Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Chacham's Journal: Verbiage: Value judgements and ascribed weights. 16

Journal by Chacham

Logic judgements are easy. They are impersonal, and are "true" or "false". Something with no choice is not a judgement. Something with two choices is a simple judgement (assuming all the facts are given). Something with three choices, however, is complex. And that's where value judgements come in.

Value Judgements (the MBTIs "F") are judgements based on values. For one, each value is given a weight. When the judgement is made it is, "greater than", "less than", or "equal to". And, unlike logic judgements which are inherently impersonal, value judgements are personal, as they value other people's values as well (possibly with a different weight).

Because logic is simple, and values are complex, some who can make value judgements can easily make logic judgements, but they may be repulsed by its impersonal nature (being impersonal would have a "negative" weight). However, some who make logic judgements cannot (without much practice) make value judgements, as it is more complex, and its personal nature is, well, illogical. Thus they are "scared" of it.

So, i've been wondering about value judgements. It seems to me that many people (even Fs) do not ascribe weights to their values. To them, values are either "positive" or "negative" (and possibly also "neutral"). So, when a positive and a negative value are in conflict, the judgements is easily chosen for the positive. However, when two positives are in conflict, many value judgers do not know what to do. Without weights, they are at a loss.

The question is, why don't people give weights to their values. I was guessing for one of two reasons. One, giving an actual weight requires serious thought. And many people are just plain lazy when it comes to areas they aren't to interested in, or do not see immediate results. Two, if people actually did assign weights, they'd have to live accordingly, and the possible lifestyle change is not desired.

I mentioned this to a friend last night. He suggested a different reason. That people don't realize values are personal. Instead, they think values are universal. Thus, the person thinks that if he has a value, it must be everybody's value. "Noone can argue since values are universal, and not personal. And, if someone does value things otherwise, they are simply incorrect. They are not arguing with me, they are arguing with a universal constant."

That would also hinder the weight system, as weights are inherently personal.

I find that thought rather interesting. Sometimes my own values are personal, and other times i believe they are universal. I think it is something to be concious of.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verbiage: Value judgements and ascribed weights.

Comments Filter:
  • I think values do have different weights, but that people just aren't used to being asked about them in those terms. I think that people who have a little more practice framing the questions have an easier time finding the answers.

    You're asking a nation that can't read past the tenth grade level to describe weights for various values? *shaking head* you're lucky you were able to even HAVE that conversation, buddy.

    • think that people who have a little more practice framing the questions have an easier time finding the answers.

      But isn't framing the question, a way of "leading" the person to get the desired response?

      you're lucky you were able to even HAVE that conversation, buddy.

      LOL
  • So, i've been wondering about value judgements. It seems to me that many people (even Fs) do not ascribe weights to their values. To them, values are either "positive" or "negative" (and possibly also "neutral"). So, when a positive and a negative value are in conflict, the judgements is easily chosen for the positive. However, when two positives are in conflict, many value judgers do not know what to do.

    Can you give an example of this?

    • I must say, as a T, i am still learning value judgements. So, my value judgements are not up to par.

      What made me think about this is conversations i've had with people, and also in my JEs. While no clear conflict is there, i believe it is the underlying reeason in others' statements.

      Specifically, i mentioned that a child should get a choice whether to stay in a family that beats him. (I'd love some coversation on that in the other JE [slashdot.org]. If you would lke to respond to that, please do not do it here.) To me,
      • Hmm... Well, I usually understand my own values and weights - in fact, I can usually tell someone why I choose something in a rather concise manner resembling the way someone would describe the logic behind a decision they made via that progression. I think that has more to do with intrapersonal awareness, a gift I used to think I had, but didn't, but now do have to a certain degree. Self-awareness is really key in determining the reasons behind value judgements.

        Off to go reply to your other JE.
        • Self-awareness is really key in determining the reasons behind value judgements.?

          Not sure i understand this. Why would being aware of the self tell us what to believe in? Unless you mean search our thoughts and experiences.
          • You have to understand yourself, your motivations and drives before you can even hope to understand the reasons that underlie your value judgements. I.e., you have to understand your values - what they are and why you have them - before you can understand your value judgements.
            • I.e., you have to understand your values - what they are and why you have them - before you can understand your value judgements.

              By "understand" you mean assign weights to them. :)

              • Right. And I also mean identify their roots, because if you don't know why something is weighted as such, you probably shouldn't be using that criteria. It's like using a quotation in a paper without knowing if it came from the National Enquirer or a reputable journal.

                You still haven't answered my question. I asked for an example of someone who easily makes value judgements having a hard time making one because of the criteria you set forth in the paragraph I quoted two posts up in the queue. You know,
                • I already answered that question. I cannot point to a specific line, as i am *assuming* this to be the underlying problem.

                  I did give an example though, of what made me think that, in the earlier comment [slashdot.org].
  • When I was tech leading a team that regularly had to speak with management I would teach them how to present choices either as sets of 2 or 3, depending on circumstances. When speaking with a technical audience that was willing to buy that all that facts were in evidence, the 2-choice "Do this or do that are really our only options" was accepted, the decision made, and on we go.

    The 3-choice model was pretty much the opposite audience, it was for people who would not accept that there were only 2 choices -

  • It's just that most of the time they're "wrong", or at least have negative outcomes for almost everyone involved. Most people can not make logic judgements, as they're not properly able to determine what the problem or the options are.

    But you're right about everyone thinking that their position is universal -- or at least that's what the majority think, the jocks and cheerleaders at school actually do have all the same values and come to the same conclusions. Many people cruise through life within a group

    • Most people can not make logic judgements, as they're not properly able to determine what the problem or the options are.

      IOW, they can make them, but the situation doesn't lend itself to it. Is that what you said?

      • Uh, that might be what I said. How about; If you boil down a problem to just the basics, most people can pick the "right" answer. However, this is how most religions, cults and politicians rig questions to always get the answer they want.

        I'm not sure there's "logic judgements" vs. "value judgements" at all. Maybe there's just degrees of defining the problem, options, risks and rewards correctly. Or perhaps it becomes a logic judgement when you're able to define all your values openly first.

        • The main differences are two.

          1) Logic judgements are inherently impersonal. Value judgements are inherently personal.
          2) A logic judgement is one of two, true or false. Value judgements are three greater than, less than, or equal to.

          That alone, to me, ustifies its new name.

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...