Discussion of Gulenko's Cognitive Styles

[Bertrand]

The idea behind the quote is that the ESI in question measures external validity of "truth" based on their own subjective understanding of "truth" (ethically-oriented static type; Ni HA, Ne PoLR) which isn't wrong because that's what they're seeking: Compatibility of ethics in relations. Right?

But that drives a wedge between them and well-intentioned people with different values. Even more so if they have poor communication skills. And it opens them up to people who perceive them as a "challenge". Lands unconquered. Why? Because if anyone is capable of emulating everything that you desire in a prospective friend (or partner) then they'll need to sacrifice a good portion of themselves in order to fit that mold. Which begs the question:

"Why would other people bend over backwards to please you, in particular, when they don't even know you?"

So the problem doesn't lie in the ESI (a la the quote). The problem lies in the idea that the truth can only come in one form. Beautifully packaged. Airtight. But the truth is, that the truth doesn't come in one form. It comes in many forms. And you could probably extend that same principle to morality and compatibility. Because "...the devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for..."

For example: There's a movie where the protagonist is cursed with the ability to identify the truth in any lie. And naturally, she becomes jaded and cynical over time. Until she meets a boy who never lies. He claims that he quit her boyfriend's band. But later she finds out that he was kicked from her boyfriend's band. Both statements registered as "true". And she begins to question everything. Until she confronts her boyfriend about what happened. And he tells her: "We asked him to quit the band." Followed by: "Asked to quit. Kicked out. What's the difference?" And she has an epiphany: Relativism.

And I think that's the "proper takeaway", as you say, that there is no proper takeaway and the issue lies in assuming that such a thing even exists.

I would agree with this except to add that I think their idea of beauty changes over time, its not just the most popular trend at the moment... the art of ESIs is a great example of them running ahead, not behind on this... what it feels like you're suggesting to me is to drown the distinction between the true and the beautiful and the ugly and the false in relativism, which I'm not really down for, rather I think we need to elevate our conception of beauty which is precisely what ESIs function to do in society... while it is true they will never reach objective perfection I think there's rationality in striving as if you can and everyone benefits

i do agree that are certain binaries, such as that we are all sinners and that God loves us all, and in light of that, these comparisons we draw between better/worse between individuals are somewhat trivial and subjective... I feel like this goes to the basic dispute in Christianity of faith v works, with Jesus saying "all have fallen short" "no one is good" but also stuff like "remove the vine that does not bear fruit" "know them by their fruits" implies that subjective valuations of worth are necessary in determining the sincerity and truth of a thing (and the right to eliminate the perceived "bad"). i think the easy answer is that humans are just creatures in tension between these two poles and that one must keep both in mind when evaluating others but one cannot go too far in either direction without sinning. in other words, we must maintain the tension

as far as proper takeaways not existing, I do think that negativism has its merits, where often we don't know the singular best solution to any problem because its too complex or we're just too stupid, but I do think in those situations you can ask yourself "what should I definitely not do"... in other words, don't knowingly make things worse... I do think in that sense proper takeaways exist and its not a spurious notion in of itself

[wasp]

I would agree with this except to add that I think their idea of beauty changes over time, its not just the most popular trend at the moment... the art of ESIs is a great example of them running ahead, not behind on this... what it feels like you're suggesting to me is to drown the distinction between the true and the beautiful and the ugly and the false in relativism, which I'm not really down for, rather I think we need to elevate our conception of beauty which is precisely what ESIs function to do in society... while it is true they will never reach objective perfection I think there's rationality in striving as if you can and everyone benefits

i do agree that are certain binaries, such as that we are all sinners and that God loves us all, and in light of that, these comparisons we draw between better/worse between individuals are somewhat trivial and subjective... I feel like this goes to the basic dispute in Christianity of faith v works, with Jesus saying "all have fallen short" "no one is good" but also stuff like "remove the vine that does not bear fruit" "know them by their fruits" implies that subjective valuations of worth are necessary in determining the sincerity and truth of a thing (and the right to eliminate the perceived "bad"). i think the easy answer is that humans are just creatures in tension between these two poles and that one must keep both in mind when evaluating others but one cannot go too far in either direction without sinning. in other words, we must maintain the tension

as far as proper takeaways not existing, I do think that negativism has its merits, where often we don't know the singular best solution to any problem because its too complex or we're just too stupid, but I do think in those situations you can ask yourself "what should I definitely not do"... in other words, don't knowingly make things worse... I do think in that sense proper takeaways exist and its not a spurious notion in of itself

o

I think I misunderstood the question