noah1

What’s the deal with Noah? Is it heresy? Gnostic? Jewish? Christian? What messages does it teach? Is it good? Bad? Evil? Brilliant? Which believer is right in their opinion?

I have news for you: none of us are totally right, because none of us is truly objective. *

Everyone uses objective (free of bias) and subjective (biased) functions. Your objective functions keep you on track while your subjective functions have the potential to make you inaccurate or unrealistic.

noah3

These are the objective functions:

These are facts-based functions and can be argued when differences of opinion arise, because none of them are personalized emotions or perceptions. These functions see what is actually there, which is why they are “accurate” in their assessment and predictions.

Te looks outward for its logic. It deals in proven realities in the form of textbook information citing sources or legitimate, provable, indisputable facts about the environment. Once a consensus of logic or agreement of truth is reached, Te adopts it as legitimate. It looks at a situation and sees the reality of its facts. Te seeks immediate solutions. Te needs external logical affirmation on its logic to feel comfortable – it needs agreement or it feels insecure, because it doesn’t trust internal logic and sees it as potentially illogical.

Fe looks outward for its morality. It deals in agreed upon ethics and moral values in the form of social norms and expectations. Once a consensus of morality is reached, Fe adopts it as a legitimate moral view. It looks at a moral situation and sees the reality of its impact. When Fe objects, it moralizes over the situation — is this ethical or socially acceptable? It will seek compromise to maintain harmony in a group. Fe seeks immediate harmony. Fe needs external affirmation on its feelings to feel comfortable – it needs agreement or it feels insecure, because it doesn’t trust independent emotions and sees them as selfish.

Se looks outward for its source of physical stimulation. It takes the tangible facts and details of its environment and uses them to implement immediate action. It sees what is actually there, without bias or judgment. Se seeks immediate action. Se needs external stimulation to prompt its action, because it cannot generate its own environment, and it hates being in a situation without exciting physical inspiration.

Ne looks outward for its source of mental stimulation. It takes the tangible facts and ideas of its environment and uses them to create new ideas. It sees what is actually there, without bias or judgment, and generates new possibilities while building connections between its ideas. Ne seeks immediate ideas. Ne needs external evidence to prompt its theories, because it cannot generate its own ideas, and it hates being in a situation without exciting mental inspiration.

noah4

These are the subjective functions:

These are based on personalized perceptions, which means they can’t be argued with over differences of opinion, because they aren’t the facts. These functions interpret reality based on personal factors rather than what really happened or what is actually there. They have the potential to be totally irrational but are always paired with a reality-based function. So Ti-Ne may deny the credibility of the facts of a situation, but not the facts of the environment that generate ideas. Problems only arise when a subjective function overrules an objective function (ie, how you feel about something causes you to ignore the factual evidence or environment).

Ti looks inward for logic. It deals in what seems logical as opposed to external facts. It feels uncomfortable with a logical consensus among scientists, because agreement implies an absence of independent logic. It looks at a situation and seeks the meaning behind it, as opposed to the facts. It wants to understand.

Fi looks inward for its morality. It deals in personal ethics and moral values. It feels uncomfortable with shared outbursts of emotion, since it is self-contained and doesn’t need external support in what it is feeling. It looks at a situation and interprets how it feels about it, as opposed to the facts. It wants to attach personal feelings to it.

Si looks inward for experience. It deals in personalized knowledge. It takes in information and strongly compares itself to its own behavior and experiences. It looks at a situation and interprets it according to how it is internally impacted, as opposed to the facts.

Ni looks inward for ideas. It deals in personalized visions of the future. It creates new ideas and generates visions according to its own dreams and goals. It looks at a situation and interprets it according to how it is internally impacted, as opposed to the facts.

noah2

Back to how people interpreted Noah, which led to their acceptance of it, their concerns with it, and their bias toward it. Here is how I suspect each type viewed the film.

Te compared the film to the agreed upon “facts” of its source material (the religions involved).

Fe saw the moral implications of the actions of the characters and was disturbed by them.

Se saw and appreciated the sensory details of the film, down to the smallest element.

Ne saw the symbolism that was evident, and drew connections that led to more symbolism.

Ti appreciated the independent logic and creativity of the process, based on its own independent logic.

Fi compared the moral values of the film to its own moral values, and determined how it felt about the film.

Si compared the film to previous knowledge and experiences with the story of Noah to see if it was compatible.

Ni sought to understand the meaning behind the concept, and focused on a specific interpretation.

noah2

Here’s how I suspect different Christians reacted, based on their strongest functions:

STJs: found the film inaccurate to stored beliefs about Noah and its theological sources

SFJs: found the film inaccurate to stored beliefs about Noah and was disturbed by its selective morality

NTJs: chose a personal singular interpretation but disliked its theological inaccuracies

NFJs: chose a personal singular interpretation but was disturbed by its selective morality

NTPs: appreciated the creativity of the project and saw the underlining symbolism, good and bad

NFPs: measured the film according to personal feelings, and saw the underlining symbolism, good and bad

STPs: appreciated the creativity of the project and judged the film on its thrill factor

SFPs: measured the film according to personal feelings and judged the film on its thrill factor

So, who is right about Noah? No one, because our opinions are all subjective, filtered through objective functions looking to a different facet of what was actually on screen, and interpreting it through what wasn’t.

writing

* I realize this could create a HUGE argument over whether or not there is “one” universal truth for all believers in the comments, but the plain fact of the matter is this: you will never get someone who doesn’t use your functions to agree with you on scripture, and because you use both subjective and objective functions, you are not 100% right all the time, about everything. You have a bias, just like everyone else does.

Te users are going to take the Bible literally and use it as their external source of facts; Ti users are going to say that you can’t interpret the Bible literally, but that there has to be some room for independent thought.

Fe is going to focus on the salvation message (saving people) while struggling to deal with God’s wrath upon people, while trying to live according to His moral guidelines; Fi will judge scripture according to how it feels about it, and search for a deep, personalized relationship with God.

Ne users will gather inspiration from scripture to form new ideas and read between the lines, interpreting the symbolism that is already there; Ni will form new, deeply personal visions and ideas.

Se users will take an interest in the sensory details of scripture and its adventures; Si users will build up deeply personal knowledge base built around their connection to scripture and childhood memories.

To determine who’s right about Noah, we’d have to decide which person’s subjective function is the most valid. But its status as a subjective function makes that impossible.