thinking in absolutes

[Joy]

Is this type related? Are there types who are more likely to interpret something someone says as absolute (perhaps even when they're told it's not absolute?), or think in "all or none" terms? Example... I say, "I live in the green and white house." They say, "What??? Is it white or is it green??? That makes no sense!" haha okay that's an exaggeration, but it's an illustration of one form of this type of thinking.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

uh... what?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[science as magic]

LOL

[anndelise]

You mean like when someone says, "I'm not a type" and then says, "I'm not an ESFj" and so the other person says, ''Of course not, because an ESFj is a type." That kind of thing?

I think she's referring to the opposite of someone who states "There are no types" and then asks "Which type is most likely to X?"


edited to add:
no, i'm not saying joy said "there are no types"

[Exodus]

You mean like when someone says, "I'm not a type" and then says, "I'm not an ESFj" and so the other person says, ''Of course not, because an ESFj is a type." That kind of thing?

I think she's referring to the opposite of someone who states "There are no types" and then asks "Which type is most likely to X?"

LOL.

btw, Joy, I vote Ti types most likely to say "that makes no sense" in response to seemingly contradictory statements. It is much better to clarify seeming contradictions (e.g., "it's painted white, with green shutters") than to immediately write them off as "paradox", as an Ni type would be more likely to do, IME.

[Logos]

Is this type related? Are there types who are more likely to interpret something someone says as absolute (perhaps even when they're told it's not absolute?), or think in "all or none" terms? Example... I say, "I live in the green and white house." They say, "What??? Is it white or is it green??? That makes no sense!" haha okay that's an exaggeration, but it's an illustration of one form of this type of thinking.

I thought that only the Sith think in absolutes?

[science as magic]

i say Ji

but i would like to point out how fucking clever diana is and how Ji is immune to some of that shit (that being stereotypical thought with relation to a given group base)

[anndelise]

btw, Joy, I vote Ti types most likely to say "that makes no sense" in response to seemingly contradictory statements. It is much better to clarify seeming contradictions (e.g., "it's painted white, with green shutters") than to immediately write them off as "paradox", as an Ni type would be more likely to do, IME.

Then what would Te types do when faced with a seemingly contradictory statement? or were you going Xi?


edited to add:
oh wait, discussing contradictions is a sidetrack from Joy's post
this thread is about absolutes.
perhaps Joy will make a new thread?

[Exodus]

btw, Joy, I vote Ti types most likely to say "that makes no sense" in response to seemingly contradictory statements. It is much better to clarify seeming contradictions (e.g., "it's painted white, with green shutters") than to immediately write them off as "paradox", as an Ni type would be more likely to do, IME.

Then what would Te types do when faced with a seemingly contradictory statement? or were you going Xi?

Yeah, contrasting Te with Ti would make more sense. Although I think Te (like all extroverted functions) would be indifferent to internal coherence.

edited to add:
oh wait, discussing contradictions is a sidetrack from Joy's post
this thread is about absolutes.
perhaps Joy will make a new thread?

I think "thinking in absolutes" is just Joy's personal interpretation of the reaction. Judging from the example, annoyance with self-contradiction was the other person's motivation.

Again, Joy, is this thread about someone in particular?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Then what would Te types do when faced with a seemingly contradictory statement? or were you going Xi?

only uses practical data from the current environment, so is unlikely to counter a contradiction; on the otherhand, makes comparisions about data over a period of time (the data may not be relevant to the current siuation), so is better placed to find contradictory statements.

[anndelise]

Then what would Te types do when faced with a seemingly contradictory statement? or were you going Xi?

only uses practical data from the current environment, so is unlikely to counter a contradiction; on the otherhand, makes comparisions about data over a period of time (the data may not be relevant to the current siuation), so is better placed to find contradictory statements.

practical data from the current environment being uncontradictory??
the irony

[Not A Communist Shill]

I mean that uses the consensus of opinion (whatever that may be, e.g. a collection of knowledgable people) to overcome a situation that arises - there isn't any assessing for contradictions - the data is practical because it was obtained at the moment of the crisis. A has greater stored set of accumulated data than a , so are better able to find contradictions.

[anndelise]

I mean that uses the consensus of opinion (whatever that may be, e.g. a collection of knowledgable people) to overcome a situation that arises - there isn't any assessing for contradictions - the data is practical because it was obtained at the moment of the crisis. A has greater stored set of accumulated data than a , so are better able to find contradictions.

I think that sensing/seeing contradictions is an awareness (no matter how vague) of the interdependencies between objects/concepts/etc.

I do not believe that Ti is the only function capable of being aware of contradictions. I believe that each of the Xi functions would have differing awarenesses of how interdependencies match...or don't match.

However, again as I said, this is a side track to Joy's focus on absolutes.
But then, I can just barely see how her example fits in with the topic, so perhaps it does have something to do with contradictions after all.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think you're right, (because all introverted functions work over a period of time, and extroverted functions work in a short time span - an event). Si\Ni types would look out for environmental inconsistencies, and Ti\Fi would compare objects for inconsistencies.

[Exodus]

I mean that uses the consensus of opinion (whatever that may be, e.g. a collection of knowledgable people)

I dislike the idea that Te types are all about consensus opinion. IME they are more concerned with pragmatism than anything else, i.e., getting a problem solved, regardless of the logicality of the solution.

[Not A Communist Shill]

types are more likely to take new data for every situation they get into, rather than use what they did for - so they are pragmatic in the sense they find new data (they start largely from scratch) in these situations. I don't just mean consensus of opinion - types can look at their surrounds and find the general rule in order tyo solve the problem - if something is inconsistant, it is anamoly. types would only reject data if it was false, rather than inconsistent.

[Joy]

"The mark of a first rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -F. Scott Fitzgerald

Yes, Te can evaluate pieces of information that contradict each other, giving equal consideration to both and even utilizing both. I don't think that Te specifically uses consensus for gathering information though. That seems pretty foolish... It uses what it observes primarily, and it can see the most logical course of action would be, which actions don't make sense in that specific situation, the most efficient way of accomplishing something, etc.

But anyways... no, this thread is not about contradictions. It's about absolutes. What I said about the color of the house was one example of how people sometimes think in all or none terms. If the house is (all) white, how could it possibly be (all) green at the same time??? Another example is when people add "every" or "always" or "never" to sentences which do not contain them.

And no, this thread isn't about anyone in particular. Though certain people do it a lot more than others, and sometimes get defensive about it, too. I'm trying to make sense of it. It baffles me that anyone could think that way.

[Not A Communist Shill]

If you use information which contradicts each other, then I think we can rule out ENTjs as seeing things in absolute terms.

[anndelise]

Your example didn't say (all) white and (all) green.
It said "green and white".
Experience has shown me a number of green and white houses:
* green with white trimming,
* white with green trimming,
* white and green stripes even.

I don't see ANY contradiction in it. It included "and".
Perhaps you have better example?

edited to add: I just saw you did include another example:

Another example is when people add "every" or "always" or "never" to sentences which do not contain them.

If a person says "X is blue", venn diagrams create a circle labeled as blue, and place X inside of it.
If a person says "X is blue and yellow", venn diagrams create two circles, one labeled blue, the other labeled yellow, have them overlap each other at some point, and place X in that overlapped part.
When I read a venn diagram, I see "X is blue". It tells me nothing of what else X is. So, while discussing X, while being told only that "X is blue", I will have to assume that "X is blue"...after all, that's what I was told.

Now, if the person I'm talking to says something like, "I didn't say ALL X are blue". Ok, that's more information than you had given me before. X now gets connected to blue, but allowances are now made for X going into a circle other than the blue circle.

If the person who had initially told me "X is blue" now says "X is blue and yellow". Ok, venn diagrams are readjusted to include X is possibly being either blue, or yellow, or being blue AND yellow. (cuz of not being quite sure if AND means it's both, or either)


Sometimes, we're not always as clear in our communications as we think we are. We have an idea in our head of X being placed in varying circles, give one circle, and somehow assume that the person we're attempting to communicate with can "read our minds" or get our meanings when we haven't actually communicated it.

[Joy]

I don't think it's productive to decide what IS or ISN'T true for sure, which makes it difficult to think in terms of absolutes.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think it's productive to decide what IS or ISN'T true for sure, which makes it difficult to think in terms of absolutes.

Finding what is\or isn't true takes time types don't have - they make absolutions about the whole from the majority they had time to survey - the minority things are ignored. A Ti\Fi type would be more relativistic because their version of the truth would include every object which correct - they are relativists because they don't make sweeping generalisations about the whole from the majority. For a Te\Fe type, it's more important to get a global model than a local one, which means they have to analyse more data (the whole) with little scrutiny. Ti\Fi types would take much longer to analyse objects - they are more concerened with the truth of objects (at a local level) than forming a global model.

[science as magic]

potatoes potatos

[Joy]

Your example didn't say (all) white and (all) green.
It said "green and white".

my point exactly

[anndelise]

I don't think it's productive to decide what IS or ISN'T true for sure, which makes it difficult to think in terms of absolutes.

Finding what is\or isn't true takes time types don't have - they make absolutions about the whole from the majority they had time to survey - the minority things are ignored. A Ti\Fi type would be more relativistic because their version of the truth would include every object which correct - they are relativists because they don't make sweeping generalisations about the whole from the majority. For a Te\Fe type, it's more important to get a global model than a local one, which means they have to analyse more data (the whole) with little scrutiny. Ti\Fi types would take much longer to analyse objects - they are more concerened with the truth of objects (at a local level) than forming a global model.

I don't believe "truth" has much to do with it, at least not for non-NT types.

Joy, fyi i had edited my last response while you and sub were writing.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You can have practical truths and absolute truths, which take longer to establish, in theory.

Wouldn't types be good at evaluating the relative proprtions of green and white, with types only being concernced with 'more and 'less' white\green?

[anndelise]

You can have practical truths and absolute truths, which take longer to establish, in theory.

Wouldn't types be good at evaluating the relative proprtions of green and white, with types only being concernced with 'more and 'less' white\green?

i wouldn't place so much thought into it
i'd probably just hope that the green and white house i'm trying to find is the ONLY green and white house on the block...otherwise, i'll need more information about the house to find it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

There are many definitions of 'absolute' in this thread - I think types would be more concerned with absolute properties of objects (e.g. measurements), and would be more concerned with the relative details of the objects - this allows them to replace details easily.

[Joy]

yeah... I used a physical object in my example even though it's generally ideas and opinions that I notice people doing that with.

[cracka]

All ESxJ's eyefuck people. To some, as I've read, this seems to be an absolute...

[anndelise]

yeah... I used a physical object in my example even though it's generally ideas and opinions that I notice people doing that with.

may i suggest noticing which categories are being given during the communications prior to determining if it's being read as "absolute" or not?

while I haven't particularly studied venn diagrams, i know that in my case at least, what I'd written a few posts above is similar to how i attempt to make sense of what people are saying regarding ideas and opinions. Just, instead of a circle, it's a.."location" within my thoughts...which I had mentioned somewhere else ( i forgot where) recently as being similar to how Sign Language sets up an object / idea / whatever in a particular space, and then any time it's being referrenced that space is pointed to, meanwhile further and further descriptions or connections are being made to that object/idea .

[Joy]

All ESxJ's eyefuck people. To some, as I've read, this seems to be an absolute...

who said all?

anndelise, how is one to give examples to demonstrate an idea in physical terms without... putting it in physical terms?

[Exodus]

"The mark of a first rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -F. Scott Fitzgerald

Yes, Te can evaluate pieces of information that contradict each other, giving equal consideration to both and even utilizing both.

That is possible. But Ti makes it possible to realize that there was never a contradiction in the first place. Synthesis (not just saying that both ideas are correct!) makes a generalized and self-consistent conclusion possible.

But anyways... no, this thread is not about contradictions. It's about absolutes. What I said about the color of the house was one example of how people sometimes think in all or none terms. If the house is (all) white, how could it possibly be (all) green at the same time??? Another example is when people add "every" or "always" or "never" to sentences which do not contain them.

And no, this thread isn't about anyone in particular. Though certain people do it a lot more than others, and sometimes get defensive about it, too. I'm trying to make sense of it. It baffles me that anyone could think that way.

In this (extreme) example, I think you are also referring to simple semantic pickiness--which I too have little patience for. If you explained to them that part of the house was green and part was white, then there should be no misunderstanding.

[anndelise]

anndelise, how is one to give examples to demonstrate an idea in physical terms without... putting it in physical terms?

why put the idea into physical terms?

if you see this so often on the forum, i would think that there should be plenty of examples that you can point to.

[anndelise]

All ESxJ's eyefuck people. To some, as I've read, this seems to be an absolute...

let's test this idea, cracka
look deep into my eyes

[Joy]

anndelise, how is one to give examples to demonstrate an idea in physical terms without... putting it in physical terms?

why put the idea into physical terms?

there are a lot of people who understand better when you do

if you see this so often on the forum, i would think that there should be plenty of examples that you can point to.

that would be inconsiderate... and I'd really rather not invite anyone argue with me... not worth it

[anndelise]

anndelise, how is one to give examples to demonstrate an idea in physical terms without... putting it in physical terms?

why put the idea into physical terms?

there are a lot of people who understand better when you do

ok, but someone's actually asking you for non-physical terms/examples

if you see this so often on the forum, i would think that there should be plenty of examples that you can point to.

that would be inconsiderate... and I'd really rather not invite anyone argue with me... not worth it

so you'd rather judge them behind their backs without giving them a chance to explain why they said something that gave you that impression?

just prior to writing this thread, you said something about me being one of these thinking in absolutes people, use an example then from me.

[Joy]

anndelise, how is one to give examples to demonstrate an idea in physical terms without... putting it in physical terms?

why put the idea into physical terms?

there are a lot of people who understand better when you do

ok, but someone's actually asking you for non-physical terms/examples

who? where?

if you see this so often on the forum, i would think that there should be plenty of examples that you can point to.

that would be inconsiderate... and I'd really rather not invite anyone argue with me... not worth it

so you'd rather judge them behind their backs without giving them a chance to explain why they said something that gave you that impression?

just prior to writing this thread, you said something about me being one of these thinking in absolutes people, use an example then from me.

[anndelise]

anndelise, how is one to give examples to demonstrate an idea in physical terms without... putting it in physical terms?

why put the idea into physical terms?

there are a lot of people who understand better when you do

ok, but someone's actually asking you for non-physical terms/examples

who? where?

a narrative's approach to questions has been bolded for you
who's asking? me
where did i ask it? see the bolded question

if you see this so often on the forum, i would think that there should be plenty of examples that you can point to.

that would be inconsiderate... and I'd really rather not invite anyone argue with me... not worth it

so you'd rather judge them behind their backs without giving them a chance to explain why they said something that gave you that impression?

just prior to writing this thread, you said something about me being one of these thinking in absolutes people, use an example then from me.

am i to assume that you don't feel compelled to allow me to defend myself at this time?