| Socionics Personals |  | Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj |
|  | Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj |
|  | Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj |
| | Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
Rationalize The Same Thing, Only Differently
by I/O
"Ethical", "feeling", "thinking", "logical" and "rational" are unfortunate terms that have connotations that are not necessarily a true depiction of what was intended by Socionics or Meyers-Briggs. They seem to imply that if one is not ethical, feeling, thinking, logical or rational then one must be the opposite - not ... true.
F (or ethical) and T (or logical) are both rationalization processes that operate on different sets of conditions. The differences in conditions can create significant differences in perspective and activity. T and F will draw divergent conclusions from the same set of circumstances. However, in many other scenarios, F and T may draw the same conclusion, but that conclusion would be based on much different criteria.
F is value driven rationalization. It is a logical process that operates on relative values. B values X more than C so X will be allotted to B. Even though X may be more valuable to B, C could have perhaps made better use of X. The decision has a logical premise; however, it may or may not have had the best possible outcome. Because people create "value", F demonstrates a personalized perspective of self and the external world that shows up in decision-making - that all problems can be solved when everyone recognizes the value in it. This doesn't imply that T would neglect values - there's utility in values.
T is utility driven rationalization. It is a logical process that operates on application of resources, which include people and self. B can make better use of X than can C, so X will be allotted to B. X may never be employed because B may not value X. Because C places more value on X, X might have actually been employed albeit in a less useful fashion. The decision might have considered the best interests of both B and C but it may or may not have had the best possible outcome. T demonstrates an impersonal perspective of self and the external world that shows up in decision-making - that all problems can be solved when the correct resources are applied to them. This doesn't imply that F would neglect utility � there's value in utility.
If N or S is the dominant function, T and F are forced to adapt to the input, which likely comes in free format. However, T and F still rationalize all the data albeit at times, are forced to do it out-of-the-box. If F or T is dominant, input is likely rearranged into a preconceived format - constrained by rationalized filters. All human output except for the most primal are created through rationalization processes. People may exhibit irrational, illogical or insensitive behaviour, or make irrational, illogical or insensitive decisions; however, that's human nature and can apply to anyone.
|
|
Your Comments: 1+ |
| C1 I think concrete examples for would illustrate your point more clearly than using X, C, B, etc. (Not that I would know what examples to use. I'm confused.) -- learning |
| C2 I understand your confusion. If B=Bob C=Charles and X=bicycle then the third and fourth sentence of paragraph three would read: Bob values a bicycle more than Charles so the bicycle will be given to Bob. Even though the bicycle may be more valuable to Bob, Charles could have perhaps made better use of the bicycle. Sorry, I was too "T".:-) -- I/O |
| C3 B=Bob C=Charles... but X=bicycle? What a silly suggestion. X=Xbox, everyone knows that! -- Anonymous |
| C4 Here's how I understand you: Bob would be successful or "win" the bike in a world where personal value (enjoying bike-riding) is more important than utility (needing a bike for transportation) and Charles would "win" the bike when utility is more important than value. But utility and value are important to both feelers and thinkers. For example, doing things you enjoy/value is useful: It can help with stress. Doing things that are necessary is valuable: It can make others feel significant and needed. (And, of course you are not "too T.") Have I understood the article correctly? -- learning |
| C5 Ah..but what does the I and the O stand for ! -- C.Y.C.L.O.P.S. |
| C6 As a T if I can maybe say to you learning, that for me personally, I don't do things that are necessary to make people feel valued, I do them simply as it is necessary, or indeed because it is fair..how someone 'feels' would therefore, at least, not at first, enter my decision making process. -- Cyclops |
| C7 learning, I think you understand. I was not implying two different worlds or win/lose; however, it's an amusing premise. I see the concept simply as what's more important to have satisfied in the eyes of the beholder: value (association based) or utility (object based). I never liked the urban myth that thinkers must not feel and feelers must not think. -- I/O |
| C8 You people are way too in depth with this subject, unless you people actually work for socionics and its your life. My opinion is that both F and T can be "rational" or "logical". This is way too in depth study of this obscure subject for me to totally learn or deal with on a daily basis, I suppose its actually a good "hobby" for retired persons, or people who actually make thier living at socionics. -- Vanice the ENFP |
| C9 Vanice, I really appreciate your comment. I think concrete examples would help you to see that socionics is not obscure and can be applied to your everyday life. I don't think depth is the issue. However(!), I think people need depth more than they are aware of. (Without it, how do you know what you think and how you feel, who you are?) On some of my busiest days without time to reflect, I feel like a ghost. Anyway, I've applied info from this article (and other info from this site) to my everyday-life experiences often to make sense of situations and people. The subject is far from obscure. -- learning |
| C10 F does not necessarily value the “feelings” of another individual. For example, if F hates personal discomfort, F will not lend his or her coat. Being F does not necessarily imply one is more considerate of the needs of others. T may see utility in tending to the needs of another, and lend his or her coat because for example, the act of lending may create loyalty, and having a loyal friend may be useful. T is not a utility driven automaton nor totally ignorant of the “feelings” of others. Selfless acts can come from both types of rationalization, and morality or the lack thereof can exist in both. -- I/O |
| C11 Thanks for the example. This is what I imagined you meant, but readers can't be sure that they understand as the author intended without examples. I appreciate you expressing these thoughts. I have a hard time making decisions. I agree that as a feeler I most often make decisions based on my personal values. I know this can be flawed and so I try sometimes to make decisions based on what is needed. But this is also flawed. Both value and necessity need to be considered. For example, in my career, I want to offer a service that is needed. But in order to offer the service to the best of my ability, the service needs to have personal meaning/value to me. In the same vein, to be a truly good friend and to be able to stick it out long enough (through someone else's slightly annoying character traits-which we all have) to earn their loyalty, you must really like the person and value having this particular person's loyalty. Does this make sense? -- learning |
| C12 I do not equate personal values with value-based rationalization although personal values have a huge influence on output. I find that people who are N or S dominant generally have more difficulty making day-to-day decisions than do T or F. If one is output (T or F) oriented, obviously making rationalized decisions or putting things into pigeonholes is priority. If one is input (N or S) oriented, then collecting more information becomes a priority and that can sometimes stand in the way of “measurable” productivity, especially if the decisions are perceived as non-critical. How valuable or useful is it to have a particular decision made at this time? If it is critical, I can guarantee you that the I/O dominant and secondary functions will rally and decisions will be made. I find that N and S dominated personalities are at their best when their backs are against the wall, whereas the T or F will frequently hit the wall because they are used to having things already pre-planed or rationalized. In crisis situations, the rational function sometimes has to be comfortable with winging it and that exists more within input dominated personalities. -- I/O |
| C13 Man, what's up with all of this confusion? It's a pretty straightforward explanation, guys. And thank you I/O, for clearing this up "publicly", hopefully it will spark a state where people understand what they're talking about instead of throwing terms around uselessly in the hopes that they eventually hit something that someone else finds meaning in. -- Jay Bop |
| C14 Thank you I/O!!! This article really helped me understand people better! The T/F difference has always left me with tons of questions and reading your article answered most of them! -- curious |
| C15 So one reasons by feeling and the other by logic, but both may come to the same conclusion regardless. That *was* instructive. -- RA |
| C16 I actually wonder if thinking has anything to do with being a T or an F type. T for thinking is *maybe* better described as logic. This doesn't mean an F type can't reason by logic or throught a logical means. It just means 'T' types are better at it, or simply more efficient at it. -- Cyclops |
C17 In response to C2, that is a great example for introverted feeling  (ixFj, exFp) and extraverted thinking  (ixTp, exTj) (which coincidentally pair with each other), but what about introverted thinkers  and extraverted feelers  ? Consider the following example. B=Bob C=Charles, X=Car. Bob and Charles are both your sons. Charles is going off to college out of state, so he "should" get the car, an example of extraverted feeling (exFj, ixFp). However Charles is irresponsible while Bob, although still in high school, is very responsible. In principle, since Bob is more responsible, Bob should get the car, and example of introverted thinking (ixTj, exTp). The point being, cognitive dissonance can occur even between introverted and extraverted judging functions. In the above example an extraverted thinker (ixTp, exTj) may say Charles should get the car, because it would provide the most utility to him. In this case, the extraverted thinker would disagree with the introverted thinker . But the extraverted thinker and the extraverted feeler, and , would agree, although for different reasons. -- Henry |
| C18 I'm gonna second C16. I can reason and use Logic, but 70% of the time or more, it subordinates to my Ethics function. -- Kanerou |
| C19 The T/F preference serves as a lens distorting the reality. Depending on the person, it blurs some parts of the outside world - "cold" facts or ethics - and it highlights others, facts or ethics, again. -- Biscuit |
| C20 I/O:the term "value" its self made me confused,so it would nice if you explain what you really meant by it?! -- Anonymous |
| C21 C20, 'value' is a relative measure of worth, merit, desirability or importance; it it is used to gauge principles, standards, quality, people, things, etc. Whether we realize it or not, we place a value on everyone and everything. We can make decisions (rationalize) based solely on value. -- I/O |
Page 1 |
| Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.) |
|
