Data and Subjectivity

One's writings in a blog surely needs to be considered as highly subjective data, yet that does not preclude it from being considered useful and meaningful. In experimentation, it is sometimes difficult to eliminate all "subjectivity", such as in "placebo effect" and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. One seeks to deliver only data that could be independently observed by all others as the same.

Yet, it seems to me that, to any individual person, everything is 100% subjective. So the "elimination of subjectivity" perhaps is to select out only that which all observers would perceive, leaving out the parts of ongoing experience that is a function of the individual's variables, unique characteristics. (Similarly leaving out all data that is a function of the situation setup, experimental setup, attempting only to pass thru the data that would be perceivable by all people anywhere anytime.) "Temperament", Jungian psychology psychetypes, show some such "variables" yet also show they occur in clusters and that every person is typed in one of the clusters, e.g., the "Idealist, Behind-the-Scenes" cluster in which I personally fit best.

So that part of "subjectivity" is definable, therefore it seems to me that if included along with the observer's observations, such observational factors as modifiers of the data, would allow more of the data to be "valid."
Analogy is in physical instrumentation, therefore one has to understand the sensitivity range of the instrument, for example an Infrared (IR) optical telescope, and define its data produced as being that which can be perceived by the particular IR sensor, and not attempt to "eliminate subjectivity", because it would be wasteful to claim an X-ray sensor telescope would see same data. They might both perceive some object, or they might not, but what they individually perceive is not the same thing, regardless. They merely perceive different aspects of the perceived object, and the individual data sets produced are equally valid; yet neither data set is very useful if not associated with the "bias" of the particular type of sensor, perceiver, used for the data set.

Thus a data set of a person's perception of some experience, without accompaniment of description of the person's nature including Temperament type, is going to provide accurate data only to others who happen to be the same Temperament as that of the original observer; and to require other people of different Temperaments to consider the data equally valid for them, would produce erroneous results.

Possibly many people subconsciously estimate the individual's temperament and automatically do some error-correction for themselves to some extent thereby, using context, language, (e.g., factual instead of colorful and colloquial) and behaviors. Yet in human affairs, much data is not accompanied by definition of the "instrument" (person) who perceived the described experience; so when this data is received by an individual person (and seems reasonable to assume we each are individual persons) of a specific Temperament type and Interaction Style, the presence of data will "thump and ring" (or "trigger") the individual receiver's nature, instead of fully accurately copying over the data. Individual people, analogous to the IR and X-Ray telescopes, if "chatting" re some astronomical location, will have some disagreement about what is found there. If one is dominant, the data of the less dominant one is disregarded in decisions.

Therefore, defining the characteristics of the perceiver and including as part of each data set, would enable a wider range of data to be utilizable. Defining the perceiver's nature, therefore could bypass the need to "eliminate subjectivity" in the research's produced primary data set. Later, when comparing data sets of different individual observers, aspects common to all could be sifted out, yet inclusion of the modifiers (e.g. Temperament Type) could also provide a larger valid data set from which more useful aspects of the sum data set as useful to the receivers' Temperament.

In fact, tossing out all data that is unique to some specific Temperament type person, has thus lost that kind of data, which would have been valuable and useful even though mostly to people of same Temperament.

Particularly for "holistic" experimentation, instead of attempts to "eliminate subjectivity", far more useful data would be saved if the characteristics of the individual perceiver were attached to the data set of perceptions of experimental setup and results observed. Some parts of resulting data would be useful only to people of same temperament of original perceiver, but that does not make it invalid data.

To avoid loss of useful experimental result data, therefore, typology category of perceiver needs to accompany the produced data. For me, that would be "Idealist Temperament, Behind-the-Scenes" adult male human, later mid life crisis stage, single, heterosexual, currently in need of a woman, otherwise fairly self-sufficient, etc. The closer match with those particular qualities, the more accurate the meaningfulness to the reader; yet meaningful data is also there for those of other characteristics. Maybe it would be helpful to define such characteristics in the intro of one's blog.

To make such data sets more conveniently useful, converters/sifters could be derived, such that the data set is pre-sifted and languaged for maximum accurate data availability to each of the different Temperament types.