I’ve been working with a teenage boy and his stepfather recently and observed something that gave me a bit more clarity in how we see the world, namely that we see different things. Furthermore, when we see different things, we are simultaneously evaluating the things we see. It is possible that the valuing precedes the seeing but most certainly the seeing and the valuing occur in close proximity. Josh, the son, and Gabe, the stepfather, are both good people but have struggled to find a way to successfully communicate. I discovered, as I often have, that Josh and Gabe see different things and hence value different things. How does it happen that we actually see different things?
For those of you familiar with the Jung/MBTI view of personality type, Josh is an INFP and Gabe is an ESTP. In personality temperament terms Josh is a lover/player, while his stepfather is primarily a caretaker and secondarily player. (You might need to review previous blogs on personality type and temperament). Thus, from a personality type perspective, Gabe and Josh can find common ground on the “P” part of their profiles, namely what I call “low boundary,” or spontaneous and freedom-oriented. On the temperament side of things it makes sense that Josh and Gabe do well when they are playing, whether across the table with table games, teasing and joking, or otherwise playing around, because they share the player temperament orientation. The challenges these two men have is most specifically how they deal with property, but underlying this view of property is a much more profound element of what they actually see.
It became clear to me that Josh sees things that move and things that are alive, while his stepfather sees things that are not alive and do not move. Let me give you an example. Gabe has complained that Josh “not seeing the obvious.” Gabe gave the example of finding Josh’s underwear on the floor in the bathroom, leaving his laundry on the washing machine, and many examples of his using some tool, dish, or book, and then leaving it where he happened to be standing. Gabe noted a time where Josh complained that “someone had taken his glass of water” only to minutes later finding that he, himself, had left his glass in the bathroom. Josh thought that this was funny; Gabe thought that it was irresponsible. The “obvious” to Gabe is property, namely caring for property and putting property “in it appropriate place. I explained to Gabe that Josh had a very different view of property and that when Josh saw property, it attracted him when it was alive and moving. This didn’t make much sense to Gabe until I asked him what Gabe tended to comment on. Gabe said that Josh always comments on birds or bugs flying, or even a jet flying in the sky, as well as any animal that ran across the lawn. Josh tends to see things that are alive or moving, and he is particularly attracted to living things that move. “Why doesn’t he see that the wrench needs to be put back where he found it, and why can’t he remember that he put his water glass on the bathroom counter?” I explained that neither the glass nor the wrench is alive and neither is moving. This was a very hard thing for Gabe to understand, much less appreciate because for him, “everything has a place and everything should be in its place.” I noted that when things are in a “place,” they are stationary, i.e. not moving, and furthermore these things were not living. It was a stretch for Gabe to understand that his stepson didn’t see what Gabe saw. Following this challenging discussion, Josh was, of course, all ears because he admitted that he is attracted to living and moving things, not to things that were stationary and nonliving.
What I want to discuss is how we see, what we see and to some degree what we choose to see. I will delay the discussion on this latter element, namely “what we choose to see” for a moment and focus on what we see with our eyes. I need to note, however, we “see” things with all five senses and may also see with what we might call the “sixth” sense, intuition. We also need to discuss how what we see is what we value leading us to a discussion of how and what we value. Finally, we will briefly look at some underlying neurological elements of seeing and valuing.
Differences in what we see
Gabe and Josh display the dramatic differences in what people actually see. It is distinctly possible that they actually see the same things but then quickly move from what they see to what they enjoy seeing. Gabe sees a wrench as something valuable in and of itself, while Josh sees a wrench as something that can be used. So when Josh uses a wrench, it is seen when it is moving, but when he is finished with it, the wrench is no longer moving, and so it is not seen. So he puts it where he was using it, not where he found it in the garage, and then forgets entirely about the wrench. Understandably, this seems like “irresponsible” to Gabe who views the wrench as intrinsically valuable, not only for its use but also for its care. While the wrench is in its “rightful place” 99% of the time, Gabe views this stationary wrench place equally valuable as when it is in use. Not so for poor Josh who views the wrench something of value only when it is used; afterward, it has no value, i.e. no intrinsic value. Josh and Gabe talked about a walk in the woods that they had together. They both spoke about the things they “saw” but they “saw” different things. Gabe saw the birds and the bugs; Gabe saw the path and the rock formations. Josh valued the life and movement of the animals large and small; Gabe valued the history behind the sandstone and tried to explain the geology of the rocks while Josh tolerated such discussion. Did they see different things? Yes, in a way, but not really. More accurately, they attended to different things. Certainly, Josh saw the rocks but didn’t particularly care about them, that is unless a rock fell from the top, which would have been very interesting to him. In general, Josh saw the living and the moving while Gabe saw the inanimate and the stationary.
Consider what you see, or more accurately, what interests you. I see plants and other things green, but I don’t see them the way Deb sees such things. I see the garage in somewhat disarray and wasn’t to get to reordering it after some necessary neglect. I don’t usually tell Deb my interest in things brown and gray as most garage items are because I know that she sees such things but doesn’t care about them any more than I care about plants and flowers. This is where seeing and valuing begin to connect.
Valuing what we see
I think there is an equation between what we see and what we value although many Jungians would debate that theory. Jungian theory has a different “function” for valuing called the Judging dimension. Where there is overlap between perceiving and judging, I think that we see what we value. Josh values things that move and things that are alive, whereas his stepdad values things that are not alive and do not move. Consider how difficult it is for both men to be in the situation we find themselves seeing different things and hence valuing different things. Gabe and Josh have talked to me about the fact that Josh doesn’t like Algebra and History. Gabe was a Math major and a History minor in college. He knows all the U.S. Presidents and can give you a 10 minute or a 10 hour lecture on all of human history. Josh could care less. “What good is it for me to know X’s and Y’s when I grow up because I plan to be a park ranger?” Josh likes Shop, Music, and P.E. Note that all three classes are those with movement. There’s not a lot of movement in Math and English.
This valuing of what we see (and consider “see” might mean all six senses) is quite significant with many people. I have been seeing a couple who display much the difference that we see with Josh and Gabe. The man “sees” the house in disarray; she “sees” the house as orderly, but the words “disarray” and “orderly” are clearly value judgments (By the way, she is a “NP” and he is an “SJ”). There are many other differences in what they see, and hence what they value. And this is where things get dicey. What if you really value something that your friend, partner, employee, or employer doesn’t value; and of course, visa versa? Potential disagreement? Potential argument based on what one values? Potential hurt done and certainly harm done to one another? Yes to all these questions. It is painfully obvious that we see different things and value different things, but is it just in the physical things that we see? There are differences in what we see and value in the realm of thoughts and feelings.
Beyond seeing physical things
Yes, there are most certainly differences in what we see and value in things other than the physical world. Very simply, some people value feelings while others value thoughts, but the situation goes much farther than this simple dichotomy. Gabe values history, pretty much any part of history. But history is certainly not the most well liked subject by most students. History is seen as “boring” or irrelevant. There can be a case made for knowing history so as to prevent history repeating itself, but that is much more of a theoretical view of liking history. Many people, like me, just like history. Furthermore, we “see” history. Gabe can “see” various presidents, the progression of history from Africa outward, the causes of the Civil War and the World Wars. He sees these things as if they were alive, but of course history is “alive” only to Gabe and a few other history buffs (like me, for instance). I think I like history because it is real, at least real to me. Like, something really happened. Other people do not see history as real.
While I see history (and other things), other people see what they value. Some people value ideas and enjoy the thinking and discussing various ideas of who they are, who other people are, whether God exists, various political theories and ideas, and many more things that are not particularly real to me. But ideas and such are very real to people who value them. Theorists of many persuasions, whether scientific or philosophical, value ideas and possibilities including how two or more things fit together. Many people are not so much interested in ideas and theories as they are in feelings and relationships. I have written a good bit on the whole matter of feelings and Deb and I just finished our I Want to Tell You How I Feel, which we hope will render some assistance to all of us in the whole feeling realm. But why would I write a book about feelings when I have stated that I like things that are not alive and don’t move? Because I also like feelings; I just do make a habit of attending to feelings like some people do. So am I really different from people who are more theory-based or feeling-based? I don’t think so. It depends on what one has seen in the past, what families they were raised in, what culture they were raised in, and most importantly, whether they have matured in life.
Maturing in what we see
If Gabe is to be a good father-figure for Josh, he has to understand that he sees and values things that his stepson doesn’t see and/or doesn’t value. Gabe can’t make a judgment of what Josh sees and values as irresponsible and distracting, much less having an “attention deficit.” He sees what he sees and values it. My hope is that I can be of help with both of these men to understand what they see and value and then mature into understanding what other people see and value. Too often, people are not encouraged to see what they see, and value what they value. This understanding more about what one sees and what other people see lies with the mature person. In the case of Gabe and Josh it lies primarily with Gabe, as such is the requirement of any parent.
It is understanding yourself and then being able to forget about understanding yourself, defending yourself, and demanding that everyone else be like you. You can really spend time understanding other people only when you see what you value, and then value what you value first. You do this, and you can spend a lifetime getting better at understanding other people and helping them understand themselves. This does not mean changing. It means maturing. In fact, the essences of maturity is based first on self-awareness, and then necessarily on adding to that self-awareness an understanding of how the rest of the world sees and values. It is laudable to try to “change” one’s perception of life, whatever that might be, but it is not valuable, and it is not possible. You don’t need to change and you can’t change. But you can learn other ways of seeing. If you do this, you will be sad for a while because you will realize that most people do not see what you see, nor do they value what you value. Then, you will be able to understand them better and just possibly help them understand what you see. You could both be better off. If, however, you stand by what you see and insist on it, you will be lonely. If you work on understanding yourself so that you can forget about yourself, this work will be painful. You will choose between lonely and painful. I hope you choose to see more so you can know more, so you can love more.
I see I have reached the end of my energy for this discussion so I will have to delay several elements not discussed here including “seeing” with the other four physical senses and seeing with the sixth sense, intuition. Then we need to look at the neurological factors (brain functioning) that are related to what is seen and values. Later.