• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Jungian concept of rationality/irrationality and MBTI concept of judging/perceiving

Typosynthesis

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2023
Messages
9
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
2
The biggest discrepancy between socionics and MBTI concerns the Jung's parameter Rationality/Irrationality. In his work "Psychological Types", Carl Jung divided all eight types (or eight function) into two groups: RATIONAL and IRRATIONAL. The four Jung's types (Se, Si, Ne, Ni) share common parameter IRRATIONALITY, and the other four types (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti) have a common parameter RATIONALITY. According to Jung, a type is rational if its main (dominant) psychic function is rational, a type is irrational if its main psychic function is irrational.

Socionics uses the Rationality/Irrationality parameter, which, according to socionics practitioners, is identical to the Jungian Rationality/Irrationality parameter.

The MBTI has the concept of Judging/Perceiving, which is considered by Socionics practitioners to be the same as Rationality/Irrationality. However, MBTI practitioners do not consider it the same. They believe that Judging/Perceiving refer only to whatever function the type shows in the outer world, i.e. the DOMINANT function for EXTRAVERTED types, and the AUXILIARY function for INTROVERTED types.

Carl Jung emphasizes that the rationality/irrationality of a type is determined by the main function of the type:
“Thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation… they are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception.”

See more here https://7promeniv.com.ua/4-interaction-styles/2982-ratio-irratio-in-socionics-and-mbti

Do you think Jung's concept of rationality/irrationality corresponds to the MBTI concept of judging/perceiving? If not, could you explain, what is Jungian concept of Irrationality that is common to four types (Ne, Ni, Se, Si), and what is Jungian concept of Rationality, common to four types (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti) ?

The tread on this topic at this forum https://www.typologycentral.com/thr...ersus-mbti-j-p-do-they-even-correlate.103516/
 
Last edited:

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
250
Let me try to say one thing that might help, in addition to what we discussed in the other thread. I think the claim that MBTI makes is that the J/P dichotomy on the test relates to your top extraverted function being either rational or irrational.

As you correctly point out, the idea is that J/P measures whether you show yourself to the outside world as a rational/judging or irrational/perceiving type.

I personally would already say that I question this as a good interpretation of what it means for a function to be extraverted -- the idea that your extraverted function is what you show to the world is very at odds with Jungian theory. Extraversion of a function is not about whether the function is visible to the outside world, but rather it's about whether the function is most influenced by outside/external factors in its operation. For example, what most influences the direction of the thinking function and its conclusions can either be subjective factors or objective factors.
As Jung emphasizes, the peculiarity of extraverted feeling types is that feeling, while apparently a subjective kind of function, still makes its value judgments in accordance with external factors. It's not about what they SHOW the outside world but rather that the outside influences the value judgments they make.

I realize why they make that assumption in MBTI: the J/P dichotomy as defined by the test seems extremely behavioral in nature, and doesn't seem that related to a cognitive functions theory. But, I believe, they want to say that since it points to what you show the outside world, perhaps this behavioral metric may still detect what your top extraverted function is by measuring outward clues you exhibit.

I personally think the MBTI test is measuring something reasonable, but it is more like it measures something correlated with 4 of the 5 Big 5 personality dimensions. It is not all that close to rational vs irrational, whether we're talking extraverted-rational v. extraverted-perceiving or rational vs perceiving.

I believe Jungian theory in its more orthodox incarnations is most consistent with the idea that, whether you're introverted or extraverted, what you show to the outside world most is probably your superior function, although the question of what you "show the outside" never seemed to be a major focus of Jungian theory. It is whether the outside world or the inner world influences the direction of that function most that determines its introversion or extraversion.
 
Last edited:

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
250
As for what exactly is Jungian rationality/irrationality (which is relevant to getting both Jung and the MBTI interpretation, since the concept comes in within extraverted-irrational/rational), let us try to get into this.

I sense there are two main themes that run within what Jung calls the irrational: that they concern brute facts that may seem accidental or not exactly have an explanation (one instance would be the laws of physics -- while we can describe these laws mathematically, the very fact that they are there seems to be a brute fact of existence).
It is irrational because it is beyond explanation -- not that it is anti-rationality, but in some sense is where explanation has to stop.

And second, that the irrational is somehow more "complete" a picture of what we find in the world than the rational -- the rational arranges what the irrational functions perceive in accordance with what makes sense to us, whether factually or through value judgment....but the irrational is open to the strangeness of the various aspects of the universe exactly as they are in their totality, even when we cannot really make sense of them.
What is pre-judgment. Jung discusses this completeness issue when he suggests to capture what the irrational functions perceive in a rational way would be a Utopian ideal -- that an actually existing object is always partly inaccessible to rational judgment.
Obviously there's a limitation to irrational functions, though, in that even if they perceive things as completely and directly as possible, they do not really help us "make sense of" them, more just present them to us in the most "unfiltered" way.

Here's some of Jung on the topic of irrational, where he implicitly contrasts it to the rational:

Jung said:
As I make use of this term it does not denote something contrary to reason, but something outside the province of reason, whose essence, therefore, is not established by reason.

Elementary facts belong to this category, e.g. that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element, that the greatest density of water is found to be 4.0 centigrade. An accident is also irrational in spite of the fact that it may sustain a subsequent rational explanation.

The irrational is a factor of existence which may certainly be pushed back indefinitely by an increasingly elaborate and complicated rational explanation, but in so doing the explanation finally becomes so extravagant and overdone that it passes comprehension, thus reaching the limits of rational thought long before it can ever span the whole world with the laws of reason. A completely rational explanation of an actually existing object (not one that is merely postulated) is a Utopian ideal. Only an object that has been postulated can also be completely explained on rational grounds, since it has never contained anything beyond what was postulated by rational thinking. Empirical science also postulates rationally limited objects, since its deliberate exclusion of the accidental allows no consideration of the real object as a whole; hence empirical observation is always limited to that same portion of the object which has been selected for rational consideration

A really good illustration of the irrational aspect in my own personal view is that it seems, at least, that I can't tell how the color blue seems to you. I can feel it based on my immediate experience of it, and I can certainly describe it to you using my judging functions, creating categories and terminology that may ring a bell with you. But that description is never as complete as my immediate experience, and who knows, how I feel blue looks may be how you feel red looks -- we may never be able to get in each others' heads perfectly. I think the fact the description would never capture the totality of the experience is related to how Jung suggests empirical science would not get at the object as a whole....empirical science can study our experiences through so called neural correlates of consciousness, and go based on our self reports about our experiences, but the experiences themselves feel partly inaccessible.
The same goes for how strawberries taste to me, or how warm water feels to me. You can hear about that from me using language, but already, a part of the irrational is lost, when we try to arrange it in categories, according to words, phrases, etc....the immediate perception is lost.
Probably this illustration is somewhat Si-oriented, but it is still related to the sensation function as a whole.
 
Last edited:

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
250
I will give this though, there are certainly some vague analogies one can draw between the J/P dichotomy and rational/irrational. P is associated with spontaneity and J with wanting things decided. Jung obviously associates the irrational factor with the accidental, and so one might surmise that P types being spontaneous are being ready for the accidental, not sticking to a predetermined schema, and so on.

Personally I'd say to the extent J/P has to do with rational/irrational at all, it's closer to J~rational and P~irrational, but this is a very slight and vague correlation, not at all an identity. But I definitely don't see too good a reason to suppose J/P is more about extraverted-rationality v extraverted-irrationality than rationality/irrationality overall.
Once again, though, I think in the end, J/P is different from Jungian rationality/irrationality, in that I do think a lot of J/P has to do with behavioral preferences. It's entirely possible to not want to stick to a schedule, prefer to do whatever you feel like in a sort of chaotic way on a trip, while not really having a preference for experiencing over judging in less behavioral and more cognitive realms.

I guess another example of irrational-rational in a Jungian sense is how to learn to play good basketball, you often have to develop a feel for how to aim and shoot a free throw. It's not the kind of thing you do best by learning physics or about logical categories of any kind. Basically, there is a dimension to the raw experience of playing that goes beyond the kinds of judging-categories we often employ.
And I'd say irrational functioning has a lot more to do with the notion of experiential cognition than behavioral spontaneity.
 

Typosynthesis

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2023
Messages
9
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
2
Jung described the concept of rationality-irrationality quite well. I am more interested in practical application than in the concept. For example, how can a person understand whether he/she belongs to the rational type according to Jung or to the irrational. Or how can an external observer determine whether another person is rational or irrational (according to Jung’s concept).

Let's take the description of the Crafter type (by Keirsey) for example:

The Crafter's tool artisanship is masterful, but it is also born of impulse rather than of deliberate purpose. For these Artisans, action is more enjoyable-and more effective-if it is unplanned, serving no purpose other than the doing. ISTPs prefer their actions to be spontaneous and unfettered; they want to follow their own lead, and to have their own impulses not subject to rules, regulations, or laws. Indeed, Crafters can be fiercely insubordinate, seeing hierarchy and authority as unnecessary and even irksome. It is not so much a matter of going against regulations as it is simply ignoring them, and not allowing them to influence execution. ISTPs must be free to do their thing, varying each next move as the urge strikes them, and they are proud of their ability to make the next move skillfully. In a sense, Crafters do not work with their tools, but play with them on impulse and not on schedule. If an externally imposed schedule coincides with their impulse, fine; if not, so much the worse for the schedule.

Is this type a rational or an irrational type according to Jung? Is this type a judging or a perceiving type according to MBTI?
 
Top