User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 15

  1. #1
    Senior Member MrRandom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    151

    Default Relative and Absolute

    I've been reading a typology book and it made me think about this issue further. Here's what I've been thinking about:

    T is absolute. There are hard logic, facts, knowledge. Ideally that is the same from one person to the next. It's like a map with coordinates. You can give your coordinates (= facts, logic, knowledge) to other people. It's absolute in position.

    F is relative. There are values, feelings and relations within. They differ wildly from one person to the next. That is, two Fs might not find each other's coordinates despite both being Fs. Their position is relative; their world is built on how things relate to themselves. Not on absolute position like Ts.

    I hope you understood my point... because now I'm applying the same principle to the other letters:

    S is absolute. It's what you see, hear, taste, know, remember, etc. Two S people are likely to experience the same thing pretty much the same way. As offered... Absolute.

    N is relative. It's about possibilities and meanings they see. Two N people are likely to see wildly different things in the same situation. One N experiences it like this, another N experiences it like that. Intuitions are very personal and relative to the person's own inner world.

    E is absolute. It's about being open, talking your mind and "giving your coordinates" to other people. It's about adapting yourself to your environment. That is... adapting to what is there, absolute coordinates.

    I is relative. It's about having your own inner world... this inner world differs from one introverted person to the next. Everything inside them is relative to themselves, not absolute in position.

    P is absolute. It's about going with the flow... being flexible with the world and other people. Going with the experiences as and when they are offered.

    J is relative. Each J has their own set of rules and a "think first" kind of attitude. Two Js might both say "No" to a situation, but for different reasons... reasons relative to themselves.



    - Absolute is easier to understand, because it can easily be transferred from one person to another.
    - Relative is difficult to understand for other people, because it's so relative to the person's unique inner world. It needs a lot of explaining to let others know what you are experiencing.

    My last deduction (and the reason why I'm writing this to the NF area) is as follows:

    If you are relative + relative + relative + relative... that is... I+N+F+J... congratulations, you are the most difficult person to understand

    Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Senior Member something boring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    nnja
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    EII
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Yes.
    I get that, totally.
    "Don�t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." - Howard Thurman


    [SIGPIC]http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l110/evillinclinations/fortune45.gif[/SIGPIC]

    ...and yes, I'm still on about that...






  3. #3
    Senior Member hokie912's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    271

    Default

    I think there are a lot of problems with this. Namely, that you're assuming that people perceive things the same way in your "absolute" categorizations. Sensing might focus on more concrete information, but the idea that two Sensors will experience things the same way is quite a leap and doesn't make allowances for differences in perception. I also disagree with your characterization of Extraversion as an absolute -- it means different things for different people. More internalized doesn't necessarily mean less absolute/more relative. I just think you're extending this idea beyond its usefulness, especially since the functions depend on one another in practice.

  4. #4
    Temporal Mechanic. Lexicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    JINX
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,716

    Default

    I think I see what you're trying to get at with this little breakdown, however I'm pretty sure the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is overall a theoretical model to measure varying degrees of psychological preferences from an objective standpoint. "Preference" alone implies subjectivity, synonymous with relative.

    So I think ultimately all of the cognitive fucntions are primarily recognized as objective, or 'absolute.'

    When they're measured, it's not the functions themselves that are necessarily subjective; thinking in those terms, I believe the overall subjectivity lies in how each individual experiences/utilizes the varying degrees of preferences for these 'absolute' functions as they're 'relative' to them.

    Eh... I'm basically attempting to backpedal & simplify a concept I think you may have inadvertently overcomplicated/rendered inapplicable, based on your narrowing down of each category..
    03/23 06:06:58 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:06:59 EcK: lex
    03/23 06:21:34 Nancynobullets: LEXXX *sacrifices a first born*
    03/23 06:21:53 Nancynobullets: We summon yooouuu
    03/23 06:29:07 Lexicon: I was sleeping!



    04/25 04:20:35 Patches: Don't listen to lex. She wants to birth a litter of kittens. She doesnt get to decide whats creepy

    02/16 23:49:38 ygolo: Lex is afk
    02/16 23:49:45 Cimarron: she's doing drugs with Jack

    03/05 19:27:41 Time: You can't make chat morbid. Lex does it naturally.

  5. #5
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    I'm not sure your premise, that:

    - Absolute is easier to understand, because it can easily be transferred from one person to another.
    - Relative is difficult to understand for other people, because it's so relative to the person's unique inner world. It needs a lot of explaining to let others know what you are experiencing.
    is true. So I'm having trouble with your conclusion:

    If you are relative + relative + relative + relative... that is... I+N+F+J... congratulations, you are the most difficult person to understand
    Just because things are subjective and personal doesn't always make them difficult to understand. Imagine that 99% of the world is INFJ and only 1% is ESTP. Would you still argue that the INFJs are the most hard to understand type? Probably not. Being understood doesn't just have to do with whether your thoughts are personal; it also has to do with who you're talking to and how well you express yourself. As far as expression goes, you could make the argument that INFJs are the MOST understood because they are in touch with other people's feelings and can capitalize on their INJ to articulate their ideas clearly.

    But anyway, I think these threads are games where people want validation that they're hard to understand, so whatevs.

  6. #6
    THREADKILLER Prototype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    Why?
    Socionics
    SEX
    Posts
    855

    Default

    How is being "in tune" relative, when as a whole, it's actually absolute?

    I'm not going to say that sincere empathy is limited to only those considered as purely "relative", just more so than someone who is likely to be strictly "absolute".

    So, what is absolute when compared to relative?
    ... They say that knowledge is free, and to truly acquire wisdom always comes with a price... Well then,... That will be $10, please!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Moiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    6,020

    Default

    Wouldn't it make more sense to say P is more relative than J seeing as how it's more open-handed and not as assertive?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sytpg View Post
    Wouldn't it make more sense to say P is more relative than J seeing as how it's more open-handed and not as assertive?
    That's what I was thinking, also.
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  9. #9
    Senior Member Gauche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    333

    Default

    Hm, so INFJ is relative relative relative relative (best possiblity); and what a surprise, you are an INFJ as well

    I try to say that it looks like non-intentionally constructed pattern to fit your own type... I can easily say that:

    E is more random, because they can react to given stimuli with wider possible actions. They can laugh or can get angry at touchy joke, they can approach desired girl and try to be either kind or cocky. They can refuse vigorously a stupid demand, or may friendly comform.

    I is more absolute. They cannot act as they wish. They wouldn't even approach desired girl, they would be touched by offensive joke, they wouldn't be able to refuse a stupid demand, they aren't able to choose what to do, they are bound by their introversion.

    P is more random, because P focuses on anything what he sees. He doesn't make conclusions, so possibilities are always open, he can still choose and change approach at the last minute.

    J is more absolute. They must make single and precise judgement about everything. They don't have open possibilities since they already made a decision and won't change it. They cannot change their approach, their attitude is already given.

    .
    .
    .
    Guess my type now.... Oh, what a coincidence, I'm ENFP.

  10. #10
    Senior Member MrRandom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Namely, that you're assuming that people perceive things the same way in your "absolute" categorizations.
    To be exact, I wasn't. I was implying that ideally (in the extreme) that would be the case. You see, I wasn't even trying to imply this to be a waterproof system, but to expand on an idea I read and possibly provide something to think about. It was a very rough cut between the two alternatives. I was building a forced "what if" model where I intentionally put these letters into two opposite extremes. In real life, there are no extremes. I was merely saying that those absolute letters experience outer situations more along the same lines... not THE same.

    All those letters were divided into relative and absolute... and the criteria in a nutshell was:
    - How will two people with the same letter experience the same thing... more along the same lines or very different from each other?

    By that criteria, I'm backing up my original choices. E, S, T and P are the letters that experience outer situations more along the same lines (again, not THE same).

    Imagine that 99% of the world is INFJ and only 1% is ESTP. Would you still argue that the INFJs are the most hard to understand type? Probably not.
    If based solely on my theory, yes I would argue that. I would argue that the most personal (relative) types, even if many, are more difficult to understand... numbers don't make it any easier, if their inner lives are so wildly different from each other..... But:

    "Being understood doesn't just have to do with whether your thoughts are personal; it also has to do with who you're talking to and how well you express yourself."
    ... you are absolutely right. In my last paragraph I put a condition on my argument: "if based solely on my theory". Well, I'm not basing my opinion solely on that theory. In fact, I'm about to discard that theory just about now. It was fun while it lasted

    Thanks for your input guys, it's appreciated.

Similar Threads

  1. Real absolute and objective evil?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 11-15-2011, 08:32 PM
  2. [NT] A Few Remarks on the Post Hoc Fallacy and Relativity
    By IntuitiveLogician in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-22-2010, 04:38 PM
  3. 'Ambiverts' - relative strength of primary and secondary function
    By annnie in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-31-2010, 07:41 PM
  4. What is relative and what is objective?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2009, 05:14 AM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-02-2008, 01:28 PM

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