1. ## Relative and Absolute

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.

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. Yes.
I get that, totally.

3. 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. 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..

5. 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. 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?

7. 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. Originally Posted by Sytpg
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.

9. 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. 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.

#### 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