8 Comments
User's avatar
Stephen Buehler's avatar

Great piece. I often consider that “context” is similar to the time-space relativity of mass and gravity. Subjectivity is intensely complex.

Expand full comment
Jared Peterson's avatar

Thanks! That's an interesting metaphor, I'll have to think on it. Is mass the person, and the distortion in space-time the context, such that the person is what causes something to be context?

Expand full comment
Stephen Buehler's avatar

just a postmodern angle that subjective “truth” is relative to “context” … such that “context” has a reality bending impact … so imo “distortion” happens when anyone (like me) conflates a relative or subjective truth with a universal or constant truth

Expand full comment
Jared Peterson's avatar

My sympathies are more meta-modern than post-modern, but you might check out Teppo Felin's work on the All Seeing Eye

https://aeon.co/essays/are-humans-really-blind-to-the-gorilla-on-the-basketball-court

Expand full comment
Chris Schuck's avatar

Maybe one difference between subjectivity and time-space relativity of mass/gravity when it comes to context, is that subjectivity cannot be analyzed at the level of just two variables of time and space, but encompasses an infinite number of variables? (Unless we view time-space only in terms of an infinite number of constituent variables - but somehow this seems different). Another wild card in subjectivity is agency: *we* have a certain amount of freedom to choose how subjectivity emerges from context. So that works differently from relativity in physics.

Expand full comment
Alex Khurgin's avatar

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents.” - opening line of Call of Cthulhu

Expand full comment
Jared Peterson's avatar

What a great line. One day I'll have to get around to reading it.

Expand full comment
Marek Veneny's avatar

Good read, Jared, thanks! I wonder if we're at another inflection point when it comes to context in the history of psychology. Now of course I wasn't there to witness it but I can imagine Walter Mischel's argument caused similar ripples in psychology's identity back in the day. Instead of some person's innate quality (in his case it was personality he argued against, but we can stretch it to any other psychological construct), it's the person x situation interaction that let's behavior and psychological phenomena emerge. Now of course this is super simplified but what I do like is that it makes the tacit, explicit. There is a philosophical lens - scientific realism - that I believe skirts the boundary well, but I've no clue how - or even if - it's applied in psychology at all. Maybe worth investigating!

Expand full comment