User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 332

  1. #121
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Well, going by Magic's definition above ^^ I'd say in that case... the most objective type would be ExTx - somebody with dominant Te and no preference where S/N or J/P were concerned, so that their perception was as complete/balanced as possible, taking into account both intuitive and sensory data.
    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

  2. #122
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    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!'



    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..."



    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.



    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



    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.



    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!!


    I agree with you that Ti can be swayed by an inner mindset exactly like Te by external circumstances. Here is how this works. A Ti is most interested in physics say, like Einstein. He will focus intensely on physics gaining the most objective understanding of that subject. Yet, because he is not interested in philosophy or sociology, he will be less objective about his knowledge of that subject. A Te for example, would take interest in all of those subjects a bit more evenly in relation to each. The Te's interests will be influenced by external status of the subject. So for example, he may chose to study physics because it is in demand. (Whilst a Ti because his inner being is more comfortable with it).

    However, this does not have anything to do with objectivity as I defined the term. Such things make neither the Te nor a Ti less of a T.

    Earlier, I have equated objectivity with Thinking. Ti is more of a T because type inheres within our unconscious mind. Whatever is more internally focused is closer to the unconscious mind. That, namely Ti. (With Schopenhauer, Jung learned that all of mind is unconscious, conscious is only the external manifestation of the unconscious.)
    "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. #123
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Well, going by Magic's definition above ^^ I'd say in that case... the most objective type would be ExTx - somebody with dominant Te and no preference where S/N or J/P were concerned, so that their perception was as complete/balanced as possible, taking into account both intuitive and sensory data.
    Imagine however, the ETJ would have a moderately sound understanding of 10 things. Whilst an ITP an in depth sound understanding of 4 things. Because Introverted Thinking gives you more of a focus on a T--and then we translate both of those units into ostensible essences to all. We will see that the understanding the ITP derived of the four entities outweighs the understanding an ETJ derived from 10.
    "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/

  4. #124
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    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.
    Yes, many examples. I live my whole life around my intuitive perceptions, and if they were mere 'creations' in my own mind, then I would have ended up in a lunatic asylum, and not the well-travelled owner of a successful business with a good social life.

    Okay - take for example yesterday when two women were talking to each other and I was just listening, not participating. I was sitting beside my friend, ISTP man. One woman (call her X) said to the other (call her Y), "Good morning, so nice to see you here again", in what seemed to the senses to be a bright, welcoming tone. There was nothing there perceptible to the senses to suggest anything but friendliness and pleasure at seeing Y.

    Now, I perceived something in X's persona, I don't know what to call it, I shy away from words like 'aura' because of the spiritual/wishy-washy connotations they can carry, but for argument's sake let's use that word for now. I could 'sense' something about X was hostile, and that when she said "Good morning", she was being sarcastic in a way that only Y would pick up on (so she thought), and when she said "so nice to see you here again", she was actually trying to say a combination of "you've been slacking" and "you're not welcome because of that". These were all sub-linguistic cues that went beyond words, body language or facial expressions.

    Later, Y was talking to me and saying she was sick of X digging at her all the time; she was in tears. Later still, X was crowing to me over how she put Y in her place earlier that day. My perception was not flawed, it was not just a creation of my mind - it was true and accurate.

    But ISTP said to me this morning "It was nice to see X and Y friendly again yesterday, wasn't it?"

    These sorts of things are what a lot of bullying consists of - these subtle messages sent out so that only the victim's intuition picks it up, and the majority of others around the place think the bully is just 'being nice'. The nastiness, the malice is really there, but using senses alone you won't perceive it.

    In fact, I'd say that in order to actually perceive anything intangible - anything that isn't a 'thing' in the solid, material sense - things that truly exist, like malice, greed, love, sorrow - you need intuition.
    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

  5. #125
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    In fact, I'd say that in order to actually perceive anything intangible - anything that isn't a 'thing' in the solid, material sense - things that truly exist, like malice, greed, love, sorrow - you need intuition.
    Yah, we aren't ever going to agree on this. I'll just drop out now.

  6. #126
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Man, you sound like my ol' pa haha... "Seeing is believing, kiddo, so quit that silly nonsense and eat your meatloaf!"

    He was ISTP too, and very frequently failed to make connections between things that were so screamingly obvious to me (and my brother, so unless we were both 'hallucinating' the same intangible things...) it beggared belief
    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

  7. #127
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    When we talk about types, we talk about our unconscious tendencies. Not human behavior. As the former is the very definition of 'type'.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I agree with you that Ti can be swayed by an inner mindset exactly like Te by external circumstances. Here is how this works. A Ti is most interested in physics say, like Einstein. He will focus intensely on physics gaining the most objective understanding of that subject. Yet, because he is not interested in philosophy or sociology, he will be less objective about his knowledge of that subject.
    I admit the immediate above is taken out of context, but I think it still applies. First you say that it's not about behavior, but instead about unconscious tendencies. Of course I understand those tendencies translate into behavior, but is it so far off to assume that just because the INTP uses thinking more avidly, that it doesn't actually make the ENTP any less objective.

    It's preference - not strength according to everything I've ever read. Taking this into consideration, it only says that the INTP is more apt to go into a thinking mode. I don't see how it implies at all that the Ti of an INTP is better or more logical - just more commonly frequented.

  8. #128
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    I admit the immediate above is taken out of context, but I think it still applies. First you say that it's not about behavior, but instead about unconscious tendencies. Of course I understand those tendencies translate into behavior, but is it so far off to assume that just because the INTP uses thinking more avidly, that it doesn't actually make the ENTP any less objective..
    Not unless we equate objectivity with Thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    It's preference - not strength according to everything I've ever read. Taking this into consideration, it only says that the INTP is more apt to go into a thinking mode. I don't see how it implies at all that the Ti of an INTP is better or more logical - just more commonly frequented.
    Well, since you use this function more naturally, does this not imply you use it more? Practice makes perfect?
    "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/

  9. #129
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Not unless we equate objectivity with Thinking.
    Actually, no. Even if we equate objectivity with thinking, the ENTP still uses thinking to decipher and analyze. I think you've got sort of a non-objective attachment to being the most objective.


    Well, since you use this function more naturally, does this not imply you use it more? Practice makes perfect?
    I don't think that's how it works. I think Ti is used to hone skills, which is how practice makes perfect, but it's the Xe work that it's making perfect. Like we see in the STPs who use Ti to break down all the work Se is doing and find the best way to do it. Unless you're Tiing your Ti, I don't think practice really makes perfect.

  10. #130
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Man, you sound like my ol' pa haha... "Seeing is believing, kiddo, so quit that silly nonsense and eat your meatloaf!"

    He was ISTP too, and very frequently failed to make connections between things that were so screamingly obvious to me (and my brother, so unless we were both 'hallucinating' the same intangible things...) it beggared belief
    Hmmm, you really stick a personal hook into your posts. Well, I'll bite.

    I see your association of "failed to make connections" flipped around to "you make associations up". The first isn't a lack of objectivity - it is an intelligence or capability issue. The second, however, is a complete failure of objectivity. If I retold the exact same story without you being accurate, it'd be a case for a lack of objectivity (you "sensed" something "wrong" therefore reflected personal bias - that's what you'd call an F, and have, if I'm not mistaken, if they were over sensitive to what you said... but you "sensed" something "right" and are therefore objective). Just because you were accurate does not change that your biases were instrumental in reading the situation. Biases are normally heuristic in nature, hence useful - but they are not objective.

    Of course, the story you tell isn't you being objective - you knew the subjective impression of what was happening. You read trained queues, existing in your own mind, based on your own impressions and your own experiences to come to the conclusion you did. The ISTP was, literally, being objective.

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