Rational vs Logical [split from INTJs and Fictional Characters]

[azelismia]

I could also wager that Voldemort is an ENTP.


I think automatically assuming the villian as an NT is a mistake. Villans are Almost ALWAYS motivated by feelings of hate. it isn't rational. Thus isn't NT.

[Uberfuhrer]

Surely, it would depend on your definition of and what you consider rational.

Hate may not be rational to you, but it may be to others.

And "Rational" in terms of the NT temperament is merely a technical term.

If anything, an NT motivated by hate will more likely rationalize their hate.

[azelismia]

Surely, it would depend on your definition of and what you consider rational.

Hate may not be rational to you, but it may be to others.

And "Rational" in terms of the NT temperament is merely a technical term.

If anything, an NT motivated by hate will more likely rationalize their hate.


I find that amusing. How can something like Hate POSSIBLY be rational? Hate is a blinding emotion, not an objective state of mind.

[Uberfuhrer]

I find that amusing. How can something like Hate POSSIBLY be rational? Hate is a blinding emotion, not an objective state of mind.

Reason is practically born out of emotion, too.

And for what it's worth, people have been known to call compassion and empathy a rational response, too.

[azelismia]

Reason is practically born out of emotion, too.

And for what it's worth, people have been known to call compassion and empathy a rational response, too.


neither are generally as blinding as something like hate. basing your decisions on compassion, empathy or hate are all F based personality indicators not T. How is reason practically born from Emotions?

I think the typical villian is probably more like the esfj

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Introverted Thinking

The inferior Ti function may rarely be expressed. In fact, ESFJs may take affront at the aloof, detached nature of dominant Ti types, or conversely, be drawn to them. Some ESFJs construct rationale which have the appearance of (Jungian) Thinking logic, but under scrutiny are in fact command performances of "Thinking in the service of Feeling," (i.e., Thinking-like conclusions which do not obey the tenets of impersonal logic; they rather construct scenarios from only those "hard, cold facts" which support the conclusion reached by the dominant Extraverted Feeling function. To wit:
You don't sew with a fork, so I see no reason to eat
with knitting needles.
-- Miss Piggy, on eating Chinese Food "

[Uberfuhrer]

Hate is more related to neuroticism, and isn't directly connected to any MBTI type.

All types have emotions, thus all types are capable of anger, therefore, all types are capable of hate.

[azelismia]

Hate is more related to neuroticism, and isn't directly connected to any MBTI type.

All types have emotions, thus all types are capable of anger, therefore, all types are capable of hate.


but if you're basing your decisions on a irrational emotion as a general rule, you're not by definition, a T. Supervillians don't base the grand majority of their decisions on anything rational. it's all done to the service of the hatred.

[Uberfuhrer]

But like I said, rational can also be subjective, what one may consider rational may not be rational to another.

Just because one's behavior could seem irrational doesn't mean that it's irrational from their point of view.

There is not much of a clear-cut definition as to what is and isn't rational. It's more based on perceptions. I mean, really, why does mankind try to accomplish or understand anything?

I'll have you know, too, that one of the NT's core desires is to have power over nature. The key word is "desire."

[Aronnax]

I mean, really, why does mankind try to accomplish or understand anything?

Because most members of the species who don't accomplish or understand anything fail to pass on their genes.

[azelismia]

But like I said, rational can also be subjective, what one may consider rational may not be rational to another.

Just because one's behavior could seem irrational doesn't mean that it's irrational from their point of view.

There is not much of a clear-cut definition as to what is and isn't rational. It's more based on perceptions. I mean, really, why does mankind try to accomplish or understand anything?

I'll have you know, too, that one of the NT's core desires is to have power over nature. The key word is "desire."


What authority tells you this? do you really believe all INTJ's share the same core desires? There is a lot of variation within any type. however, a core desire doesn't mean you always act on it. sure we all have desire and desire isn't rational, but how does that have anything at all to do with this debate about superheros? And So what? it doesn't mean that the decision making process is less rational or that we will necessarily be swayed by those desires.

Just because something seems rational to someone, does not make it necessarily so. You can rationalise anything, but that doesn't make it rational. If you're basing your decisions based on your emotions rather than logic the majority of the time you're an F. Simple as that. Supervillians base their decisions on emotions, not Logic.





azelismia added to this post, 1 minutes and 42 seconds later...

But like I said, rational can also be subjective, what one may consider rational may not be rational to another.

Just because one's behavior could seem irrational doesn't mean that it's irrational from their point of view.

There is not much of a clear-cut definition as to what is and isn't rational. It's more based on perceptions. I mean, really, why does mankind try to accomplish or understand anything?

I'll have you know, too, that one of the NT's core desires is to have power over nature. The key word is "desire."


Also Rationality is not subjective. if you're basing your decisions on hate and then rationalising it, it's pretty transparent to everyone else that it isn't logical and the person is self deluded. you can explain yoru logic to someone and it might follow a certain path but there is a such thing as irrational logic as well.

[Uberfuhrer]

Because most members of the species who don't accomplish or understand anything fail to pass on their genes.

And what is the reason for passing on genes?

Let me illustrate how logic is subjective:

1 + 1 = 2 to most people, but it's also logical to say that 1 + 1 = 11, depending how you look at it.

[sriv]

And what is the reason for passing on genes?

Let me illustrate how logic is subjective:

1 + 1 = 2 to most people, but it's also logical to say that 1 + 1 = 11, depending how you look at it.

There is no reason. That's life :blank:.

I think you are misconstruing the (predefined) definition of the "+" operation.

[Aronnax]

And what is the reason for passing on genes?

To carry on your traits to the next generation. Failure to achieve is a hard filter on the gene pool.

My statement was in response to your question of "why" we attempt to achieve. We work at understanding and achieving because it's an intrinsic part of being human.


Let me illustrate how logic is subjective:

1 + 1 = 2 to most people, but it's also logical to say that 1 + 1 = 11, depending how you look at it.

One of those would be following the rule for mathematics, the other playing a game of semantics.

Semantics isn't logical or rational. It's simply a way to attempt to sidestep logic with rationalization.

[Erika Redmark]

I'd say there are more and less rational reasons to hate someone, the less rational kind being "I hate this guy because I hated his father" and the more rational kind being "I hate this guy because he's always acting superior, showing off to try to prove how smart he is, and being a total jerk to everyone, which I totally can't stand."

[azelismia]

I'd say there are more and less rational reasons to hate someone, the less rational kind being "I hate this guy because I hated his father" and the more rational kind being "I hate this guy because he's always acting superior, showing off to try to prove how smart he is, and being a total jerk to everyone, which I totally can't stand."


how is either of those statements a valid rational argument. The rational thing to do is move on and focus your energies on something productive.

[Uberfuhrer]

To carry on your traits to the next generation. Failure to achieve is a hard filter on the gene pool.

My statement was in response to your question of "why" we attempt to achieve. We work at understanding and achieving because it's an intrinsic part of being human.

Survival isn't rational because, in the end, it's pointless. What is it all going to matter after we're dead?

One of those would be following the rule for mathematics, the other playing a game of semantics.

Semantics isn't logical or rational. It's simply a way to attempt to sidestep logic with rationalization.

So now there are rules? Who came up with these rules? Whatever happened to thinking outside of the box?

[Aronnax]

So now there are rules? Who came up with these rules? Whatever happened to thinking outside of the box?

Actually yes, there are rules for logic and they were developed by multiple thinkers. If you feel like looking into it it's related to the mathematical concept of a closed structure.

You can "think outside the box" but you have to produce something that works in order for it to be recognized as a form of logic.

[Uberfuhrer]

And there is also alternative logic.

And the fact that logic was created means that it could also be expanded and changed.

[Erika Redmark]

…So not liking people is always irrational? No matter what someone does or has done?

Semantics isn't logical or rational.

Yes it is (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. e/overview%255Bhandout%255D.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us).

[azelismia]

…So not liking people is always irrational? No matter what someone does or has done?



Yes it is (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. e/overview%255Bhandout%255D.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us).



it isn't rational no. it's irrational. liking someone is irrational too. it can be understandable but that doesn't make it rational.

[Claptonian]

So now there are rules? Who came up with these rules? Whatever happened to thinking outside of the box?

The rules in this case are the laws of logic. It is impossible to think outside of the laws of logic.

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what "logic" and "rationality" mean, but so do a lot of people. "Rational" doesn't mean good or smart, and logic and rationality are not subjective.

[Aronnax]

Yes it is (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. e/overview%255Bhandout%255D.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us).

My mistake, I should have made my point more clear.

Without symbols you cannot communicate a logic structure and language and symbols are a form of semantics. So yes, semantics in that sense is a form of logic.

Circular or directionless arguments aimed at convoluting symbols can also be defined as semantics and that doesn't follow a coherent logic structure. That was what I was referring to when I said "...Semantics isn't logical or rational..."

I apologize for any confusion.

[JasonM]

The rules in this case are the laws of logic. It is impossible to think outside of the laws of logic.

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what "logic" and "rationality" mean, but so do a lot of people. "Rational" doesn't mean good or smart, and logic and rationality are not subjective.

Logic is not subjective. A /= (not) A is true, no matter who says it, and no matter what the context is.

However, what's "rational" does appear to be subjective. Consider two professional odds-makers who are working out the odds to a baseball game. This is a rational endeavour. Each may come up with different odds. Different odds-makers will decide which statistics are relevant and which ones aren't, and which ones should be given more weight than others. There is no clear answer as to what the best decision is; if there was, everyone would come up with the same odds. Even the results of the game don't necessarily show who came up with the best odds; the results could be improbable, and therefore, they could not be predicted by reason.

[Claptonian]

Logic is not subjective. A /= (not) A is true, no matter who says it, and no matter what the context is.

However, what's "rational" does appear to be subjective. Consider two professional odds-makers who are working out the odds to a baseball game. This is a rational endeavour. Each may come up with different odds. Different odds-makers will decide which statistics are relevant and which ones aren't, and which ones should be given more weight than others. There is no clear answer as to what the best decision is; if there was, everyone would come up with the same odds. Even the results of the game don't necessarily show who came up with the best odds; the results could be improbable, and therefore, they could not be predicted by reason.

You're acting on an improper definition of "rational." For something to be rational, it need only be logically sound. It doesn't have to be correct or efficient.

To use your example, if I was an odds-maker and I thought that the most important attribute of a team was how good their stadium's hot dog vendors were, and I therefore based the odds on that, it would be a perfectly rational action because it's logically sound: I am acting in the way that I believe will achieve my desired outcome. It might not be intelligent, but it's rational.

[Erika Redmark]

it isn't rational no. it's irrational. liking someone is irrational too. it can be understandable but that doesn't make it rational.

So if there are people whose company I prefer to others' or who I deem have lost my respect, that means I'm secretly an F type?

Without symbols you cannot communicate a logic structure and language and symbols are a form of semantics. So yes, semantics in that sense is a form of logic.

Circular or directionless arguments aimed at convoluting symbols can also be defined as semantics and that doesn't follow a coherent logic structure. That was what I was referring to when I said "...Semantics isn't logical or rational..."

Heh, it's all good. I was being sort of facetious in the first place.

[JasonM]

You're acting on an improper definition of "rational." For something to be rational, it need only be logically sound. It doesn't have to be correct or efficient.

To use your example, if I was an odds-maker and I thought that the most important attribute of a team was how good their stadium's hot dog vendors were, and I therefore based the odds on that, it would be a perfectly rational action because it's logically sound: I am acting in the way that I believe will achieve my desired outcome. It might not be intelligent, but it's rational.

There might be more than one definition of rational then; To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. lists these two (amongst many others), which might be relevant to the discussion:

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible.
2. consistent with or based on reason; logical.

My example refers to the first definition, as I'm talking about what is basically "sensible," which can be defined as, "Having, using, or showing good sense or sound judgment." Your example seems to refer to the second.

[azelismia]

So if there are people whose company I prefer to others' or who I deem have lost my respect, that means I'm secretly an F type?



Heh, it's all good. I was being sort of facetious in the first place.


no it doesn't necessarily mean that. we all have preferences. everything we do doesn't have to be rational. If you base your decisions on what you like and don't like, what hurts and what doesn't hurt... the majority of the time, you're probably an F type.

[Claptonian]

There might be more than one definition of rational then; To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. lists these two (amongst many others), which might be relevant to the discussion:

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible.
2. consistent with or based on reason; logical.

My example refers to the first definition, as I'm talking about what is basically "sensible," which can be defined as, "Having, using, or showing good sense or sound judgment." Your example seems to refer to the second.

You're right, "rational" is a word that encompasses several different meanings. This was kind of my original point, as people often substitute the word "rational" for "good" or "smart." But yeah, I meant that rational isn't subjective according to the definition I explained above, which is basically just a synonym for "logical."

[Jinxu]

Surely, it would depend on your definition of and what you consider rational.

Hate may not be rational to you, but it may be to others.

And "Rational" in terms of the NT temperament is merely a technical term.

If anything, an NT motivated by hate will more likely rationalize their hate.

I stumbled onto this thread somehow. So I might as well make a post giving a different perspective.

I agree with Uberfuhrer that everyone has emotions including NT. Emotions are indeed irrational not because they don't make sense but because they are control by the limbic system (emotional) of the brain. Our rational thoughts are controlled by the neocortex (rational) area of the brain. Both area can have an influence on your behavior and they can work independently. However for most people the limbic system has a stronger influence and it only acts what has been "programmed" into it. It as been shown in experiments that the electrical signals from that area is faster than the signals from your neocortex.

Let me give you an example of this. If you were to fall into a pit filled with snake. Your reaction would be fear. Now let say you know beforehand that the snakes are non-poisonous and therefore harmless. Your rational brain would say that the snakes are harmless and there is nothing to worry about that. However, your limbic system only sees the snakes, that snakes are dangerous, therefor you need to run if you want to live. As a result, you would still react in fear. Your limbic system is reacting in an irrational way despite what your rational mind thinks.

I know it's a little confusing. It's hard for me to explain, but I am trying. This is why people with phobia continue to react to their phobia with fear despite it being irrational.

A villian can be an NT that is motivated by hate because he/she does not have control over their limbic system. If they are a hateful person, then the limbic system will influence their actions using that hate. understand me? maybe?

Like in star wars. yoda says that fear lead to anger. anger lead to hate. hate lead to suffering. fear is the path to the darkside. That is how villians are made.