# Subjective versus Objective



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Objective
Objective functions orient around the “object”, external reality. Thus they preserve the integrity of the external world. Such data is not coerced (subjected) since that destroys the integrity of the object therefore the quality of the meaning being produced. These functions are “static” as they trust strictly the accuracy of the external world, attempting to match it. Objective functions take the various data from the objective world as it is.

Subjective
Subjective functions have data coerced around a “subject”, for meaning to be derived. The various data from the objective world is “focused” in order to create understanding. Accuracy of the objective is shunned since the psyche can’t derive meaning without a subject. A misconception is that this data is made up by the psyche; contrary, this data originates from the external reality, like the objective data, the only slight difference is that it is focused. Subjective functions are “dynamic” as they can easily change with their ability to easily create a subject at will.

People can’t have both subjective and objective versions of the same function. Usually because objective and subjective functions work together, confusion can emerge as whether a person has either one or the other.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

It's not the function which are objective and subjective.. _All_ human perception is subjective.

It's the criteria by which we judge and act that is divided into objective and subjective.

For example. When deciding who to lay off.. Objectively you would look for the least productive worker because the bottom line is the bottom line. This is objective criteria.. It's motivation is still subjective.
Subjective criteria might consider that even though this person is the least productive.. They and their partner just had twins, and everybody really likes this person so they bring other aspects to the work environment besides productivity. 

This, in a nutshell is Jung's version of T and F based judgments. The person is always subjective. The criteria they value in making judgments is what is objective or subjective.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Arclight said:


> It's not the function which are objective and subjective.. _All_ human perception is subjective.
> 
> It's the criteria by which we judge and act that is divided into objective and subjective.
> 
> ...


Jung said perception is fundamentally irrational (either objective or subjective perception), hence because perception is always working with judgement, objective truth is never certain. What you are saying is rather obvious, and its more of side tracking the thread because the definition of objectivity and subjectivity isn't the same.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Boolean11 said:


> Jung said perception is fundamentally irrational (either objective or subjective perception), hence when because perception is always working with judgement, objective truth is never certain. What you are saying is rather obvious, and its more of side tracking the thread because the definition of objectivity and subjectivity isn't the same.


 OH I am so sorry!!.. I didn't realize we were in the Cognitive function sub-forum and thus discussing the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity within the realms of Jungian functions. 
Are you suggesting that simplifying the concept somehow digresses from the topic? 
Do you feel that perhaps you ought to have control over the posted content of others? 
I am not certain of the point you are trying to make. Who said the definition of subjectivity and objectivity are the same? 
They are both defined in Jungian terms and they are polar. Which is the basis of Jung's work. 
They are not the same but Jung clearly defines them within the perimeters of his theory.
All I did was paraphrase the man.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

I just want to add that it's important to distinguish between subjective as of subjective interpretation and subjective as directed to the subject, directed inward.

For example Fi, Ti, Si, Ni are all subjective since their evaluation and perception are directed inward. Like @Arclight said all human perception is subjective by default but the aim of each function is not the same. While Si and Fi have no pretenses to observe or establish objective truth, Ni and Ti do. They are subjective and impersonal, while Si and Fi are subjective and personal.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> I just want to add that it's important to distinguish between subjective as of subjective interpretation and subjective as directed to the subject, directed inward.
> 
> For example Fi, Ti, Si, Ni are all subjective since their evaluation and perception are directed inward. Like @_Arclight_ said all human perception is subjective by default but the aim of each function is not the same. While Si and Fi have no pretenses to observe or establish objective truth, Ni and Ti do. They are subjective and impersonal, while Si and Fi are subjective and personal.


That is not true, Si and Fi actually work forward to establish "objective truth", there is little difference between the functions. The thing is that Si (like Ni) prefers to work with Te or Fe (whilst Fi(like Ti) works with Se or Ne), as the basis for establishing its sense of objective truth. 

Si and Fi are no different from Ni and Ti, there is very little difference between their nature of establishing truth. They are simply marred by the same strengths and problems.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> That is not true, Si and Fi actually work forward to establish "objective truth", there is little difference between the functions. The thing is that Si (like Ni) prefers to work with Te or Fe (whilst Fi(like Ti) works with Se or Ne), as the basis for establishing its sense of objective truth.
> 
> Si and Fi are no different from Ni and Ti, there is very little difference between their nature of establishing truth. They are simply marred by the same strengths and problems.


In this case there would be no necessity to make distinctions between Si and Ni or Fi and Ti.
Let me clarify. People who use Si and Fi are very well capable of establishing objective truth but that is not of primary interest to them nor do Ni and Ti users always come up with the objective truth but their aim is to do so.

Take an ISFJ, for example. They have Si as their dominant function so what they observe they connect to themselves and to the sentiments and connotations it evokes and these are the most important to them. I don't do that. My observation just is, I just try to see the way things are without connecting myself to the vision.
Then they have Ti that tries to evaluate the Si observation in objective fashion which can probably lead to inner conflict or the subject will be justified in their way of seeing things.

My ESTP brother and his ISFJ wife were discussing with my ESTJ aunt why they chose a certain venue for their wedding reception. My aunt was asking them why they didn't choose the one that was closer to them and cheaper. They answered that they just liked the other better and that it was more to their liking. And that's where the issue ended for my brother but not for my sister-in-law. Later she mentioned this conversation one time I was with them. She said that she was offended by the questions my aunt had asked them. She said she felt that her judgment on that matter was questioned and that she felt belittled. My brother said that his aunt asked legit questions and that they provided her a good enough explanation so he was wondering what she was on about and how on earth she could be offended by that.

My sister-in-law is a quiet and polite person and she won't engage in conflict but obviously she couldn't leave that instance in the past and negative sentiments were brewing in her. And since I know a lot of ISFJs I have observed similar behavior numerous times. I can sense their emotional state quite easily but unlike with other people I can never be sure what triggered a positive or negative reaction in them because Si is a highly personal function and since it is directed inward you will be left to guess what's going on many times.

An INTJ will be presented objective data via Ni and their Fi will evaluate it something along "What does this mean for me", "How can I make use of what I know about the world" and they will strategize to make it work. Again, I don't do that. I'm just interested to know what is A, what is B, what is C etc.

Of course, I don't think that in reality it's all black and white like that but certain tendencies can be observed.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> In this case there would be no necessity to make distinctions between Si and Ni or Fi and Ti.
> Let me clarify. People who use Si and Fi are very well capable of establishing objective truth but that is not of primary interest to them nor do Ni and Ti users always come up with the objective truth but their aim is to do so.
> 
> Take an ISFJ, for example. They have Si as their dominant function so what they observe they connect to themselves and to the sentiments and connotations it evokes and these are the most important to them. I don't do that. My observation just is, I just try to see the way things are without connecting myself to the vision.
> ...


You've got the functions all wrong, your anecdotal story don't serve to create an objective truth over this. That is not what Si and Fi are, every body intends to create an objective understanding of their own. I've written a new article explaining the function in a way that is inline with you.

BTW since Si is your "role function", intentionally suppressed by your psyche, it is difficult for you to understand what drives ISFJs thinking despite sharing the same judgement.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_yedra_ He is the link to the thread:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ccinct-subjective-vs-objective-functions.html


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

@Boolean11
I read your article and the thing is we disagree on the definitions of objective and subjective in the context of cognitive functions.

To me subjective in this context means that a person references an internal data bank for perception or evaluation, whereas objective means that a person references the external world for perception or action. In addition to that a subjective function can also have the quality of subjective interpretation as I mentioned before.

Let's say I think most things or a lot of them happen in cycles. We will observe the manifestations of a cycle with our five senses but a cycle as such is an abstract concept and it isn't perceived via the five senses but a person is still aware of that as something inherent in things. It is objective truth and not a subjective interpretation. Thus, I can observe the constant cycle of night and day, for example. Si will recognize that as well as Ni but Si will be primarily interested in the impressions the cycle of night and day leaves on the subject. 

So my focus will be on the information that is not perceivable via the five senses but which is nevertheless objectively true of things, people, phenomena. Yet my observation will not deal with how it affects _me. _At least not consciously. That doesn't mean I will always come up with the objective truth but my goal will be to do so.

When I gave the example of the discussion my brother and his wife had with my aunt I thought it illustrated very well the difference between a person who focuses on raw data versus someone who focuses on personal impressions. My brother and his wife had the same or similar arguments for why they chose one venue over the other and they communicated those to my aunt. The thing is, my brother was requested information and he provided it, end of story. My sister-in-law was requested information and provided it but internally she dealt with the impression the request for information had on her, she felt offended, that is.
That's all.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@yedra, as opposed to what boolean11 thinks, I think your anecdote was very reflective of the Si dom experience or how Fi can interact in an INTJ.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> @_Boolean11_
> I read your article and the thing is we disagree on the definitions of objective and subjective in the context of cognitive functions.
> 
> To me subjective in this context means that a person references an internal data bank for perception or evaluation, whereas objective means that a person references the external world for perception or action. In addition to that a subjective function can also have the quality of subjective interpretation as I mentioned before.
> ...


My dad and my little brothers are both ISTJs, your interpretation is very subjective. Have you read into socionics that is a bit more inline with Jung actually. It says otherwise, but if your definition of the cognitive functions are your own, then there is no argument there since you are working from a theory of your own.

Si and Fi personal impressions? geez I'm an Fi type and I definitively know otherwise. Why don't you ask the ISTJs about about how their Si is so impressionable and useless.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> My dad and my little brothers are both ISTJs, your interpretation is very subjective. Have you read into socionics that is a bit more inline with Jung actually. It says otherwise, but if your definition of the cognitive functions are your own, then there is no argument there since you are working from a theory of your own.
> 
> Si and Fi personal impressions? geez I'm an Fi type and I definitively know otherwise. Why don't you ask the ISTJs about about how their Si is so impressionable and useless.


Who mentioned impressionable or useless? It was never my intention to state such things. Here are some excerpts from Jung's description of Ni and Si and tell me how it's different from what I said.

*Si*
_Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object.
...The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. _

*The difference between Ni and Si*
_ Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person._
_Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type._

*Ni*
_Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things._

*Ni+what I believe to be Fi*
_Although it is not altogether in the line of the introverted intuitive type to make of perception a moral problem, since a certain reinforcement of the rational functions is required for this, yet even a relatively slight differentiation of judgment would suffice to transfer intuitive perception from the purely æsthetic into the moral sphere. A variety of this type is thus produced which differs essentially from its æsthetic form, although none the less characteristic of the introverted intuitive. The moral problem comes into being when the intuitive tries to relate himself to his vision, when he is no longer satisfied with mere perception and its æsthetic shaping and estimation, but confronts the question: What does this mean for me and for the world? What emerges from this vision in the way of a duty or task, either for me or for the world? The pure intuitive who represses judgment or possesses it only under the spell of perception never meets this question fundamentally, since his only problem is the How of perception. _


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

yedra said:


> Who mentioned impressionable or useless? It was never my intention to state such things. Here are some excerpts from Jung's description of Ni and Si and tell me how it's different from what I said.
> 
> *Si*
> _Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object.
> ...


Jung uses a lot of poetic imagery but that does nothing to back up your claim. Some INFJ even thought he was a lead Ne because the Ne intuition made a lot more sense than its Ni counter part when he read Jung's poetry. Plus with perception being fundamentally irrational as Jung put it I don't really get how your Si world view makes sense. Remember Fi is a rational function, when even re-reading Jung's description, I still don't get how your point is strongly objective.


Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

subjective- the experiencer, the internal, is-ness

objective- measured, quantified, exists in relation to something else- defined by definition, thing-ness

I agree with Yedra, Ni and Ti extract any sense of "self", where Fi and Si are also subjective and very much contain a semblance of I-ness. Fi and Si as I experience them, are not interested in achieving an objective perceivable truth. To Fi, there is something much more compelling that evokes another world that Fi knows too well. It is not truth of feeling that Fi is after. It is after that which rubs up against something very primordial in the Fi type and hits upon a series of evocative archetypal images, paired with Si, it is the image of oneself running through sprinklers on a hot summers day at age 5. It is the first girl you loved, and the feelings, images and tones that that instills upon you and can be relived. 

The film the fountain for example, can bring the Fi type and Ni type something quite different. I think Tommy's journey is an overarching Ni one, and Izzy's acceptance of death a very personal Fi one, that Tommy can only understand by moving through a subjective-impersonal lens though his journey is paramount and quite different as to what he stumbles upon.

Fi+Si can get trapped in a world that only you can know, feel or can live within. It is deeply personal, self revolving. It "knows and feels" what no one could know and feel quite like it. Deeply phenomenological. 

Ni+Ti can get lost in the black hole that is the objective truth of the world beyond intelligent reasoning, beyond what anyone knows now. Strips away the I-ness.... Deeply epistemological.


----------



## AliceKettle (Feb 2, 2014)

The more I know and understand someone or something, the more subjective I become from my experience. I think that might be Fi


----------

