User Tag List

First 91011121321 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 332

  1. #101
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    EDIT - ah, pt I see we synchronized there. Okay then... but I will point out that, as a linguist, I have the privilege to confidently say that dictionaries are not objective.
    But making up a definition is (better)? When in the middle of deciding what type would fit that decision? By consensus?

    Objective:

    - Based on observed phenonom
    - Without personal bias
    - End goal

    Found three so that everyone can be happy (S, Ti and Te). Done!

  2. #102
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    No. That's a good point, actually. It would have been more objective to create a definition of objectivity, and then measure several individuals who tested as ENTP or INTP, and then see how well they met each of these criteria.

    They were really more focused on which one should, based on their theoretical nature, be more objective, and then using that to determine whether the tests themselves were creating results for people matching up with what should have been in their theoretical natures. They were refining their agreement/dispute on what the idea was supposed to be in the first place, rather than thinking about what was true in the current implementation.
    *creeps out from cave into cross-fire*

    I rather like Athenian's point of creating a definition of objectivity then measuring via testing the xNTPs (or all others too).

    But I wonder how that could be done, and would for e.g. if 80% of a general population says something is right, is objectivity then to mean the tested has to say it is right too? How truly objective can one be (as someone else earlier had it), even the one coming up with the test?

    We'd all be evaluating a circumstance based on our own past experiences, our beliefs and values - that which we hold dear. Whether this be the internal white logic of an INTP, or the focus/value of decisions one can derive from objectivity for an INTJ. I think all of these does shape our relative objectivity. We all have different stressors too.

    I'd hazard in different situations, different personalities could have the upper hand in objectivity... I'm not certain, but to me, to say that one type is always the most objective (whether it is the ENTP or INTP or whichever), essentially means we're measuring objectivity by that particular personality's scale only?

    and uh... given how heated this debate is getting, if I raise any feathers unintentionally / am completely out of point, I do apologize.

    *creeps back into cave*

  3. #103
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    So come on then... do any of the non-NT's (apart from Night) want to make some improvements on my definition of objectivity, so we can agree on one before holding each type and/or function up to it, comparing the theory with experience/practice and then proceed to the final judgement?

    Or are we just gonna sit around and whinge all day? Cos I've got eggs to boil and sandwiches to make, y'know
    There's 3 pages of comments to read through... and I set my post per page pretty high... I can see why non NTs don't want to step into this mess.

    Refering back to your definition... I don't know what the best working definition might be... but according to what you put up... I feel like throwing in a loose cannon ball.
    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    But there are two possible kinds of objectivity as I see it: perceptional and judgemental objectivity. Perceptional objectivity being a way of seeing things that takes minimal account of personal feelings, opinions, expectations and experiences. Like suspension of disbelief when reading a fictional work, you could say that objectivity is suspension of judgement or suspension of prejudice, to look at something with an attitude of it being unique, avoiding the pitfalls of attributing qualities to it that don't exist simply because one's mind sees resemblances in it to other things, which might only be deceptive.

    Judgemental objectivity (a phrase I just invented, heh) would be basing a decision on only the facts gained by objective perception, only those things which are directly pertinent to the situation, and not on any prior personal agenda or preference.
    If that's how you're defining objectivity... then perceptional objectivity has nothing to do with T... It's the ability to step out and view the situation without expectations... or pulling it inside out. The ability to view all aspects of the situation and weight them equally. That in my mind belongs to Ni. Ne is slightly limited by what's apparent in a given situation. Now what about Si or Se? Si is based upon memories... our inner sense of conventions... that can be biased. Se is even worse... what you see is what you get.

    Judgmental objectivity... I don't think you can argue against Ti being the lead function here. It's judgment towards understanding... Te will always be influenced by the intended goal...

    We need some analogies I think. Say, a soccer referee - supposed to be objective (= unbiased?). Imagine two players get into a scuffle but it all happened so fast that nobody caught what was said or who started it. Say one of the players has a reputation for aggression and starting fights
    ...
    So, with that in mind, what are we doing? Deciding which is the most objective (by that definition) out of the XNTP's? Would it help to figure out who'd be the best ref in that game?
    Another loose cannon... Would objectiveness be best served by disregarding all feelings/emotions/reputation etc or by taking all of that into account?

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    In my experience, the INTPs have been more objective than the ENTPs.
    Is that just a fluke?

    I guess the first function could make no difference at all, resulting in a tie.
    Neither are objective. Everyone knows ESTJs are the most objective of any personality.

    Now that we've cleared that up, I want to say that INTPs/ENTPs are as different as night and day. A more apt comparison would be INFJ vs. INTJ or
    ENTP vs. ESTP. My 2 cents.

  5. #105
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aelan View Post
    and uh... given how heated this debate is getting
    It is?

    Oh.

    It seems that my concerted effort at drawing a distinction between "objectivity" as implied in the OP, which is purely an NT and even individual NT ideal, as defined by a majority of NT's (the 'internal affair' I mentioned), and actual true objectivity, and whether it exists, is possible and if so, my theory that no type has a monopoly or advantage with it.

    Night and I were going (in absence of any objection or other input at the time) with first off defining the 'internal affair', then comparing it to other types' ideals of objectivity in order to test its validity/worth, then with a er... objective analysis of all of the above, followed by well, other stuff. Night suggested going on an inter-type approach, but we decided to start small and broaden out ('build a vehicle before test driving it'), and nobody objected.

    It's like I said about a group of theologians debating the religious doctrines and their internal logic, having their discussion gate crashed all of a sudden by an atheist saying 'Ah, but your definition of transubstantiation is incorrect because you failed to account in it for the fact that I don't believe in God!'

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    If that's how you're defining objectivity... then perceptional objectivity has nothing to do with T...
    That's what I was trying to ascertain. It's not how I define objectivity, it was just a working theory for the time being, at that point. You could imagine me beginning with with "Suppose..."

    Judgmental objectivity... I don't think you can argue against Ti being the lead function here. It's judgment towards understanding... Te will always be influenced by the intended goal...
    Yes, that's what BlueWing was saying, but I took issue with that because I believe that Ti can be just as swayed by interior goals and opinions.

    Another loose cannon... Would objectiveness be best served by disregarding all feelings/emotions/reputation etc or by taking all of that into account?
    No, I don't think it would. That's what I was beginning to say to BlueWing when he was asserting that ENTP is less objective due to having 'stronger Fe and weaker Ti'.

    Night had it in his last post when he used the word 'parsing'. That's just what we were doing, but it's a gradual process - a process. You can't jump into the middle of a process and start judging it when you haven't grasped either where it's trying to go, where it's currently at, or even the fact that it is a process. I don't mean 'you' here athenian, more like 'one can't...', just to clarify

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    But making up a definition is (better)?
    No, not making up out of the blue! As you can see the dictionary is quite economical in explaining exactly how objectivity is manifested or seen, how it works etc - simply looking at the dictionary definition doesn't really help that much in determining how we're supposed to recognize it, or whether there are different styles of it. That's why I was trying to get a slightly longer, more detailed definition going on.

    Objective:

    - Based on observed phenonom
    - Without personal bias
    - End goal
    You see - well, I dunno if you cut and pasted that definition cos if you did then I'd be hesitant to trust a dictionary that can't spell phenomenon/phenomena!

    But what I mean is that it just says 'observed'. It doesn't go into a discussion about the different methods of observation, and whether it's the same thing as perception; it doesn't say whether observing something intuitively is equally as valid as observing it by the senses.

    EDIT - anyway, bugger this for a game of soldiers, it's 7pm here and time for dinner!!
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  6. #106
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    You see - well, I dunno if you cut and pasted that definition cos if you did then I'd be hesitant to trust a dictionary that can't spell phenomenon/phenomena!
    Paraphrasing, so my fault.

    But what I mean is that it just says 'observed'. It doesn't go into a discussion about the different methods of observation, and whether it's the same thing as perception; it doesn't say whether observing something intuitively is equally as valid as observing it by the senses.
    Eh, using your example of a ref taking statistical data into account to accuse someone of doing something that was observed is my definition of unobjective.

    Objective isn't about accuracy or making "the best decision with the information present". It's about objective information leading to an objective decision. Both the information and the method of judgment need to be objective. This denies theory, it denies unconcerned information (ie: statistics, as in your example) and it denies personal bias (judgment based upon unrelated information).

    Two reference points do not change the nature of someone's objectivity - for example, two refs in two different locations. They can both be objective and disagree. One ref judging someone based on his personal information is, however biased (dislike of player). One ref not observing but assuming judgment based on past offenses is also biased (historical example).

  7. #107
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    No, I don't think it would. That's what I was beginning to say to BlueWing when he was asserting that ENTP is less objective due to having 'stronger Fe and weaker Ti'.
    I was trying to bring up an issue with Fe... Please excuse fluzzy explanation... hard to get at that point in my head. Nobody is of one function... so the only way to remove subjectivity is by understanding them and so you can either remove all or incorporate them all. More ore less, how do we know we are objective unless we know/can account for all the aspects of subjective thinking?

    Objective:

    - Based on observed phenonom
    - Without personal bias
    - End goal
    The process of defining the end goal can be biased... define your goal in a specific way, the results will naturally be tailored in a specific direction. Are ENTPs or INTPs or other types more likely to be open when it comes to that?

  8. #108
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Ah, a double meaning which could be quite enlightening if explored: obective in the sense of a goal, and in the sense we're debating here. What if objective (noun) were merged with objective (adjective), so that the two meanings collide? Does it shed light on what either one really means to us either individually or as a society?

    I say this because, following from what pt said about etymology - for example the English word 'reality' comes from the Latin res meaning 'thing', telling quite pointedly that in English speaking societies reality has become inextricably associated with 'things' - that which is observable to the senses. It's only when we look at other languages which have different roots for their word for reality, that we see this is not the only way of thinking/seeing the world. Arabic for example, has 'al-haqq', which also means 'ultimate truth' (i.e. the true meaning of what we see), suggesting that the Arabic culture has grown up generally around a shared assumption that 'reality' equals those things that only intuition can perceive, as opposed to English which favours the Sensing approach.

    This ties in with what I was saying about the differences in perception, and pt's "empirical" take on the meaning of objectivity.

    But also considering the word 'objective' and its double meaning, could this point to a bias either in English speaking cultures or on the part of dictionary compilers and grammarians, towards the idea that an object (ie goal) oriented approach, which aims to achieve the goal without being 'distracted' by other things or other objects, is at the root of our concept of 'objective'?

    Because if that were the case, then having a prior agenda wouldn't necessarily preclude objectivity.
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  9. #109
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    I've accidentally created a monster.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #110
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I've accidentally created a monster.
    Ha! About time you showed up!!

    If you'd interjected earlier to give us more of an idea of how you wanted this to go, and guide the process in line with your vision for the thread, maybe it wouldn't have turned into a 'monster' while we desperately tried to figure out your plan whilst trying to fulfill it! :steam:

    Tsk, tsk, these people who create threads and don't take responsibility. A thread is for life, not just for Christmas, you know.

    Nah c'mon, it's been fun. Still got plenty of mileage in it left yet
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] INTP vs ENTP
    By Doctorjuice in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-01-2013, 12:24 PM
  2. INTP vs ENTP
    By Doctorjuice in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-31-2012, 06:43 PM
  3. INTP vs ENTP
    By Mr. Sherlock Holmes in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 02:22 PM
  4. INTP vs ENTP
    By Amargith in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 08-27-2009, 12:56 PM
  5. [NT] INTP vs. ENTP
    By Synarch in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 01-05-2009, 08:47 PM

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