Using parallax as a point of reference

VH

VH

Variable Hybrid
MBTI
NFJedi
I've noticed that a lot of us use parallax as a point of reference in deciding our type or the type of others. For example, "This person is more extroverted than me, therefore I must be an introvert," or "That person has stronger Fe than me, therefore he must not be an ESTP."

This creates a logical fallacy because it presumes that inclusion of two similar but different states cannot exist in the same group. The assumption that if one person is more introverted than another, that person cannot be in an extroverted group creates a situation where that person becomes the measuring point by which the line between introversion and extroversion is measured. Unless that person literally does represent the 'line', doing this moves the dividing point between introvert and extrovert to a point that is not accurate.

As a visual example...

What colors do you see in this box?

View attachment 5078

Blue on top and purple on the bottom?

What colors do you see in this box?

View attachment 5080

Blue on top and purple on the bottom?

Now compare the bottom color in the top box and the top color in the bottom box. The top box's color looks more blue than the bottom one's? Interestingly enough, both of these colors are the same. Even when next to one another they look different because of the association with the colors besides them.
 
Last edited:
Boundaries.

Misunderstandings stemming from faulty information. It's not just a letter or a two-digit number; personality is a holistic system.

Functional analysis > assumptions

Nice post, VH.

Something I noticed a few months ago: the personality "profiles" one can find with a quick Google search only portray the type in question operating with its top two functions instead of the four conscious ones (therefore, immature version of the type) - this, I think, is part of what breeds misunderstanding. Not all sources of information are accurate.
 
Every act of distinction is a comparison between two things: existence/non existence; hot/cold; good/bad; etc.

Real differences can only exist between things which have some real similarities. For example: there is not a real difference between existence/non-existence because non-existence is not something real - it is nothing; and cannot be compared/contrasted with any existing thing.

Similarly, real distinctions can only be made in reference to something real. You cannot say that a rock is more introverted than an INFJ, because a rock does not have personality.

So, yeah - our distinctions must be relative.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Every act of distinction is a comparison between two things: existence/non existence; hot/cold; good/bad; etc.

Real differences can only exist between things which have some real similarities. For example: there is not a real difference between existence/non-existence because non-existence is not something real - it is nothing; and cannot be compared/contrasted with any existing thing.

Similarly, real distinctions can only be made in reference to something real. You cannot say that a rock is more introverted than an INFJ, because a rock does not have personality.

So, yeah - our distinctions must be relative.
Click to expand...

True, but if you say...

...this rock is harder than that rock, therefore it must not be a rock.
...this rock is heavier than that rock, therefore it must not be a rock.
...this rock is bigger than that rock, therefore it must not be a rock.
...this rock is grayer than that rock, therefore it must not be a rock.

You're going to relatively disqualify a lot of rocks.

I believe that's effectively what we're doing in some cases (due to the inclination of our Ni and Ti to want to clarify and notice distinctions) with respect to people's personality types.
 
It is not the temple flag that waves, but your mind.
So too with the trees as we walk through the forest primevil, interacting with space-time in any way which induces paralax; it is our minds which move ... and are moved.
 
This is correct, there is no type or dichotomy in reality merely relative differences by which the only reference points are against others. It should be noted that in reality these reference points are moving targets; making it even more fun. Hell, we could all be ISFJs of varying ISFJness; but some of us appear 'more' ENTP for example.
 
Pondering this you should note that is 'moot point' as long as the sample size is sufficient. The danger in 'small samples' is that there isn't enough comparison and things get quite muddy; you'll be stuck between a small sample group leading to Forer Effects as the inflection caused by Parralax Effects to varying degrees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VH
The colors change considerably based on the angle at which I'm looking at the screen of my laptop. At one particular angle the bottom box appears one solid color. At another angle not only does the bottom of the top seem to match the top of the bottom but the top of the top seems to match the bottom of the bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top