Relativism is a concept that illustrates a good point: meaning is highly subjective - open to interpretation of the individual. However, because people garner meaning in different ways, there is an extra layer of individuality. In fact, some people find meaning via consensus, which is antithetical to subjective relativism, but even societies come to form their own values and meanings because of culture and for the sake of communicative structure. It was ultimately by this philosophy of relativism that I came to believe that every type conceptualizes data uniquely because of cognitive faculties, independently of culture.
When I first arrived at this site, I was quite irritated because I noticed communicative gaps while people were speaking about the exact same things (such as MBTI). The topics were the same, however, discrepancies often ensued because of relativism. Because some people just don't see eye to eye no matter how much discourse happens, either because they were't exposed to the same information, or because they articulate it differently. I thought that, perhaps, I could relay information in a palatable format so the gaps would become seamless. This was idealistic and foolish of me. However, I can provide information that I've accumulated so that others can understand the gaps themselves, if not each other.
As humans, we define things by observing our environments, packaging objects in mental images, and relaying them for others to understand. It's pretty basic, but we perceive these objects by making distinctions. Without distinctions, everything is a nebulous "one". I thought that, perhaps, because Jung's functions tell us about how we make distinctions, I could figure out how to mend communication lapses. So, it is mainly by Fi, Ti, Fe, and Te that we come to understand our environment in structured ways. And because these functions often oppose each other, people oppose each other, and we become confused in the same way a single brain would become confused if it were to multitask every function at once. And so the world is a fragmented collective consciousness.
I think that, although we, as individuals, have unique functional preferences, there are two general archetypes that conflict: Those who use a combination of Fe and Ti, and those who use a combination of Te and Fi.
I know the following labels aren't entirely appropriate for all people of these types, as there are a multitude of permutations for communication due to the other functions and other factors. But Peguy gave them them to me and I tagged functions on them just to flatter him and make him feel special.
The Philosopher: (All Fe and Ti users)
The Philosopher forms paradigms in relation to society, and forms society in relation to the paradigms. These paradigms evolve and lend themselves to society in the same way a law is written and enforced. For instance, the names of people are written and these names tell us how to address these people in ways that relate to a social hierarchy. Furthermore, society comes to know these names by lawful consensus and lends the names a connotation. Society also gives people credentials and ranks by which we can address these groups as a whole, such as policemen, teachers, politicians, soldiers, doctors, kings, royalty, etc. For this reason, it is easy for Ti and Fe to assign statistical data and sums to clumps of people, because these offer utility for societal constructs. And, indeed, each society labels each other as friend or foe depending on lawfully written pact. Ti is highly semantical and modular and nature, and so it focuses on succinct definitions for Fe to regard as a universal standard, while the universal standard is also consensual, just as we adopt a standard dictionary.
There is also a specific kind of logic that Ti caters to. I don't know what to call it, but it's like:
Square is Rectangle
Rectangle is not Square
This works perfectly for the Ti user because within these words are inherent definitions, which can be internally related and differentiated from each other, as a rectangle is a 4 sided quadrilateral with 90 degree angles, and a square is a 4 sided quadrilateral with unequal sides and 90 degree angles.
The Ideologist: (For all Te and Fi users)
The Ideologist forms personal meanings in relation to empirical evidence, and forms empirical evidence in relation to personal meaning. These meanings evolve and lend themselves to an individual the same way scientific testing is regarded as essential to how the universe works. The essence of an object can only be assigned once it's been tested or observed in a controlled setting. And so, to the ideologist, each object has its own individual set of properties by which it acts upon the rest of the objects around it. In this way, a person is treated as an individual that has unique properties, regardless of what society comes to arbitrate. Fi and Te find personal responsibility in a "how do organize my environment" kind of way.
There is another kind of logic that Te caters to:
All Taters fly kites. All kites are yellow. Therefore, all Taters fly yellow kites.
This is because when we say that all objects have a certain property, it confirms that the property is universal; and therefore this particular meaning has utility.
To an Fe user, Fi seems extremely unilateral. "How could you possibly know what you feel as an individual, when feelings are only contigent upon those around you?" Fe says to Fi. While Fi says "Why don't you consider my feelings? Other's feelings have nothing to do with the various properties of the situation and how we can affect them".
To a Te user, Ti seems equally unilateral. "How could you possibly assess the truth as an individual, when the truth is only contingent upon the evidence around you?" Te says to Ti. While Ti says "Why don't you cinsider my truth? The various properties of the situation has nothing to do with other's feelings".
Notice how I have anthropomorphized the essence of each of these characteristics as if they were people, because I was testing people in order to organize this information and infer properties about them as individuals.
To the Ti Fe user, a label, such as "P.E." coach, could be given to a person if they were given that title by society. This informs society of how to regard this person. However, it is not testable in a Te Fi way because being a "P.E." coach doesn't necessarily mean that this person acts like a "P.E." coach in an evident manner. This paradigm tells us nothing about how the individual breaths, moves, looks, or behaves in an essential way.
To the Fi Te user, a phrase like, "John does jumping jacks" could be given to a person if it has been observed in a behavioristic sense. This informs us of how this person is acting as an individual. However, it means nothing to an Fe Ti user because doing jumping jacks is too individual for society to find value. It doesn't give a credit to a group of people, and therefore it cannot facilitate the well-being of society as a whole.