# How do I know how Rational/Irrational I am?



## AstralVagabond (Apr 8, 2014)

Allow me to preface this, in case it's necessary, by saying that I don't know much about Socionics. So far, I've been focused rather on Myers-Briggs theory and the Enneagram; but as far as Socionics goes, I am interested in at least discovering the specifics of my own type. I don't usually ask questions in forums, preferring to research matters for myself, but information about Socionics doesn't seem to be as readily available online as about the MBTI (at least not obviously so) so I'd like to ask directly on this one.

So. I'm an LII/INTj - that much is pretty clear to me - and I know, based on the variant descriptions I've read and the fact that I tend to lean more towards ambiversion than, presumably, most LIIs (or Myers-Briggs' INTPs), that I fall on the Irrational/Ne side of the LII type's Rational/Irrational spectrum. I also think that a lot of people in Socionics measure this spectrum with 3 levels of inclination at each side - from LII-3Ti to LII-3Ne, for instance.

But how do I know which level I'm on exactly? Are there any articles that provide specific descriptions of each level or do I just guess and look at how far removed from the middle ground I _think_ I am? Sorry if this is a silly question or if I got a piece of information wrong; like I said, I'm not very versed in this theory of personality.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Welcome to socionics . I know you didn't ask for it, but there's plenty of socionics information on Wikisocion and many useful articles in Socionics - the16types.info - Home . Regarding your question, to be honest, I never see anyone use the three-level subtype system (does it even have a name?), most people use base/creative subtypes or don't use them at all. I don't tend to pay them any mind but I do think of where people lie on the extroversion-introversion spectrum. If you favour the specific categories then go ahead and use them but I'm happy enough having a vague idea of a person's rationality/irrationality and I vs E (I'm also a case of having a clear preference so I haven't felt much need to question it). You may want to read on rationality/irrationality and I/E in Jung's Psychological Types or otherwise see how you fit the these criteria Socionics :: Rationality / Irrationality, which are more straight to the point . If you are ambiverted it might be harder to tell your preference apart but everyone supposedly has one, even if only slight.

Well, that should be plenty of reading material o:

Oh I forgot to mention there's also the Reinin dichotomies but those seem to be bound to misinterpretation and I'm not sure how ambiversion would affect a categorization of a static nature like Reinin.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

AstralVagabond said:


> Allow me to preface this, in case it's necessary, by saying that I don't know much about Socionics. So far, I've been focused rather on Myers-Briggs theory and the Enneagram; but as far as Socionics goes, I am interested in at least discovering the specifics of my own type. I don't usually ask questions in forums, preferring to research matters for myself, but information about Socionics doesn't seem to be as readily available online as about the MBTI (at least not obviously so) so I'd like to ask directly on this one.
> 
> So. I'm an LII/INTj - that much is pretty clear to me - and I know, based on the variant descriptions I've read and the fact that I tend to lean more towards ambiversion than, presumably, most LIIs (or Myers-Briggs' INTPs), that I fall on the Irrational/Ne side of the LII type's Rational/Irrational spectrum. I also think that a lot of people in Socionics measure this spectrum with 3 levels of inclination at each side - from LII-3Ti to LII-3Ne, for instance.
> 
> But how do I know which level I'm on exactly? Are there any articles that provide specific descriptions of each level or do I just guess and look at how far removed from the middle ground I _think_ I am? Sorry if this is a silly question or if I got a piece of information wrong; like I said, I'm not very versed in this theory of personality.


Your frontal lobe contains 2 areas (one on the left the rational side & one on the right, the irrational one) that tend to act like executives. If you get your brain scanned while you are facing a situation where you have to make a decision it will be obvious since the most active one will light up more.

*They function like so:*

- The left one tends to make decisions/evaluations before it has all the information.

- The right one tends to postpone decision making / evaluating and allows for influx of more info before it reaches a conclusion.

Its a question of preference. Irrationals tend to postpone decision making/evaluating and gather more and more info. *I as Ne dom irrational for example tend to be notoriously indecisive and require more and more info / take a long time before I reach conclusions and even then I may revise and rethink. This is why I prefer an open approach and tentative statements.*

A Fi dom does the opposite for example, at least these have been the findings of Dario Nardi. *Want precision, get a brain activity scan *


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

FreeBeer said:


> Your frontal lobe contains 2 areas (one on the left the rational side & one on the right, the irrational one) that tend to act like executives. If you get your brain scanned while you are facing a situation where you have to make a decision it will be obvious since the most active one will light up more.
> 
> *They function like so:*
> 
> ...


Hmm... interesting. I tend to jump into conclusions quickly but I'm also indecisive because I can't help considering every possible alternative or perspective or pathway.

Moar information!


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> Your frontal lobe contains 2 areas (one on the left the rational side & one on the right, the irrational one) that tend to act like executives. If you get your brain scanned while you are facing a situation where you have to make a decision it will be obvious since the most active one will light up more.
> 
> *They function like so:*
> 
> ...


I do both depending on how much I care about making the best decision and how much research I'm willing to do. In some cases, I dislike the research and information gathering process so much that I do hardly any and just make a decision right away. But then there are other situations like figuring out my type where I endlessly consider every possibility and can't seem to settle on a decision. I am also painfully indecisive when shopping.

So I have no idea. Maybe I should get a brain scan.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Silveresque said:


> I do both depending on how much I care about making the best decision and how much research I'm willing to do. In some cases, I dislike the research and information gathering process so much that I do hardly any and just make a decision right away. But then there are other situations like figuring out my type where I endlessly consider every possibility and can't seem to settle on a decision. I am also painfully indecisive when shopping.
> 
> So I have no idea. Maybe I should get a brain scan.


 maybe you should, thou your present indecisiveness makes me think irrational.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> maybe you should, thou your present indecisiveness makes me think irrational.


Well indecisiveness can come from other things than just irrational, I'm sure. In my case part of the problem is that I never feel like I have enough knowledge or understanding to be able judge whether the data I'm seeing matches the external criteria or model adequately. At what precise point does something become rational or irrational, for example? Exactly how much does a type need to fit for someone to be considered that type? And how can it actually be measured how much a type fits? How do I know if I'm interpreting the model correctly? How do I know if a behavior is due to one aspect of the model or a different aspect when it seems like it could be either way? How can I make the right judgment which requires seeing the whole picture when I can only focus on small portions of the picture at any given moment? Models and criteria always seem so vague and ambiguous to me. And it's inevitable, it seems, because if someone tried to make them more specific, then they'd just end up being too specific to relate them to reality. 

It's hard for me to perceive the essence of what a model is trying to get at, because even if I manage to perceive it correctly, I have no way to confidently know if I've perceived it correctly or not. It just feels like making a random guess at how to interpret it, and I don't like guessing. I'm always aware that there are multiple ways something could potentially be interpreted, but I tend to think there is one right way that I should be interpreting it, and I just don't know what that way is.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Silveresque said:


> Well indecisiveness can come from other things than just irrational, I'm sure. In my case part of the problem is that I never feel like I have enough knowledge or understanding to be able judge whether the data I'm seeing matches the external criteria or model adequately.


How is this relevant when it comes to deciding what to eat for dinner?



> At what precise point does something become rational or irrational, for example? Exactly how much does a type need to fit for someone to be considered that type? And how can it actually be measured how much a type fits? How do I know if I'm interpreting the model correctly? How do I know if a behavior is due to one aspect of the model or a different aspect when it seems like it could be either way? How can I make the right judgment which requires seeing the whole picture when I can only focus on small portions of the picture at any given moment? Models and criteria always seem so vague and ambiguous to me. And it's inevitable, it seems, because if someone tried to make them more specific, then they'd just end up being too specific to relate them to reality.


This is Te preference talking out of you and the answer is simple: neuroscience - brain scanning. Doesn't get more conclusive then that.



> It's hard for me to perceive the essence of what a model is trying to get at, because even if I manage to perceive it correctly, I have no way to confidently know if I've perceived it correctly or not. It just feels like making a random guess at how to interpret it, and I don't like guessing. I'm always aware that there are multiple ways something could potentially be interpreted, but I tend to think there is one right way that I should be interpreting it, and I just don't know what that way is.


Again Te preference and you don't unless you test it. My wild guess for myself is ENFP and I base it on the fact that I have the same Te preference as you do and my Fi is stronger then this Te preference. Since I do not care much for Se and I gain energy by extroverting the only plausible answer is ENFP. This is further solidified by me meeting every other requirement minus being social across multiple Ti models for personality. (Ne preference thinking aka cross contextualizing).

Without testing it is only an educated guess. However since I have Te preference I'm also a objectivist and I am aware that it doesn't really matter what I think, my type is my type and I am who and how I am regardless of how I or others perceive me.* Does light not exist if a blind man can't see it?* Btw did you know that blind people don't see darkness? They see how your toes see...aka nothing. If you close your eyes you see darkness, that is not what blind people see...fascinating.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> This is Te preference talking out of you and the answer is simple: neuroscience - brain scanning. Doesn't get more conclusive then that.


Sadly, that probably won't help either. D:

This is just my opinion but I think we are still quite far away from saying brain scans are conclusive. Sure, functional MRI (and that's usually what people are referring to with this sort of thing) can map neural activity in response to a stimulus, but unless it is something very obvious - like you are told to move your arm and this part of your brain lights up - it can get tricky.

So if I show you a picture of a dog and scan your brain, I can see these neurons "lit up" but what is the significance? Maybe you have a fear of dogs, or maybe you adore dogs, or maybe you're really hungry and wonder if it tastes like chicken. I would have to ask you... and what if you're lying or don't know yourself?

Could I scan another person's brain, see those neurons light up and say, they are seeing a picture of a dog? Well, what if they have a different opinion about dogs than the previous person did? What if they actually feel that way toward cats? Are they looking a picture of a cat, then?

Obviously my examples are pretty simplistic and I have yet to do tons of reading on the topic... but this is what I gathered from neuroscience courses as well as a radiologist who has done research in fMRI. So I'm not yet totally convinced fMRI is all that useful when it comes to less well-defined information.

... Also this post sounds like crazy Ne. Or something. It's kinda irrational ish *tries to put things back on topic*


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

zinnia said:


> Sadly, that probably won't help either. D:
> 
> This is just my opinion but I think we are still quite far away from saying brain scans are conclusive. Sure, functional MRI (and that's usually what people are referring to with this sort of thing) can map neural activity in response to a stimulus, but unless it is something very obvious - like you are told to move your arm and this part of your brain lights up - it can get tricky.
> 
> ...


Hmm as far as I understood Nardi hooks people up who have been MBTI typed and lets them perform normal day to day activities like talking to someone or performing some other task like finding a solution to a problem and this happens for hours in order to map out how the person's brain prefers to process information. Apparently its different for all types and while there is a pattern for lets say INFP, it can differ somewhat from one INFP to the other depending on other factors for example if the INFP does sports, more activity will be seen in sensor related areas then in other INFPs...etc.

o.o either way @Silveresque has Te-Fi preference and irrational imo  it is very obvious even without brain scanning.


----------

