versus introverted functions.

Originally Posted by Harley

And for the record, I have no problem with the subjective/objective terminology. I just think that too many people don't realize that Jung terminology, does not have the same everyday connotations that we associate with these words.

Neither do I, but like you said, people do not realize the terminology that is being used. This unfortunately leads to misconceptions, which is what I truly have a problem with. I wanted to get a discussion started, and get it out there, so that people will hopefully come to understand the difference.

Mmm.. rational vs. logical? Logic is not a way of thinking or knowledge apprehension. Logic is a study that tries to uncover the elements to think correctly, particularly in the use of arguments. So all kinds of reasoning, whether they come from an extrovert or an introvert must have logical integrity to be considered good. It's not and will never be a versus, logic is necessary to reason well, it compliments it. That's even from a subjective point of view or whatever.

You've said that logical conclusions comes from outside and rationalization comes from inside. Isn't more about different ways of thinking?

I think I missunderstood your point. Could you please explain it a little bit more? Maybe investigate more the terms you're using? As I know in typology, "logic" is a term used in socionics.

I just call functions perceiving or judging. In my opinion it is more accurate to label them as such instead of using rational/irrational or logical/illogical which introduces some interpretational bias into it.

P functions are subjective because they only collect things that the person perceives.

Ti works by objective grounds, making he function objective, but because it gets its information from a subjective function, the type using Ti is not objective, but becomes subjective due to having to use two functions.

Te also works by objective grounds, but because it needs a subjective function to form these facts into an understanding, the understanding comes subjective, thus the type is subjective.

Fi is subjective, because it works by personal(subjective) values etc.

Fe is subjective because it works by subjective impressions etc.

I like inductive and deductive. Some people object to those terms, and I think i could just as well call Je pragmatic and Ji idealistic - but that is also somewhat technical. Rational is normally used to refer to all J functions, I wouldn't use that for Ji or Je only. And logical seems just too sensitive (and maybe ambiguous, reading your posts here) a term to be useful - people confuse the content of the process with the process itself, which is naturally bound by the principles of logic even when it is thinking about illogical things. In the end, I don't think you can get away from being technical in your terminology competely, as these are concepts that need to be learnt as well as labels. Better then to use the labels while also making the effort of explaining them.

Originally Posted by Harley

If you want to change the terminology to describe external vs. internal functions, I think more apt descriptors would be inductive vs. deductive respectively. Since introverted functions rely on introspective reasoning they would be deductive since deductive reasoning is reliant on a priori truths (especially true for introverted thinking), while extroverted functions would be inductive since they rely on external stimuli to make decisions and perceive their world.

Thank you for this. ^
It helped me to understand the introverted and extraverted functions better. :)

Originally Posted by Naama

P functions are subjective because they only collect things that the person perceives.

Ti works by objective grounds, making he function objective, but because it gets its information from a subjective function, the type using Ti is not objective, but becomes subjective due to having to use two functions.

Te also works by objective grounds, but because it needs a subjective function to form these facts into an understanding, the understanding comes subjective, thus the type is subjective.

Fi is subjective, because it works by personal(subjective) values etc.

Fe is subjective because it works by subjective impressions etc.

I disagree: Te and Fe are both objective functions, because they deal with the external, objective world. I think Lenore Thomson defines Fe very well here and arguing that Fe is a rational process.

Ti and Fi are subjective, because they come from each individual's internal world. No one has problems seeing Fi as subjective, because of its nature of ethics and values subjective to the self, but Ti being also an introverted judgment function is the same, except it doesn't focus on ethics, but universal patterns and systems principles. Ti does not work by objective grounds. Given your reasoning that Ti "becomes" subjective when working in tandem with a "subjective" perceiving function, then it's logical to assume that within this line of reasoning, Fi should be an objective function to begin with as well.

But that is not the case. Also, not all the perceiving functions are "subjective". Si and Ni are, being the introverted perceiving functions, but Se and Ne are objective, since they are focused on the external world.

P.S. Trigun, sorry to hijack your thread. I think the distinction between rational and logical has merit. As a dominant Ti user, I would describe myself as rational over logical every time. The term "logical" is bounced around like a ping pong ball, and I've started to form the opinion that Ti does not deal with pure "logic". But that is just a theory that I've been forming and testing while on this forum.

Originally Posted by madhatter

P.S. Trigun, sorry to hijack your thread. I think the distinction between rational and logical has merit. As a dominant Ti user, I would describe myself as rational over logical every time. The term "logical" is bounced around like a ping pong ball, and I've started to form the opinion that Ti does not deal with pure "logic". But that is just a theory that I've been forming and testing while on this forum.

By all means, be my guest. I like the discussion. I did not think anyone else would actually agree with the contrast between rational and logical, just because of their more popular definitions. And I am all for testing theory. I agree, as a Ti user(though not dominant), I would say I am more rational compared to logical.