According to the Dictionary: Schooling or Education

Although I have many times mentioned it as part of other discussions, I would once more like to come back to the role of the school with regard raising children and educating them, because this remains a topic of confusion.

I recently came across two articles in which upset or criticism was expressed about what schools tell children. One of those discussions was about “sexual education” and specifically the idea that the school allowed guest speaker to inform children that there was a good chance they might be homosexual. A second discussion was about dress codes and whether religious head wear should be banned to avoid inequality. The objection was that the child with the religious head wear was given special privileges if head wear for non-religious reasons was not allowed.

The point of both discussions was that the parents did not agree with what the school was telling the children about the topic. In the first case, the parents didn’t actually have anything against homosexuality, but they didn’t want their child told that certain superficial behaviour (such as playing with dolls) indicated that they might be – quite right. The second was about cultural diversity versus diversity of opinion.

These objections are equivalent to objections and discussions about schools making children stand up and salute a flag, schools teaching evolution theory (which religious parents don’t accept) and schools telling war stories with the message that soldiers are heroes (which pacifist parents disagree with), as well as those issues I have mentioned before, such as when schools tell children they have mental disorders if they can’t behave like their peers, or when schools criticize what children eat or tell them what their parents are supposed to feed them.

In short, the (public) school is instilling messages into the children’s minds, which some parents object to. And although I understand the sentiment of the writers of those articles, I believe they may have overlooked the difference between schooling and education.

Today, terminology such as “education” and “life-long learning” are considered positives. The vast majority of parents, teachers and politicians will tell you that they think children should go to school, because they need an education. The UN has made a moral law that ‘guarantees’ children “the right to an education”, which is made compulsory and equated with going to school. (see my article on this topic: Education and Human Rights). Thus, we talk about “the education system” when we mean schools.

Using these two words interchangeably results from  adults internalizing what they are told as children and then never questioning it again. I call this “The Santa Claus effect”. If you raise children with the belief that Santa Claus exists, they will not question it unless somebody starts hinting at the possibility that it may not be true. Usually, at a certain age, kids start informing each other or parents tell them, but if this was not the case – like it is when an entire culture is immersed in a view and schools and the media keep repeating it – they would grow up believing that Santa Claus is real.

And so parents, teachers and the media all repeat that going to school means getting an education and if the children never hear anything else, they will pass on this same message to their own children or students when they grow up.

Most teachers, no doubt, go into teaching, because they want to help children learn – they want to educate them, and most parents will send their kids to school, because they want them to learn. But it is exactly that confusion that lies at the basis of these disagreements between schools and parents.

So, let us literally quote the dictionary  – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, and I have used both the Ninth (1989) and the Tenth (2001) edition – and with apologies for any repeat from previous articles and in my young adult novel In the Real World.

The dictionary starts by listing the following synonyms, which are regularly used in relation to schools:

“teach, instruct, educate, train, discipline and school all mean to cause to acquire knowledge or skill”

Then it separates them:

to teach  is the most general and refers to “any manner of imparting information or skill so others may learn”

to instruct is “methodical or formal teaching”

to educate is “attempting to bring out latent capabilities”  In the 2001 edition, this is modified to “the development of the mind”

to train “stresses instruction and drill with a specific end in view”

to discipline is “subordinating to a master for the sake of controlling”  In the 2001 version this is modified to “training in habits of order and precision”

to school is “training or disciplining, esp. in what is hard to master or to bear” In the 2001 editions “or to bear” has been omitted. And the first entry definition given for the verb “school” is “to teach or drill a specific knowledge or skill”

Just to confirm, for those who object to my choice of dictionary, the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) says about “to school”:

  1. To educate or train (a person, the mind, etc.); to make wise, skilful, or tractable by training or discipline; to be educated in a particular belief, habit, outlook; to educate (a child) at a school; to provide (a person) with a formal education, typically at a school, college, or university.

More modern dictionaries, like the New Zealand Oxford  (2008) and some online equivalents, say:

to teach is “to give systematic information to (a person) or about (a subject or skill)”

to instruct is to “teach, direct, command or inform”

to educate is to “give intellectual, moral or social instruction as a formal or prolonged process”  

to train is to “teach a specific skill by practice”

to discipline is “mental, moral or physical training” or “control or order exercised over people”

schooling refers to “training or discipline” or “education at school”

So the more modern the dictionary, the more there is a tendency to relate schooling to knowledge and the mind, and education to schools, which is evidence of  language being interpretable and subject to fashions, even within the era. With that in mind, I also looked at the word origins:

According to the OED, the origin of “to school” is to reprimand, scold, admonish (obs.). To tell (a person) he or she is wrong about something; to dictate to (a person); to criticize, correct, ‘lecture'”.

And the etymology dictionary (online) agrees with this. The origin (around the mid 15th century) of “school” as a verb meant “to educate; to reprimand, to discipline”
And to educate, this dictionary says, stems from the same period and means to “bring up (children), to train”. The root of this word, “educe” means to “bring out or develop from latent or potential existence, which is therefore in agreement with the Merriam-Webster.

So, even if the word meanings change a little, there is a clear focus difference. “Education” means bringing out latent capabilities in the learner or to develop and bring up; in other words, the focus is on the child. It wants to raise an individual who can develop their own natural talents and skills as good as possible and so be happy contributing to the greater whole (the society). “Education”, by its very definition, acknowledges that not every child is born with the same talents and its goal is to discover and nurture those inborn talents.

“Schooling” focuses on the skill or the outcome. The goal is to create an individual who can perform the end goal, who can benefit the needs of the society.

This is a subtle, but very important difference, and it is possible that the half of the population who are Js (who naturally equate the needs of the group with those of the individual) might protest and say that this difference is contrived.

Nevertheless, the role of schools is to create citizens that will fit in the society, that will not cause trouble and that will contribute to its needs. To allow too much individuality is in conflict with these needs. An established society does not want people questioning it, it wants them to endorse it.

As said before, societies cannot exist unless the majority of their members obey their rules. And how do you achieve that better than by instilling the beliefs in the members when they are too young to question it?

In principle, education doesn’t need schools and, possibly, schools don’t need to provide education, but an institution that does not teach any skills or values is more like a prison. So, schools (as state institutions) can provide education, but that does not mean that the words can be used interchangeably.

Schools, as said in Changing Beliefs, at times run ahead or behind the popular opinion, but it is their job to make children accept the beliefs of the society they represent, whether that society is a religious group or the state.

The views of the current rulers are instilled in children through schools, and in a democracy those are the beliefs of the mob – beliefs that change with fashions and depend for a great part on trends.

Thus, if the vast majority of people believe that evolution and homosexuality are wrong (as was the case less than a century ago), then that is what schools tell the children. If the majority suddenly goes overboard to the other extreme (and mob beliefs are seldom moderate), then schools will follow that trend.

Schooling can only happen in an institution; education is something parents can do just as well. So if you send your child to school, you have to understand that your own beliefs could be dismissed in favour of those the school holds. The alternative would be to educate your own children according to your own beliefs.

However, as said above, the “right to education” has been made into an obligation to send children to school – and some countries will threaten parents with prison if they are not willing to subject their kids to the beliefs of the state (through school).

In general, the more open-minded and tolerant a society is, the more it will allow its members a mind of their own. In doing so, each individual is likely to contribute to the collective in their own area of expertise, which, if all different talents are valued equally, means each can feel satisfied and respected.

A stable society tends to be lenient, but the moment a society starts weakening, it will try and enforce its own views – the weaker it feels, the more moralistic and dogmatic it becomes and individual needs and views are suppressed. This is true for any group (whether the society at large or a club or a school) and the less tolerant a society, the more it will enforce ‘education laws’.

The common belief (also instilled in most adults through schools and the media) is that these laws prevent child labour. But in most cases that was a convenient excuse that played on the emotions and guaranteed compliance without effort.

In short, education is not schooling; a law that makes going to school compulsory is not there for the sake of the children.

My advice to parents: If you have a choice, go talk to the schools and find out how open-minded they are. Do they really allow the individual child to have its own opinion without being penalized with lower grades or a scolding, or is it just a slogan the school has adopted, because the word “individual” is a popular hype word?

But one more word of caution. As I said before, whether somebody is inclined to accept the popular view or go against it, whether somebody is by nature an individual or not, depends on their personality type and there is no guarantee that your child is the same type as you are. So it is possible that if you, as a parent, object to schools and to uniformity of beliefs, that your child actually prefers that and feels safe in such an environment. If you make a fuss, you could be compromising your child.

Similarly, if you believe that making children fit in the society is a good thing, because they will later get a good job, make sure that you are not forcing a naturally individualistic child into something that stifles their inner self.

Because, regardless of what schools do, most parents aim to educate their children and that means allowing their natural personality type to develop according to their own needs.

Advertisements

According to the Dictionary (5)

 

 

This will be the last of my blog post series about the type-dependent interpretations of abstract words and probably the post people will have most trouble with, because where the previous words were in some ways still attached to circumstances or could be pictured as such, and tend to be the topics of discussion, today’s words are the foundation for such discussions.

The difference between objective and relative (subjective) views is not something that can be logically deduced or verbally explained. Our psychology determines whether we experience the world as objective or not and as we have done so from birth, we cannot even begin to imagine what the other perspective is like. As I have repeated over and over again: we cannot and never will be able to crawl into each other’s perspective.
Yet we all use the words in a manner that makes sense to us, which often means giving one or another word a negative connotation.

Additional complexity comes from the notion that there are four aspects to information and that all four aspects have a relative and an objective pole, so that some people may be ‘objectivist’ when dealing with some topics or in relation to some circumstances, yet they may be relativist with regard other aspects of information. This causes many to experience a dilemma. I know one very smart philosopher, who I respect very much, who keeps coming up with new theories, trying to overcome this dilemma, and the works of some famous philosophers, like Kant, can be seen as a compromise for such opposing experiences.

Of the sixteen types, two types are ‘lucky’, as the letters that signify their inborn psychological type, either all belong to the “objective accord group” (ESTJ) or to the “relative accord group” (INFP), so they do not experience such a dilemma. The former are unlikely to engage in philosophy. For them, reality is not negotiable and “reason” is measurable, because it “is obvious” that if they can see or understand something, so must everybody else. Consequently, everybody who doesn’t agree must be wrong and they can be somewhat tactless in their expression of this. The latter naturally question every philosophy, every accepted viewpoint, every new idea and are often considered “obnoxious and disliked” (as John Adams in the movie 1776 so aptly puts it) for not accepting what they are told.

To avoid confusion, let me clarify that information has four aspects and that the type differences in people are expressions of being attuned a little more to one or the other, so that as a whole, we all complement each other.
1. focus (where you pay attention): E or I
2. perception (what you notice): S or N
3. justification (what worth you give that perception – thus whether you consider it real or reasonable): T or F
4. orientation (how and to whom you express that worth): J or P

The objective poles of these dichotomies are E, S, T and J
The relative poles are I, N, F and P, in which I use the word “subjective” only for the introverted stance, because focus is about the object-subject relationship. Thus a subjectivist is a relativist with regard focus.

So here are the words with their most likely type letter interpretation and I look forward to the discussions. For more in depth descriptions, see the “Intermezzo” in Concerto for Mankind.

objectivist:
• claiming omniscience (I), being short-sighted (N), single-minded (F), or dogmatic (P)
• experiencing reality independent of the mind; every object is a separate entity with observable qualities (E)
• to see things as they are without interpretations (S)
• to comprehend the true nature of things, without distortion by personal feelings or desires (T)
• to know what is right without personal prejudices (J)

relativist:
• being self-centred (E), unrealistic (S), irrational (T), or opinionated (J)
• to allow for each individual’s unique perspective (I)
• to allow for relationships, connections and possibilities (N)
• to allow for personal motivations and circumstances (F)
• to allow for people’s autonomous norms, values and beliefs (P)

subjectivist:
• being self-important, sentimental, or out of touch with reality (E)
• a person’s unique individual stance that seeks no justification but their own (I)

reality:
• what can be observed, reasoned, and proven to exist independent of people’s minds (E)
• what can be abstracted to exist independent of people’s minds, since the mind cannot be bypassed (I)

reason: means using inference to come to a conclusion about something and can be interpreted:
• with regard to form (formulaic logic); reasoning in terms of “true or false” or “cause and effect”, using principles and criteria; truth-based, eliminative or deductive reasoning (T)
• with regard to content (reasons, motivations, justifications); reasoning in terms of “more or less”, human motives and limits; value-based, holistic or inductive reasoning (F)

Remember that it is likely that more than one interpretation of the above will ring ‘true’ for you,

Thank you for reading.

According to the Dictionary (4)

This series of blog posts continues to spark debates and many times the responses that come are in the form of an argument about why one definition is wrong or right.
But the entire series is intended to draw the attention to the subliminal understanding of these abstract concepts in each of us and that they are not and cannot be the same for all people.
They are not objective and cannot be so defined or assessed. Thus, all we can do is be aware that we may not understand them the way other people do.
So here are some more words that we all exactly now what they mean… until we are confronted by somebody for whom they mean something completely different.

fair :
• judging by factual evidence or logical consequences, which are impersonal and objective – to analyse (T)
• to consider the effect on all involved and seek a harmonious outcome everyone can live with – to mediate (F)

consideration:
• using inference and analysing factual data; to think about the ‘pros and cons’ (T)
• to reflect on other people’s wishes and needs; to think about all aspects of a idea (F)
• to mind social values and what is proper (J)

impartial:
• not considering special circumstances and not being moved by the needs of either party in a conflict (T)
• being partial to a harmonious outcome for all parties equally; being moved but not favouring any (F)

right: as in being correct (as opposed to wrong):
• making the right decision with regard to knowledge and truth; to distinguish true from false (T)
• making the right gesture to another person; the right human motive (F)
• doing the right thing; behaving according to the moral standards; taking the right course of action (J)

truth:
• found in facts or data, in which it depends on elimination, analysis, logical cognition, principles or criteria (T)
• found in inner motive, in which it depends on limits and holistic understanding (F)

justice: (in the context of legal justice)
• to make better; teaching one right from wrong – reformative (J)
• to get even; pay-back for an injustice (a perceived wrong) – retributive (P)
• motivated by empathic perception of what it means to be “good” (F)
• motivated by impartial definitions of what is “fair” (T)

injustice:
• making a decision based on emotions, personal motivations or partiality (T)
• making a decision based on impersonal data or impartiality; not considering the different effects on the people involved (F)

Consider what the different interpretations of these words mean for how they are used in our judicial systems.

Thank you for reading.

According to the Dictionary (3)

As a result of the different personality types dealing with information differently, people with different typename letters tend to interpret abstract concepts accordingly. But because there are only a limited number of types, we can find a pattern in these interpretations, which is the topic of this series of blog posts.
Keep in mind that the other letters in a person’s type also have an influence and that once you start thinking about the different meanings, you might see the other perspectives, but this is about the first reaction most people of a certain type have to these concepts.
So today’s words are about the position of the individual in the society – concepts that form the very basis of most ethical debates.
You may find some repeats in the below, which is a result of them having been taking from the glossary of the book (Concerto for Mankind).

individual: an organism, specimen or separate being (an “actual individual”), which can be differently perceived as:
• an individual in the human race; a human with a personal name and history, defined by his persona (E)
• an individual despite the human race; a subject with unique qualities no other being shares, defined by his unique perspective (I)
• an individual in the community, defined by his social position or name (J)
• an individual despite the community, defined by his autonomy (P)

free will: an individual’s ability to determine his own actions and beliefs within the limitations of his physical and psychological existence. This is interpreted as meaning:
• having a choice between objects in the existing, objective world (E)
• having to answer only to one’s inner self (inner judge, personal perspective) (I)
• being able to make certain choices about one’s life, with the understanding that in some cases an individual does not know best and may need direction to prevent mistakes (J)
• being able to determine every aspect of one’s own life and behaviour, in which all limitations and coercion from others are violations – the individual has the right to make his own mistakes (P)

voluntary: done according to one’s own will, in which “will” is interpreted as:
• choosing to do one’s duty, according to the moral expectations (J) as a result of experiencing group responsibility, as in belonging to the community one lives in, from which follows the duty of every member to partake in what needs to be done.
• not initiated unless asked; an agreement between independent individuals (P) as a result of experiencing self-accountability: the expectation that a person actively chooses his membership in groups and is fully accountable for the obligations that follow from this choice.

right: As in having a right (as opposed to having an obligation):
• the freedom to act as an autonomous person; a right of nature (P)
• a privilege allowed individuals within their society; a moral/legal right (J)

liberty: the perceived freedom of an individual to determine one’s own actions, thoughts and beliefs; freedom from oppression and restrictions. This can be interpreted as:
• freedom to act, speak, move and think freely, as long as others are not harmed (positive- and negative liberty)
• freedom to make autonomous decisions with regard one’s own actions and life, in which all limitations from or coercion by the environment (whether specific people or a social authority) are violations (P)
• having certain rights and privileges given by moral or legal authority; freedom from interference by others with the expectation that the needs of the group take priority (J)

coercion:
• being manipulated, forced or threatened by another individual (J)
• being ordered, manipulated, forced or threatened by the tools of a social authority, ruling power or public morality; peer pressure (P)
• interference or limitations imposed by the environment (I)

Again, some of these may be more obvious to some people.
I would be interested to hear your reactions along with your typename (if you know it).

Thank you for reading.

According to the Dictionary (2)

I would like to discuss “abstract” and “concrete” concepts a bit more thoroughly, since that seems to be the cause of confusion as some people oppose “concept” to “concrete”.
However, the opposite of “concrete” is “abstract” and a concept is just one form of abstract.

Concrete objects are objects we can touch, see or otherwise observe and that tend to be agreed upon by all (human) observers as being the same. Thus, a dog is a dog and not a cat.
The word “dog” or the word “cat” is not an object, but it is a descriptive concept of a tangible object.
A concept is by definition not tangible – it is abstract – but if it describes something tangible it can be taken literally and becomes a literal concept. But “cat” is a different word than “gato” and different than “chat” and yet they all indicate the same object, so that word-concepts are dependent on a pre-agreed language.
The same applies to other descriptive symbols, like musical notes or mathematical concepts – we have agreed to use “+” to indicate addition, but that doesn’t make it a tangible object. It is an abstract object that nonetheless indicates a precisely described meaning.
The same applies to “bachelor” – the always preferred example of philosophers. “Bachelor” is a word, no more, but it describes a male in a very specific social role and therefore can be objectively agreed about. Yet in a society that doesn’t accept marriage as an institution, it would be meaningless. Words are subject to change: Unmarried men will still exist even if we start using the word “bachelor” for unmarried women and assign unmarried men the title “available”.
A typical English example of such a word is “ceiling” that used to mean the floor you stood on, was later used for wall covering and is today meant to indicate the top of a room.

The above are all examples of what I called “concrete concepts”.
But there are also “abstract concepts”, which are concepts that refer to something that is neither a tangible object nor an exact descriptive or literal expression of a pre-agreed meaning. Everybody thinks they know what these words mean, but there is nothing we can compare them to and we cannot draw or describe them in any manner exactly, because the reason we ‘know’ what they mean is that it ‘feels’ correct. We are often astounded when we are confronted with somebody who gives a completely different meaning to an abstract concept than what we always took for granted. These are the words I am describing in this series – words like “truth”, “just”, “good”, “beauty”, “real”, “possible”, “reasonable”, “fair” and so on. These abstracts are not conceptual abstract (words or symbols based on a pre-agreed meaning), but perceptual abstracts that go deeper than verbal or written communication.

So, what I have called “concrete concepts” is possible better labelled as “conceptual abstracts”, and what I called “abstract concepts” are better termed “perceptual abstracts”, because they completely depend on your intuitions, senses and feelings (perceptions) and are therefore subjective.

Let me emphasize again that there is no right or wrong in interpreting these abstract words, exactly because we do not all do it in the same way and cannot compare to any objective standard. I accept that there could be some cultural influence, but I believe that the greatest common differences in how we interpret these words comes from the personality type we are born with – and thus the way we have dealt with our environment from birth.
Of course, after some contemplation, we may acknowledge one of the other interpretations, but we all tend to have one ‘gut’ feeling about their meaning.

Remember when you read the following three words that have been the object of endless debates and disagreements for as long as two millennia at least, that our personality type is a complex dynamic of the four aspects.

justification: an explanation, motivation or reason to support a belief or action:
o an objective motivation (E, S, T and J)
o a personal motivation (I, N, F and P)
o reasons can be found in the laws of nature: a truth (T)
o reasons can be found in human nature: a value (F)

true: a principle of knowledge considered accurate:
o in accord with objective (empirical) facts (E)
o truthful to one’s inner perspective or inner judge (I)
o in accord with tangible reality (S)
o in accord with reality as perceived beyond the observable (N)
o in accord with logical truth-tests (logically valid) (T)
o in accord with sincere motivation or care (F)

belief:
o an opinion about the world that needs justification and that may be false (T)
o a conviction; something that motivates one’s existence (F)
o accepting something that cannot be observed and may therefore not be real (E)
o accepting something on the basis of one’s personal perspective or inner perceptions (I)

Again, I would be happy with your responses and grateful if you can also give me your typename.

According to the Dictionary (1)

I have discussed the interpretation of abstract terminology (what I call “soap-bubble words”) many times before. Over and over again, the biggest problem in any discussion is the difference in how people interpret these words – and then get angry if somebody else doesn’t “get it” or “deliberately confuses the terms”.
I have been in a lot of heated discussions (on LinkedIn) lately, and most either fizzle out, because people get tired of repeating the same thing over and over again or are deliberately abandoned due to such negative responses.
I try always to give the last polite answer, but being called stupid does not always make that easy, yet I understand why people say these things and why these disagreements happen, have always happened and will continue to do so.

So why, you may ask, do I still engage in them and why am I writing this post?
Probably, because something deep inside me still hopes that we might accept the natural differences that cause us to interpret abstracts the way we do – all differently according to the perspective that comes from our inborn personality.

The basic premise of all my work – my books (fiction and non-fiction), my blog posts (for Judgment Hurts and for Nōnen Tίti) and all my articles and discussions – is that people come in sixteen different inborn psychological varieties (those described by Jung and Myers-Briggs), that these are an evolutionary necessity without which humanity would have not reached the level of civilization it has, and that these inborn differences influence everything, including how a person interprets abstract words.
Of the four pairs of letters, one of each pair represents an objective perspective and the other a relative perspective, so that some people, by their very nature, have more trouble accepting these different interpretations and are therefore more likely to call others “wrong”.
The problem is that written/verbal language is but one aspect of human communication and it cannot explain that what touches people on a deeper level, which is usually based on sensory or intuitive experiences, and which causes people to attach different subliminal meanings to these words. Some abstract words are simply ambiguous, but for others the different interpretations can be matched to the typename letters.
So I decided to make a series of posts, named According to the Dictionary, because this is what many people refer to when the above mentioned disagreements happen. Yet the dictionary is equally limited when it comes to subliminal meaning, so that most are either described with multiple options or are tautological, as the following extract – of which the definitions are direct quotes from the Merriam Webster – may demonstrate:

During the rest of that class, and since I’m still refusing to participate, I work on the essay for Mr Fokker. That isn’t as easy as it seemed at first. I start with a question: Should stupid rules be obeyed?
First I have to define the word ‘stupid’. Mr Shriver’s big classroom dictionary, which has a faded cloth cover and looks as if it’s been used forever, defines “stupid” as:
1. marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting
2. lacking intelligence or reason
3. lacking in understanding or common sense
I write this down, but I’ll have to clarify, so I find that “unreasoned” means “not founded on reason”, which is in turn defined as “using the faculty of reason” also known as “thinking” and which thus doesn’t help me one little bit.
“Thinking”, according to the dictionary, is “the action of using one’s mind to produce thoughts” …Duh! (
In the Real World)

So, I will use this series to discuss a few words at the time, using extracts from the glossary of Concerto for Mankind, where the discussed words are interpreted as closely as possible to the ‘sense’ the different types get with this word. More detailed discussions about the why and how of these differences can be found in Chapter Five of the book and the bracketed numbers indicate in which particular “Minutes” therein they are discussed.
I have done my best to acknowledge the predominant value of each word for each typename letter, but remember that each is still my interpretation based on what I have learned from countless discussions with countless people over the years because nobody can get around their own psychological make-up, and also remember that a person is a combination of their typename letters so that depending on the other letters it may feel more or less accurate to you.
I am always interested in your responses. If you already know your psychological type, please let me know if it rings ‘true’ for you or if I could have phrased it differently. If this is new to you, I would like you to explain why you would or would not agree with some of the descriptions – without getting angry, since we need to start realizing our innate differences before we can stop fighting over our beliefs.

So from the glossary:
arbitrary:
o not considered objectively; a “mere” opinion (E)
o single-minded, ignoring the unique viewpoint of other individuals (I)
o based on personal feelings and not reason; inconsistent (T)
o measuring by one (favoured) standard; inconsiderate (F)
o random; ignores moral or legal rules (J)
o a social authority that acts without consent from the autonomous person (P)