Personality Cafe banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have a hard time believing any *True* objectiveness (in people) is even 'real'. No matter what we base our decision making 'priorities' on such as cold-hard facts/data/emotions/ect each individual has made a personal decision to follow one over the other, which in and of itself is a subjective personal prioritizing 'action'. Be it choosing to decide based off feelings/emotions or what is 'considered' normal logic, the fact the individual chooses either to be more/less important in any situation is subjective itself and in turn rules out 'objectiveness'. Who chooses what is objective? And because they're human like everyone else how is their choice not technically subjective.

I don't know if I properly illustrated my thought here, that could have been way 'out-there'. Oh well, was just something that's been swimming around in my head for quite some time now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,436 Posts
You are correct. All decisions are based on some values that have no universal worth in them - we just usually play the game that they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,063 Posts
Still getting through the thought-salad :), but I wanted to mention my thoughts.

I use objectivity as a tool to keep my Fi in check. When I research things I have to examine my own bias and the bias of the sources. I know it's never going to be something we can reach, but it's still a noble goal nonetheless, kind of like perfectionism.

In fields like history and journalism, I especially value objectivity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,962 Posts
From what I understand, logic is a system that philosophers came up with to understand the world. As a system, it is flawed.
People will tell you philosophy is useless and/or outdated, but ignore that logic is flawed and ALWAYS biased.
Why even try to figure something out? because you want to! and you might already be leaning towards one answer or another.

Science is extremely dogmatic, with it's scientists and their rejection of things that could endanger their flawed system. They always want to tiptoe around those areas or deny their existence outright.

I'm not saying that science can't be interesting and helpful, but I will say that I don't see science as much different as religion or politics, because people feel a need to go by a "doctrine" of what you can believe and what you can't..

People get annoyed at me and like to tell me they are right "because science!"
and that just makes it hard to take them seriously..

People like to ignore the fact that there are different types of strengths and weaknesses.
They deny the existence of emotional intelligence.

I grew up not understanding what logic even meant. xD
but I somehow have talents and even logical people consider me smart.

They interpret me as dumb but curious, which is smarter than the average person, right? xD
but they don't realize that I have my own set of skills.. I am able to function without "science"..
Science is just something of intrigue to me.

I believe to understand something, you have to see that concept/object from every angle..
Is that really possible, though?

We humans are limited, there are things we don't understand and as humans won't ever be able to see..
It's stupid and arrogant in my opinion to assume we and what we can see is all there is in reality..

People have expected me to be "objective" and I played along.. but they are the ones with low self-esteem if they won't let me speak in my own way because what I say is bothering them so much that I'm not allowed to be myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
365 Posts
I think Se-dom's are as close to objective as you can get. (Se-aux totally different. We judge quickly.) They react quickly, but are slow to judge. If they see something go down and ask them what they think, most of the time they will just tell you what happened instead of telling you what they think. They need more time to internalize it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,314 Posts
A person who is truly objective would be passive. An observer of the moment, he would just look at whatever plays out in front of him. His thoughts would be void of any judgements. He wouldn't think 'A beautiful butterfly is flying around the garden', instead he would think 'A butterfly is flying around the garden.' Only someone who is completely mindfull, who is living in the moment constantly, would be 100% objective. The only people who you could call 100% objective are buddhist monks perhaps. You could also include spiritually enlightened people, transcended souls. Apart from them, you will not find a single person who is 100% objective.

One could also argue that none of us humans are capable of objective observation. Different parts of our brains add meaning to the stimuli that our senses pick-up on. When a 100 people observe the same thing, you will have a 100 different meanings, interpretations, thoughts and feelings.

I think what people, like scientists, who claim to be 100% objective are trying to say is that the only thing that influences their work is the objective (observable) reality and that they will not allow the subjective reality (meaning/feelings/opinions) influence their experiments. Of course they will have thoughts & feelings about the experiments and the results, and they will probably express them in private, but it will not influence their work (if they practice good science).
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnicornRainbowLove

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
In typology, technically "objectivity" refers only to a function's tendency to be object-oriented. Or focusing on observable reality, as @yippy described it. Yet I think some users of objective functions, even some who know better, sometimes knowingly take advantage of the ambiguity to make "their" function seem "more unbiased," and then decline to admit that they have done so :dry: which only adds to the confusion.

I agree that no one is without bias, but I believe we can come much closer to that kind of objectivity than when we resort to cop-outs (such as, "well everyone's biased, so I will be too"). However, outside experimental science, my view is that excluding value-based evidence in principle is far from unbiased; rather, it strikes me as highly arbitrary AT BEST.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
Amazon.com: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values (9780060589462): Robert M. Pirsig: Books

"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into values" by Robert Pirsig is a really good book that deals a lot with the subject/object issue and introduces a third way of approaching the topic: quality. Pirsig basically says that there is only the process that happens in between and denies that there are such things as a subject and an object. Very interesting thought process imo.
This process is a constant interrelating of you and the world around you. (Don't know if I expressed this in an understandable way. English is not my native language)

I think that many people (in academia) agree that there is no objectivity, only intersubjectivity. I agree on this, too.
There is always bias, and even more than one would think. In psychology they have identified many types of biases.

People are very much influenced by all kinds of things. For example, by their own mood/emotions/tiredness etc., their experiences, their upbringing, important people in their lives, other people present in the moment, other opinions, learned thought patterns, momentary surroundings, their ideologies ... and as the MBTI community would say, by their personality/cognitive functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Amazon.com: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values (9780060589462): Robert M. Pirsig: Books

"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into values" by Robert Pirsig is a really good book that deals a lot with the subject/object issue and introduces a third way of approaching the topic: quality. Pirsig basically says that there is only the process that happens in between and denies that there are such things as a subject and an object. Very interesting thought process imo.
This process is a constant interrelating of you and the world around you. (Don't know if I expressed this in an understandable way. English is not my native language)

I think that many people (in academia) agree that there is no objectivity, only intersubjectivity. I agree on this, too.
There is always bias, and even more than one would think. In psychology they have identified many types of biases.

People are very much influenced by all kinds of things. For example, by their own mood/emotions/tiredness etc., their experiences, their upbringing, important people in their lives, other people present in the moment, other opinions, learned thought patterns, momentary surroundings, their ideologies ... and as the MBTI community would say, by their personality/cognitive functions.
Exactly what I was getting at! / trying to at least.
 

·
Subterranean Homesick Alien
Joined
·
11,928 Posts
I have a hard time believing any *True* objectiveness (in people) is even 'real'. No matter what we base our decision making 'priorities' on such as cold-hard facts/data/emotions/ect each individual has made a personal decision to follow one over the other, which in and of itself is a subjective personal prioritizing 'action'. Be it choosing to decide based off feelings/emotions or what is 'considered' normal logic, the fact the individual chooses either to be more/less important in any situation is subjective itself and in turn rules out 'objectiveness'. Who chooses what is objective? And because they're human like everyone else how is their choice not technically subjective.

I don't know if I properly illustrated my thought here, that could have been way 'out-there'. Oh well, was just something that's been swimming around in my head for quite some time now.
Though this is probably a bastardization of your point, it's a version of the same thing...
I feel it's impossible to actually separate a person from their subjective nature no matter how much they want to drive themselves crazy trying. They're just never gonna get there. So thinking of that, it becomes futile to put any filters on the mind and on the actions because they're not objectively significant or part of an objectively significant destination. By even opening your eyes, you're opening up yourself to responses you can't restrain because they're inborn and leaving them behind would mean leaving behind everything that makes opening up your eyes important in the first place

It's just inescapable... If you think what you're saying it out there, it's ok. I tend to question what a fact itself even is to the point it seems everything is really only a fantasy and in truth, we can't know what's real, what's a fact
 
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
In typology, technically "objectivity" refers only to a function's tendency to be object-oriented.
Cool. I didn't know it. It would explain why I often have difficulty focusing on technical stuff unless it somehow becomes personal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
752 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
Though this is probably a bastardization of your point, it's a version of the same thing...
I feel it's impossible to actually separate a person from their subjective nature no matter how much they want to drive themselves crazy trying. They're just never gonna get there. So thinking of that, it becomes futile to put any filters on the mind and on the actions because they're not objectively significant or part of an objectively significant destination. By even opening your eyes, you're opening up yourself to responses you can't restrain because they're inborn and leaving them behind would mean leaving behind everything that makes opening up your eyes important in the first place

It's just inescapable... If you think what you're saying it out there, it's ok. I tend to question what a fact itself even is to the point it seems everything is really only a fantasy and in truth, we can't know what's real, what's a fact
The truth behind what I was hinting on as well, and is why itself objectivity isn't 'real' to an extent. At least in the manner I'm referring to it here, although again with that I'm not sure there is 'actually' another version objectivity due to this. It's sort like claiming to 'know' that the chicken or egg came before either or...

Life came before death ect. In knowing/accepting/acknowledging that, without life/death there cannot be either or as well.


Glad you saw the true pessimist within myself through my statement/claim. At least in regards to this that is. Don't get me wrong I understand at a certain vantage point the hypocrisy in what I claim but also know it's at the same time impossible to deny. As it is to prove there is 'actually' a God or isn't, which is off-point but only mentioned to illustrate my understanding of opposing stances.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
132 Posts
xD this whole thread is Fi dom in a nutshell. we'd be more inclined to have such a viewpoint that only subjectivity exists but it doesn't necessarily make it right. a case can be made that through knowledge we asymptote towards objectivity which describes objects as having qualities totally independent our reasoning of them. intersubjectivity is not an argument against the existence of objectivity it's just an alternative perspective which avoids or twists the philosophical nature of the issue. science teaches us that objects in the world can be manipulated based on a set of laws about how certain qualities can relate together. however just because we understand those laws through inter-subjectivity does not invalidate their relation with one another as something that can fundamentally exist as separate from our own understanding. you can also argue that subjectivity doesn't really exist and that even consciousness itself is a result of the interplay between inherent qualities within objects and so the "self" doesn't exist.

as i understand it both objectivity and subjectivity fundamentally rely on each other to exist. this why the judging functions come in pairs i.e. we have Te as our inferior because in reality they can never be used to make a judgment without each other. for a typical INFP statement like "everyone is unique" (FiTe) the objective differentiation of people's subjective qualities works in a polarity and conflicts with subjective differentiation. therefore subjective factors cannot be differentiated for this statement to be have meaning. an example of a subjective differentiation would be that "everyone is the same" (FeTi) despite objective differences between clothing and choices of music etc, these qualities are leveled out and undifferentiated (Ti) so that the observer can differentiate people in terms of how the different music and clothes etc subjectively relate to people in the same way (Fe) thus there is a subjective differentiation of the value of their seemingly apparent but not nonexistent objective differences.

Duality at its finest.
 

·
Subterranean Homesick Alien
Joined
·
11,928 Posts
The truth behind what I was hinting on as well, and is why itself objectivity isn't 'real' to an extent. At least in the manner I'm referring to it here, although again with that I'm not sure there is 'actually' another version objectivity due to this. It's sort like claiming to 'know' that the chicken or egg came before either or...

Life came before death ect. In knowing/accepting/acknowledging that, without life/death there cannot be either or as well.


Glad you saw the true pessimist within myself through my statement/claim. At least in regards to this that is. Don't get me wrong I understand at a certain vantage point the hypocrisy in what I claim but also know it's at the same time impossible to deny. As it is to prove there is 'actually' a God or isn't, which is off-point but only mentioned to illustrate my understanding of opposing stances.
Why would you say there's hypocrisy?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top