User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: F

  1. #31
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I've defined objectivity as the success of a proposition in inquiry and subjectivity the lack of.
    And I reject your definition, on the basis of objectivity and accuracy (or appropriateness of action) being independent concepts with very little overlap.

    Second, the statement "the jungian feeling processes are objective ones" says "the jungian feeling processes are [uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices]"

    This is entirely inaccurate. I have no clue why you think it's a good idea to re-define "objective" in a way no one ever uses it.

    It is better to describe the processes as they are, and then asses the results of those processes separately. An objective processes does not guarantee the most appropriate course of action.
    Let's do this thing.

  2. #32
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    And I reject your definition, on the basis of objectivity and accuracy (or appropriateness of action) being independent concepts with very little overlap.

    Second, the statement "the jungian feeling processes are objective ones" says "the jungian feeling processes are [uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices]"

    This is entirely inaccurate. I have no clue why you think it's a good idea to re-define "objective" in a way no one ever uses it.

    It is better to describe the processes as they are, and then asses the results of those processes separately. An objective processes does not guarantee the most appropriate course of action.

    I dont think Jung talked much about objectivity/subjectivity. Nor do I think that there is a conventional definition of those two terms, so by those merits I see no problem with the definition I have suggested in relation to our typological inquiry.

    Ok, so how do you think we should define objectivity and subjectivity, and the relationship they have to one another.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #33
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Langrenus View Post
    Can you expand on this a little? I could see that perhaps an I-T combination might use potentially unwarranted internally generated criteria/rationale for evaluating/reading someone...but surely an E-T would rely on external data just as much as an E-F, and so would be less likely to be prejudiced than you suggest?
    Feeling logic is usually better suited to social situations than thinking logic. Often, feelers have better utility of feeling logic than thinkers.

    However, type is preference, not competence. As an analogy, saying someone is "the best" at reading on a standardized test doesn't mean they're any good at reading, it means relative to their other skills, that is their greatest competence. They may still be retarded.

    You'll run into a great many feelers with the social grace of an angry walrus, and some pretty damn suave thinkers. Likewise, thinkers who can't think their way out of a paper bag, and feelers who are chess masters.
    Let's do this thing.

  4. #34
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Ok, so how do you think we should define objectivity and subjectivity, and the relationship they have to one another.
    Objective logic is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

    Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.

    Those being the commonly used definitions, and more commonly understood.
    Let's do this thing.

  5. #35
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    Objective logic is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

    Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.

    Those being the commonly used definitions, and more commonly understood.
    Not sure if I could grant you this last clause
    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.....

    seems to me that subjective people only tend to be unable to liberate themselves from their prejudices when dealing with impersonal reasoning... they seem to give accurate assessments of ideas that require personal reasoning... as for example...assessments of character pertaining to individuals..
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #36
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alienclock View Post
    [...]In light of this distinction, I assume that it is possible that either F's or T's can value being objective. Both parties may have "objectively" thought something through, however, feelers opt to base some decisions/judgments based on how they feel about what they have thought, while thinkers opt to disregard their emotional response.

    Both thinkers and feelers can be logical. Both have the ability to think objectively. Both can highly value objectivity. Both thinkers and feelers can be emotional and passionate people. [...]
    Here are just some personal impressions of my own on the difference between T and F. They don't necessarily relate to what's quoted above; my impressions are of a very general nature.

    I tend to think of F as associative and augmentative, while I think of T as analytical and reductionist. IOW, Fs tend to generalize where as Ts tend to dissect.

    On Fs:

    When I (as an INFP) am given topic X to consider, my first question tends to be something along the line of "What else is similar to this topic?" So I cast a wide net in my memory and try to remember similar or related topics in order to provide context for topic X. The more context I can provide, the more meaning topic X seems to acquire and the more insight I gain into the workings of context X. Random associations are productive in that they provide new contexts; whimsicality is one means of encouraging and exploring new associations.

    Associations are often intertwined with emotions, so emotions are welcomed and viewed as a productive means of pursuing associations. (That is, emotions are recognized and accepted by Fs as a tool for examining topic X the same way that logic is recognized and accepted by Ts as a tool for examining Topic X.)

    The danger with this kind of associative thinking, of course, is that my view of topic X becomes so diffuse and global that topic X begins to mean everything and nothing at the same time. You see this on INFP message boards. Everyone has their own different whimsical interpretation of topic X, and everyone just talks past each other. When acting as a discussion group, INFPs can pull in unrelated material and expand a subject out to the point where there's no real insight or content left.

    On Ts:

    It seems to me that when Ts are given topic X to consider, they start pulling topic X apart to see how it works, and/or they start comparing their existing or favorite analytical tools to topic X.

    Once analysis begins, there seems to be a process of paring down and refining topic X to its essence; Ts seem to remove complicating or unnecessary factors in order to best analyze topic X in isolation. This is where the human element seems to get excluded; Ts seem to find the human element too vague and changeable for consistent analysis; they seem to think that if they uniformly exclude it, the process of exclusion itself becomes some kind of analytical norm.

    The danger with this kind of thinking, of course, is that topic X is sliced and diced to the point of losing its original meaning. You see this on INTP message boards. Topics get analyzed to the point that they've lost their original context. Interesting threads devolve into heated arguments about unproductive, trivial tangents. A discussion about religion turns into an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, if only because the issue of the sizes of angels and pins is more quantifiable and debatable than the much vaguer issue of religion and its meaning to the individual human.

    ****

    Naturally I've oversimplified my description of how these things work. But I've been curious why INFPs demonstrate whimsicality, use of hyperbole, interest in vague associations to unrelated subjects, and can end up with nonsensical views of certain subjects (especially related to science); whereas INTPs prefer rigor and exactness and sometimes get sidetracked into blind alleys or end up with very limited and blinkered view of certain subjects (especially those involving the human element).

    It seems to me that I can explain much of the difference if I think of Fs as preferring an augmentative/associative mode of thought whereas Ts prefer an analytical/reductionist mode of thought.

    I also like this description because it sidesteps the issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I find that Fs and Ts can be equally objective or subjective depending on how they select and apply their favorite tools for purposes of examination of Topic X. IOW, it seems to me that INTPs and INFPs are equally prone to arguing in favor of a personal agenda or prejudice without much regard to real objectivity. [Note: The issue of objectivity/subjectivity links back to the quote at the start of the message and actually serves as my starting point.]

    This description of Ts and Fs also sidesteps the issue of empathy vs. lack of empathy. With their T and F being introverted, it seems to me that INTPs and INFPs can be equally chilly and unempathetic or warm and empathetic in their end judgments and outward actions. That is, Ts and Fs express themselves differently, but their end decision or action may in fact be pretty much the same.

    ***

    I don't know whether this difference in approach (generalizing vs. dissecting) would be the essence of the difference between Ts and Fs, merely intrinsic to it, or simply an interesting byproduct of it.

    I think both Ts and Fs can understand and take interest in either process (augmentative vs. reductionist); Ts apply contextual tools as part of their analytical process and Fs apply analysis as part of finding context. But when Ts and Fs leap straight to the final result without demonstrating the process by which they achieved their result, then their counterpart on the other side of the T/F dichotomy probably isn't going to see much meaning in the result.

    Disclaimer: Much of the previous discussion is based on comparisons of INFPs vs. INTPs. I would be curious whether INFJs and INTJs might see any application of the same rules to them as well.

    (Just some random, java-fueled thoughts on a Saturday afternoon. This very post is a good example of the kind of generalizing, associative thinking that INFPs do.)

    FL

  7. #37
    Senior Member meshou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    seems to me that subjective people only tend to be unable to liberate themselves from their prejudices when dealing with impersonal reasoning...
    "Prejudice" meaning "personal preferences and beliefs."

    You seem to latch onto the connotative meanings of words. "Objective means good so everyone's objective!"

    "Prejudice is a bad word!"
    Let's do this thing.

  8. #38
    Member s0532's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    Objective logic is uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

    Subjective logic proceeds from a person's internal states, feelings, or prejudices.
    agreed!

    Quote Originally Posted by meshou View Post
    Feeling logic is usually better suited to social situations than thinking logic. Often, feelers have better utility of feeling logic than thinkers.

    However, type is preference, not competence. As an analogy, saying someone is "the best" at reading on a standardized test doesn't mean they're any good at reading, it means relative to their other skills, that is their greatest competence. They may still be retarded.

    You'll run into a great many feelers with the social grace of an angry walrus, and some pretty damn suave thinkers. Likewise, thinkers who can't think their way out of a paper bag, and feelers who are chess masters.


    I think this is a key point which most quickly gets lost in dialogues about mbti - and there's some temptation to compare competencies and declare some better than others. Which then gets people all in a tizzy about personal adequacies/ inadequacies.

    Back to objective/ subjective- I don't think we're talking about the capacity for objective or subjective reasoning, more the tendency to exercise one over the other. Which I think is helpful to explore and know about insofar as different kinds of contexts call for exercising of the lesser developed function.

  9. #39
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Thinkers wouldnt do a good job of reading people... they would be frozen in their prejudices... whereas Feelers could get better insight into them through empathy..
    I disagree. I think N plays a big role on this. I may be a T but I can still read people fairly well when it comes to motivation and what people are getting at. There is a reason why many INTJs are more tactful to people than ISTJs are. I think what you mean is that Ts can't read people's emotional state well.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  10. #40
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by s0532 View Post
    I think this is a key point which most quickly gets lost in dialogues about mbti - and there's some temptation to compare competencies and declare some better than others. Which then gets people all in a tizzy about personal adequacies/ inadequacies.

    Back to objective/ subjective- I don't think we're talking about the capacity for objective or subjective reasoning, more the tendency to exercise one over the other. Which I think is helpful to explore and know about insofar as different kinds of contexts call for exercising of the lesser developed function.
    In the context of INTPs and INFPs dealing with commonsense issues of real life, then F and T don't seem to be intrinsically objective or subjective. F and T just seem to be areas of competency, like good hearing vs. good sight. Objectivity/subjectivity comes into play to the exent that INTPs and INFPs have facility at using their non-dominant functions. For example, objectivity seems to be high when Fi and Ti are strongly tempered by Ne. Subjectivity seems to be high when Fi and Ti operate without input from Ne.

    FL

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO