User Tag List

Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default Functional Relativism, Communication, and Global Brain

    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.

  2. #2
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    You have captured much of the misunderstanding- The above two examples could almost form self sufficient societies.

    But as to communication-dont forget how important the perceiving functions are. You can only judge what you perceive correctly.

    If we do not "see" the same information in a problem, we will never be able to make similar judgments on what is accurate or not.

    Given so much of what we discuss here is subjective and based on what we notice internally about ourselves-we automatically assume it can be extended to others as well.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    The following 2 questions were on a test. You must choose which describes you best.

    A) You tend to primarily associate people with the individual attributes they have and only give secondary weight to the groups they belong to;
    i.e., you generally start off describing someone by the person's individual atrributes (e.g., "he's funny"; "she is really friendly"; etc.).

    B) You tend to primarily associate people with the groups they belong to and only give secondary weight to their individual attributes;
    i.e., you generally start off describing someone by announcing a group they are in (e.g., "she's a sophomore"; "she's on the swim team"; "he is an engineer".


    A)You believe there is one correct view of reality, that exists without regarding to one individual's own judgment or perception.

    B) You believe that there may be multiple views of reality, which depend and are defined partly by each viewer's personal judgment and perception.
    It should come as no shocker that I chose 'A' in the first question, and 'B' in the second.
    My answers have something in common: THE INDIVIDUAL.

    I don't see kids as 'students,' but rather as individuals with individual gifts that need to be identified and developed.
    The teachers called Einstein, "stupid."

    But why is that? Simple.
    As Puppy (Orobas) already mentioned, it's about perception.
    I may be able to see a gifted kid in minutes, and someone else may see nothing extraordinary at all. They can only see a group.
    Who loses? The kid does, unless he has the "right" set of eyes on him.

    What if society was comprised of people who could see nothing but 16 groups?

  4. #4
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    You have captured much of the misunderstanding- The above two examples could almost form self sufficient societies.

    But as to communication-dont forget how important the perceiving functions are. You can only judge what you perceive correctly.

    If we do not "see" the same information in a problem, we will never be able to make similar judgments on what is accurate or not.

    Given so much of what we discuss here is subjective and based on what we notice internally about ourselves-we automatically assume it can be extended to others as well.
    This is true. I could go further, but I would unavoidably capture each type and how it communicates. But I feel more comfortable putting them in more expansive boxes to allow for some breathing room.

    I think that Ni Se users tend to see things more like an infinitesimal format. Things simply "are", and words can't really dissect an object and still do it justice. Trying to dig deeper into an Ni Se concept is like trying to unearth a sunken city with a spoon. Meanwhile, Ne Si users cut things into pieces in an effort to figure out how the model works en tandem, and they'll stick the pieces in a bottle for a reference to the past. I, personally, see every object with its own unique life force, so to speak, and how its essence effects the rest of reality. So learning about humanity is very important. I think a Ti Ne user would dissect the internal logical framework to see that everything is aligned perfectly about a system, and if there's a piece missing, it falls like a house of cards.

  5. #5
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    The following 2 questions were on a test. You must choose which describes you best.



    It should come as no shocker that I chose 'A' in the first question, and 'B' in the second.
    My answers have something in common: THE INDIVIDUAL.

    I don't see kids as 'students,' but rather as individuals with individual gifts that need to be identified and developed.
    The teachers called Einstein, "stupid."

    But why is that? Simple.
    As Puppy (Orobas) already mentioned, it's about perception.
    I may be able to see a gifted kid in minutes, and someone else may see nothing extraordinary at all. They can only see a group.
    Who loses? The kid does, unless he has the "right" set of eyes on him.

    What if society was comprised of people who could see nothing but 16 groups?
    I know, "stupid" is a stupid concept for me too. Dumbasses.

  6. #6
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    When it means groups it doesn't mean something so simple. There are layers and layers of classification. I group people by any number of things. A group can be "funny people". That doesn't prevent it from being a group.

    I do believe in creating individual opinions on others. So I describe people to others using the objective points rather than force them to accept my subjective views of someone. Just because I enjoy someone's company or find them funny doesn't mean I have to push that onto others.

    Every one's an individual but that doesn't prevent them from fitting into groups. There's also the fact that there are a very small number of people that any one person can know well enough to make their perception of that person truly unique.

    Wanted to show the other side to this.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  7. #7
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    When it means groups it doesn't mean something so simple. There are layers and layers of classification. I group people by any number of things. A group can be "funny people". That doesn't prevent it from being a group.

    I do believe in creating individual opinions on others. So I describe people to others using the objective points rather than force them to accept my subjective views of someone. Just because I enjoy someone's company or find them funny doesn't mean I have to push that onto others.

    Every one's an individual but that doesn't prevent them from fitting into groups. There's also the fact that there are a very small number of people that any one person can know well enough to make their perception of that person truly unique.

    Wanted to show the other side to this.
    I appreciate it. I would like more Fe Ti users to put their 2 cents in the pot.

  8. #8
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    This is true. I could go further, but I would unavoidably capture each type and how it communicates. But I feel more comfortable putting them in more expansive boxes to allow for some breathing room.

    I think that Ni Se users tend to see things more like an infinitesimal format. Things simply "are", and words can't really dissect an object and still do it justice. Trying to dig deeper into an Ni Se concept is like trying to unearth a sunken city with a spoon. Meanwhile, Ne Si users cut things into pieces in an effort to figure out how the model works en tandem, and they'll stick the pieces in a bottle for a reference to the past. I, personally, see every object with its own unique life force, so to speak, and how its essence effects the rest of reality. So learning about humanity is very important. I think a Ti Ne user would dissect the internal logical framework to see that everything is aligned perfectly about a system, and if there's a piece missing, it falls like a house of cards.
    I cant capture this in words (especially as I had five glasses of wine at dinner) but yes you have the right idea. Ni and Ne must learn to trust each other because we cannot "see" the other perspective and will by default disregard it as invalid. It never makes it past our perceptive gates. Same with Se and Si but I am just less clear on how that works.

  9. #9
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,438

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    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.

    The Philosopher: (All Fe and Ti users)

    The Ideologist: (For all Te and Fi users)
    What you seem to be trying to do is what I was suggesting here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...dem-names.html
    Good Luck with it. I think the division is useful, and for the perception functions (Ne/Si and Se/Ni) as well, of course.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] cognitive functions questions, integration, and infj as NiTi
    By the state i am in in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-21-2012, 03:51 PM
  2. Left and Right brained functions
    By IndyGhost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-27-2010, 07:45 PM
  3. [INFJ] Communication and sincerity
    By Little Buddha in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-14-2009, 01:55 PM
  4. Jungian functions and the brain
    By TaylorS in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 02:24 PM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 08:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO