User Tag List

First 2101112131422 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 332

  1. #111
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    I've always assumed ENTJ's were the most objective. If you presume INTP's really had a dominant T despite testing as P's, then they would probably be as objective (or at least as logical) or more so. ENTP's are probably more adaptable, but less purely logical. But what they lose in pure logic, they make up for in perceptiveness and adaptability. Of course, remember logically consistent doesn't always mean objective/true, and the question becomes harder to answer, since it's possible that an ENTP might be more faithful to the emerging pattern, without being constrained by their prior understanding of logic.

    Anyway, this J/P "switch" for introverts you discuss is contested in Socionics vs MBTI discussions. In Socionics, Ti/Ne is INTj (LII), and Ni/Te is INTp (ILI). It's based on Jungian theory, but its so different from MBTI that the tests somehow give people different types than they should have in MBTI. In fact, according to one source, the types only correlate in 30% of cases. Anyway, it's closer to the essence of the Jungian idea of Rationality/Irrationality than MBTI's interpretation.

    If you're interested:

    Socionics in the West

    The 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal. Issue 1/2007

    http://www.the16types.info/

    SOCIONICS: Personality Types and Relationships

    ENTJs only seem more objective because their T is on the outside for everyone to see. Though actually the INTPs have a stronger T due to the introversion factor. Ti is stronge than Ti for reasons stated earlier.
    "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/

  2. #112
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Asking which type is more "objective" is like asking which species of fish is best at math.
    The ones that run around in schools, silly!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #113
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    I had to sleep at some point!
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  4. #114
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Last time (in the ENTJ thread) you explained yourself privately and I didn't post my response to you. This time I am.

    I've told you you need to go and re-read your Jung. He explicitly states that introverted functions aren't any closer to the unconscious than extroverted ones, so stop patting yourself on the back. As long as you have conscious control over a function be it introverted or extroverted, it's just as far away from the unconscious as any other. You seem to be taking the definition of introversion literally in relationship and distance to the unconscious. It seems to me you're even implying that the distance from the unconscious to the conscious is measurable by functions and function order. If that's the case, an introverted perceiving function (IJs/Si or Ni) is closer to the unconscious not a dominant judging function (that includes Ti).

    And by making introversion the default and standard position, you're making any type that isn't deviant from the norm. Maybe Wildcat should jump in on this one, but as he is so fond of stating, introversion and extroversion are the way a person orients themselves to the object. So evidently there's something anchored out there in the real world that we either move towards or away from. Introverts are introverted in comparison to something else. Are you using the unconscious as the starting line? You're playing with a different set of definitions than everyone else.

    Re the OP: how are you defining objectivity? You're putting completely within the realm of thinking (Te or Ti). Why is objectivity only something that thinking can do? It almost seems to me that people assume thinkers are able to completely cut themselves off from subjective influences. Seriously, it's lame. If I'm wrong then please enlighten me, but it seems to me that the implication is feeling values are a smidgen better than instincts and there's no rationale or logic behind them, so they can't possibly be objective. Am I detecting a slight undertone of sexism?

    If you want to compare lengths on which thinking type is the most objective, then I'd say an ETJ. Why, because they typically use clearly observable data/standards that most people can agree on. Ti is no less subjective than the most subjective of functions Fi. And I'd put an ENTP as more objective than an INTP because once again, Ne perceives and connects tangible possibilities. Yeah, I'm using extroversion as my starting point.

    This does nothing to subvert my clause.

    As I have already argued that ENTJs can use Thinking just as well as INTPs, only externally. Same with ENTPs and INTJs. Yet there I argued that Nietzsche for instance, is more imaginative than the ENTP Voltaire because of the boost of introversion. Same can apply for INTP and ENTJ. I'd write thousands of words explaining how this is the case in clear-cut step by step rationale, yet I doubt this would get us to the same page.

    In order for you to show that my argument does not hold true, you must show that the essence of mind derives not from within, but from without. I have difficulty imagining how this would be.

    Moreover, we seem to be talking about different notions of objectivity. Using the same word to depict different ideas. I've equated objectivity with Thinking. You seem to be thinking of objectivity as the ability to interact with the object proficiently, or external world. In that respect, I'd agree with your claim and LL
    s statement that even the ESFJ is more objective than the INTP. There we equate objectivity with Extroversion. But this was not at all, what I was talking about.


    Yes, Thinkers are able to cut themselves off from subjective influences, but this is not always a good thing. As we know that sometimes it would be good to take the human element in consideration in order to make sound decisions.


    Dont get so hung up on the word objectivity. When I say that INTPs are most objective, I mean that they are the soundest thinkers because the Thinking preferrence is strongest.

    Now, lets consider another definition of objectivity. Most objective is one who is most in tune with the object. The object is the external world. Werent INTPs the ones who knew how the world worked best? Galileo, Aristotle, Einstein..and so on..those INTPs may not have understood how the practical world works, but thats because they did not bother to analyze it. INTPs, just like INFPs are very selective about what they think about. (You can compare this to how INFPs are selective about people they attach themselves to). Thus, INTPs did not understand many of the things the (less T types like ENTs) did, not because they were unable to, but because they did not make the effort to. As they were too busy focusing on the few ideas they explored in depth. Much like Einstein devoted so much of his time to analyzing physics, that he knew hardly anything about politics or human relationships. But he certainly would have been able to understand those subjects thoroughly, should they have caught his interest. As we see, this is because his 'objectivity', affinity with the Thinking faculty makes him most in tune with the object. Or the external world. Basically to be able to be objective, and to be able to understand the world mean the same thing.

    I think we all should abandon our notions of what objectivity is and embrace this one: proficiency with impersonal decision making.
    "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/

  5. #115
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    The ones that run around in schools, silly!


    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I had to sleep at some point!
    That would be an acceptable excuse for any other type, but we know you INTP androids do not require sleep
    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. #116
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Looks, we here need to settle on the definition of the term we accept as 'objective'.

    The kind of objectivity that I am talking about is one that is most germane to decision making. We equate it with impersonal reasoning. The opposite of this would be making decisions based on personal values. Appears to be this is the notion of objectivity invoked in the OP.

    If we accept this definition, we equate objectivity with Thinking. In order to prove that the INTP is most objective type, we'd have to show that the INTP is most in tune with the Thinking faculty. We know that the essence of the mind derives from within. Therefore a function that is closer to the essence of the mind resembles the archetypal quiddity it derives from the most. In this case it is the quiddity of Thinking. The INTP has a slightly stronger T than 'his' Introverted Thinking counterpart because Intuition gives a boost. As Intuition draws us in closer to the essence of the mind.


    Now, this is just one definition of objectivity. I am saying INTP is most objective only in this regard. I do not also imply that the INTP is most objective in all other ways others have defined objectivity.
    "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/

  7. #117
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    I was thinking of objectivity as in an analysis of reality without any personal bias. That's obviously impossible for a human being, but I wondered which type got the closest...

    And I don't want to hear anyone say something about reality being an illusion!!! :steam:
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  8. #118
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I was thinking of objectivity as in an analysis of reality without any personal bias. That's obviously impossible for a human being, but I wondered which type got the closest...
    Okay, right, well it's your thread so this now overrides any other definition of objectivity. So if people are tearing us to shreds because of how we're comparing other types to your definition, just remember that, nnkay?

    And I don't want to hear anyone say something about reality being an illusion!!! :steam:
    Quite. But I still think the sorta-discussion about different perceiving methods (intuitive and sensing), for perceiving 'reality', is pertinent. See, pt seems to be quite staunchly on the side of only those things perceptible to the senses constituting 'reality', whilst I personally think that some things only perceptible by intuition are just as 'real', and not 'just made up' in the heads of the iNtuitives.

    Basing a decision either wholly or partially on data gathered through intuition doesn't make it necessarily any less objective than if based on data gathered through empirical/sensory methods. IMO.
    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. #119
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Ok, I have 7 minutes before I leave for a while, so my quick responses to the more recent posts:

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    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!
    This definition works for me, though for me I see it as pretty much exclusively the middle one.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    If we are talking about prejudice and just what MBTI measures, I don't see how N could be considered as objective - or would you argue that abstract, imaginative, conceptual, theoretical and original thinking would be as objective as their counterparts?

    To give an example, the first pages involved arguing from theory that INTPs > ENTPs because functional dominance plays a role. Do you believe that is objective thinking?
    Agree
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    In terms of perceptual placement, the ISTPs I've met have always put very specific definition to maintaining a detached perspective until they feel sufficiently confident that their observations can be ascribed to falsifiable environmental variables.
    This is exactly what objectivity means to me, and why I thought that ISTPs in particular would be equally good at it as NTPs.

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Why the political correctness? If you feel that ST types should be included in a discussion of rationalism/objectivity, explain why rather than just complaining that they aren't, please?

    They were specifically trying to figure out which NT's were most objective. (And they weren't even sure if they mean objective, logical, or rational, so that was an issue as well.) I don't think anyone would argue that in many (if not most) situations, an S can be more objective than any N because they look at exactly what they see rather than inferring a pattern, and have slightley fewer cognitive filters applied to their sensory process (with the possible exception of memory). However, in some situations an S could be too predisposed to focus on past experiences or how things appear on the surface rather than looking "beyond" the surface to see that things are different than they seem.

    ST objectivity -- Sees things as they are, doesn't try to fit them into anything, doesn't try to form connections from what it sees, reports it accurately.

    NT objectivity -- Looks directly at patterns/ideas as they are, is better at aligning things with the idea in an objective manner, without allowing the exact nature of it to interfere with the understanding of its relationship to the idea.
    I was not at all being politically correct. I DID point out why I thought STs should be included. And furthermore I was more pointing out and wondering at assumptions rather than making an actual argument. And if you go back and read the OP, it says something like "I think NTPs are clearly more objective, etc etc" and that is what I was responding to. The thread title may be about NTs but I was challenging the assumption inherent in the OP, which I don't think is unreasonable.

    Ironically, bolded is exactly why I think Ss should be more objective than Ns.

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Okay, I can work with that. But what about Se perhaps only seeing things 'as they appear'? It's no empty cliche about things not always being what they seem. Se could be just as much at risk of 'as I think they are' as Ne.
    A valid point, but I don't think this makes Ss more or less objective than Ns.


    For example, when he's been conversing with my N-predominant colleagues and he's been convinced that somebody was wrong with something they said, but only because he didn't pick up on all the stuff that was to be intuitively 'taken as read' (which everyone else did take as read, without needing any prior introduction). It's very difficult to point out this information to him that he missed, without him getting defensive and saying that we think he's stupid.

    I do find in my experience that many SP's do have this sorta paranoia about people thinking they're stupid, which I think acts in much the same way as the INTP's 'inner purpose' (that BlueWing mentioned) and the ENTP's image consciousness - IOW, all these things cloud objectivity.
    Again, valid, but Ns have similar things clouding objectivity as well.

  10. #120
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    See, pt seems to be quite staunchly on the side of only those things perceptible to the senses constituting 'reality', whilst I personally think that some things only perceptible by intuition are just as 'real', and not 'just made up' in the heads of the iNtuitives.
    Do you have an example? I don't mind changing my mind, but I can't think of a single example in which theory/abstract and so forth is not a creation of uncertainty to explain something - removed from reality and manipulated in the mind.

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