Polarized Frames of Reference

[BallentineChen]

I find on this and other forums that topics regarding certain issues seem to be framed in such a way that leads people to take one stance or another with little room for integrative approaches. This regards the way the topics are originally framed, i.e.:

What's worst: Animal- or human cruelty?
Conscription: Yay or nay?
WAR: A Necessary Evil?

Of course, there is nothing wrong with these questions, but I find they are very constraining and seem to encourage reductionism. I think it takes away from objective, empirical analysis of the world as it operates.

This topic was created out of the recurrent voice in my head that felt that reexamination of the principles by which we base our decisions was needed.

[Jakalwarrior]

The issue though is that with any frame of reference that people believe in based on faith or emotion, it is unchangable and they are often unwilling to consider an issue from the other side.
The most polarizing thing on this forum seems to be religon to me. When somone is religous for example, all of their other thoughts have to make it past that checkpoint to develop. It changes how their thoughts branch.

[sriv]

As INTJs we like to come to certain conclusions based on our strong J. We also like to shorten the answer so that it sums up (organizes) the whole idea very well. The objectivity and practicality eventually leads to polar frames of reference that both have good backing and are ultimately subjective.

[ElstonGunn]

We also like to shorten the answer so that it sums up (organizes) the whole idea very well.

Exactly. "Spare me the details. Just tell what the final result is," tends to be a common way of thinking for me.

Anyways, do we really want to read 100 different, nuanced, theoretical opinions? If I've ever been anywhere where I'd actually believe someone who answers that question with a yes, it's here. But I'm just saying that doing so would still take a long time. There is too much to explain. That's why it's good to sum up.

[thod]

The whole point of debate is that the two sides throw points and counterpoints at each other in order to refute each others arguments. You can imagine it being like a courtroom with each side attempting to convince the jury. The jury is the lurkers who read the posts and decide for themselves. You may decide that neither case is sufficiently compelling and leave the issue open.

In following the arguments you have learned more about the issue. Thus its a form of education for the reader. If you were simply to take a position without knowing why then you become a bigot. Rationals cannot just accept things as being true. They need to know why. If you ask one why he holds a particular opinion he will recite the facts and correlations that lead him to that opinion. Having incomplete data will lead him to the wrong conclusion. However the reasoning between the data and conclusion must be correct. Getting the reasoning process correct is far more important than a correct conclusion.

[BallentineChen]

Anyways, do we really want to read 100 different, nuanced, theoretical opinions? If I've ever been anywhere where I'd actually believe someone who answers that question with a yes, it's here. But I'm just saying that doing so would still take a long time. There is too much to explain. That's why it's good to sum up.

I think you miss the point I was trying to make. I don't think it's necessary to entertain an entire spectrum of ideas, but to build one view that integrates the entire spectrum. For example, INTJs are popularly described as system builders that are aware of what they know and what they don't. Given that they know their knowledge is finite, why are the questions we're asking limited answers that are inherently lopsided? This is what I'm posing as the subject of this thread.

At the risk of introducing reductionist thinking in this thread, some people may perceive this as a "Perceiving" trait, but I interpret it as being motivated by the need for closure.

If we assume as a given that gaining knowledge is desirable, integrating different facets of subjectivity ultimately refine our understanding of the world. This understanding becomes more applicable, more relevant, more effective in practice. Our understanding of the world, as it operates, is not the same as the one that exists in reality. If we want to create a model that is as accurate as possible, we need to minimize the effects of subjectivity, and transcend the limits of our direct experience.

The whole point of debate is that the two sides throw points and counterpoints at each other in order to refute each others arguments. You can imagine it being like a courtroom with each side attempting to convince the jury. The jury is the lurkers who read the posts and decide for themselves. You may decide that neither case is sufficiently compelling and leave the issue open.



What I raise isn't really concerned with debate, but empirical formation of worldview. My brother is an ENTP and I saw him in your post. In your post, you describe posting members of the forum as lawyers and the lurkers as the jury. There are certainly members that view forums as such, but a forum is also for discussion and exchange of ideas.





BallentineChen added to this post, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later...

The issue though is that with any frame of reference that people believe in based on faith or emotion, it is unchangable and they are often unwilling to consider an issue from the other side.
The most polarizing thing on this forum seems to be religon to me. When somone is religous for example, all of their other thoughts have to make it past that checkpoint to develop. It changes how their thoughts branch.

I agree. I think this is an example of cognitive bias, though my knowledge of it is limited. However, I have read the introverted intuitives (INTJs and INFJs) are the most aware of their internal thought processes, so perhaps we are more able to grapple with this.

[curiousjane]

The most polarizing thing on this forum seems to be religon to me. When somone is religous for example, all of their other thoughts have to make it past that checkpoint to develop. It changes how their thoughts branch.

Yes. This is certainly accurate.

This is because every person, regarding of race, gender, cultural background, religious affiliation, or any other method of "classification" has a worldview that forms the basis of every thought, every argument, and every decision he or she makes.

For instance, though I dislike the terminology, most people would consider me to be "religious." That is, I believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that was determined from before the beginning of time as the method by which an equally just, gracious, holy, and triune God would bridge the divide between human choice to turn away from Him (sin) and the holy requirements to enter into fellowship with His sinless nature. To many people this is not only illogical (the dead cannot be raised; the deity of Christ is false) it is incomprehensible why I would choose to put faith in an event that may or may not have happened 2000+ years ago.

But I am not here to debate Christianity. My point is that if I am to truly live out my life in this belief ... this worldview ... all of my actions will have to be measured against that very truth. Therefore, my posts here will have to be filtered through that worldview. My conversations in real life will be filtered by that worldview. Though I can adapt and change my thoughts and processes, eventually, I will have to either accept or reject many arguments based solely on that worldview. There will certainly be times in which I deviate from living out the best practices of my faith. I am only human. However, it eventually will all come down to one thing: how does this [__fill in the blank__] align with what God is? If it is contrary to His nature, I need to change. If it is in line with His nature, I may continue. It is that simple, which is probably why it is so alien and suspect to many people who dislike distilling life into a single yes/no type of question.

It would be the same for anyone with a different worldview. For instance, I am great friends with an agnostic. He cannot and will not filter life events or any arguments through a "religious" point of view. Everything in life is, to him, relative and uncertain. It is a logical progression of his worldview.

I recognize that there are several atheists or members of other religions on this board. Though I have a diametrically opposed viewpoint on life from them, I can certainly understand that their worldview will affect how they post. And, as an aside, the fact that my worldview is so opposed to theirs DOES NOT mean that there isn't anything I can learn from them on topics in which we both have an interest. It also does not mean that I cannot be friendly, or engage in an open debate.

(As for debating; I choose to not do this, because it is not my forte. It does not accomplish anything, as far as I can tell. And I am ill-equipped to debate the finer elements of one worldview versus another. If anyone has questions about something I have said, they may private message me, and I will be glad to share what I have on my heart and mind, but I would prefer not to engage in that type of debate here on the forum.)

[BallentineChen]

That was a very substantive post, I especially like the point you make here:



And, as an aside, the fact that my world-view is so opposed to theirs DOES NOT mean that there isn't anything I can learn from them on topics in which we both have an interest. It also does not mean that I cannot be friendly, or engage in an open debate.


Another obstacle with reevaluating world-view is that interaction with the world is founded on a set of beliefs. Success with those set of "rules" affirms those beliefs which encourage a person to believe they are correct. When someone's point of view is being argued, they may perceive their "Standard Operating Procedure" as being threatened - the way by which they base all their decisions and integral in their sense of identity. This can provoke an emotional response, but people aware of this can better handle "new information."

[mkay]

Another obstacle with reevaluating world-view is that interaction with the world is founded on a set of beliefs. Success with those set of "rules" affirms those beliefs which encourage a person to believe they are correct. When someone's point of view is being argued, they may perceive their "Standard Operating Procedure" as being threatened - the way by which they base all their decisions and integral in their sense of identity. This can provoke an emotional response, but people aware of this can better handle "new information."

I agree with this. It's an easy trap to fall into.

Of course I don't always succeed, but I try hard to remember that my approach to life is but one of many, and that no one's approach is "wrong" simply because it doesn't match another's. ... Thinking that way comes more naturally to me now than when I was younger.