User Tag List

First 9171819202129 Last

Results 181 to 190 of 332

  1. #181
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    If I'm not mistaken, he has a profile on INTPc as well.

    His appreciation for MBTI details seems aromatic of a well-rounded S. I would imagine he's probably a bumpy mix of Is/nTP traits.
    Seems to me that an S is more likely to be more interested in concrete applications of ideas rather than their theoretical essence. Moreover, would make a good use of his memory and rely on authority of influential writers on MBTI.

    The detailed aspect you refer to is a property of Ti--analyzing systems as scrupulously as possible. In philosophy we notice the detailed thought you mentioned was quite common among INTP thinkers. Hegel, Heidegger, and Spinoza were intensely focused on nuance of concepts. This is clearly not the same thing as the kind of an S-detail you seem to have in mind. The salient difference is that the former is radically abstract, focuses primarily on analysis of concepts, the latter is very concrete. Most concerned with retraing ideas from memory and depicting what can be observed with one of the five senses. Sensing is most concerned with what is in the physical world, what is and not what could be. Therefore little energy tends to be devoted to analysis of concepts that often have little to do with the concrete world as is often practiced by INTPs.

    The merit of your comparison is at best superficial, as we see they appear 'detailed' for incompatible reasons.

    *The reason INTPs tend to be interested in detailed analysis of concepts is because unlike ETJs, they do not rely on external symbols and craft their own. Thus, they can break down concepts into very small entities if necessary. They do this to the end of ensuring clarity of thought is preserved by 'leaving no stone unturned', by making an effort to get a conscious grasp of even the least significant notion.
    "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. #182
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    After reading/skimming thru this thread the answer is...





    I dunno.

  3. #183
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    After reading/skimming thru this thread the answer is...





    I dunno.
    I believe that's the only thing one could think after taking-in this thread.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


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

  4. #184
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    I was also gonna say that I don't see how the Sensor gets off by making out that data that comes in via intuition is a mere 'creation' of the intuitive's own mind and therefore not objective - or even real, as seemed to have been suggested - whilst Sensing perceptions are 'obviously' infinitely more real and therefore reliable and objective.
    Well, I think I'd say it because you are basing all of this on the concept that sensing is a perception based function based on Jungian theory. So, I would say, yah... it kinda does exist only in your mind. Ss are, by testing (objective) definition less likely to use theoretical approaches such as this.

    That what makes this thread hillarious. It's still going on about some poorly validated theory (not MBTI, which has objective evidence that could be used to support it and is not even being used) to decide who is objective.

  5. #185
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    After reading/skimming thru this thread the answer is...





    I dunno.
    MacG's got the gist methinks.

  6. #186
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    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...

    And I don't want to hear anyone say something about reality being an illusion!!! :steam:
    This is the definition of "objective" we should be using, because this is the one the owner of the thread wanted. We should debate it using this definition, and worry later over whether it's the proper definition. At least it will give us a standard to measure our claims against.

    This all needs to be based on the workings of the theoretical model, not tested members of the actual types, because the theory isn't testable to that degree.

    In one case, I believe it might well be ESTP. They perceive current reality as directly as possible (through Se), and become aware of as many nuances as possible within it. Ti waits behind it for a ready analysis of what was perceived.

    In another sense, an analysis of the nature of reality (not just how it appears) with little personal bias, that would be ENTJ. The reason I say ENTJ over ESTJ is because of the nature of their perceiving functions. Si is more likely to see reality as it "should" be rather than as it is. Ni just looks for patterns/meaning in the way reality is laid out, which is (slightly) less of a hindrance in my opinion. Also, they have tertiary Se to help them out.

    INTP and ISTP wouldn't meet the criteria because they're too invested in their ideas. They want to derive structure in everything, and focus a bit more on the nature of their own thoughts than the object in question. In fact, IxTP's are known for coercing evidence into agreement with the idea. I like their ideas, but I wouldn't call them objective, at least not where dealing with tangible reality is concerned.

    I think the second sense is the one that was intended, so I'll go with that. Let me try listing them in order from most to least objective:

    ENTJ
    ESTJ
    ESTP
    ENTP

    Finally, I think ptgatsby's argument that MBTI theory is not a good indicator of objectivity was valid. If we really want to know, we need to administer a test of objectivity. And when I say "test," I don't mean discussion/debate, I mean an actual, thought-out test that checks your tendencies to look at things in biased way, your ability to distinguish objective information from subjective information.

  7. #187
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Pt, I'm sympathetic to your desire of having our theories proven to your standards and referenced. I'm not a scientist, tho I wish I were.

    I also believe that it would be absolutely great for you to experience strong N first-hand. No, I'm not a recruiter for the army of N

    You had a self-image of N some time ago, did you not? I'm sure that strong N is still very much different to what you experienced then.

    Experiencing N is like the matrix: No one can be told what it is. You have to see for yourself.

  8. #188
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default Just joining the game? Your friendly non-NT commentator breaks it down for you!

    This thread tickles my toes. While I cannot follow it (hell no I'm not reading through 19 pages of this), can I just say it is like the the WWC Smackdown of MBTIc: The Iron Cage of NT. Or Rationality Rummmmmbbbbbbblllllle! (If you grew up watching WWF wrestling, you would laugh, trust me)

    As soon as I read the title, I thought "oh no he did-int!"

    The gauntlet has been thrown and challengers enter the ring!

    Two men enter! One man leaves!

    In this corner, Philsopher of Pain: BlueWing! No man has ever beat him in a game of endurance! In that corner, Existential Bard of Bruises: Substitute! He breaks theories like he breaks hearts!

    ::the crowd roars::

    ..

    Except in this case it's 4 or 5 or 3 men and possibly women, and it's kinda tag team with 2 or 3 sides? I can't tell...

    Anyhow, me likey!



    And my money is PTGatsby!

    Go PT!!

    Last edited by CzeCze; 11-18-2007 at 03:36 AM.

  9. #189
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Dang I wanted to say more in this thread before it got out of control (too late). So far I think athenian200 is the only one not arguing for his/her type, so based on the sample set of this thread INFJ is the most objective type.

    Anyway this is how I determine what the most objective type is based on this definition. (My bolding.)

    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...

    And I don't want to hear anyone say something about reality being an illusion!!! :steam:
    Ok we are looking for an analysis of reality without personal bias. The first thing I have to say is that the introverted functions (Ti,Ni,Fi,Si) all put the focus upon the individual while extraverted functions put the focus upon the outside world, i.e. reality. This makes the extraverted functions more objective than their introverted counterparts (Te more objective than Ti, Se more objective than Si, etc...).

    Now lets compare T vs. F and S vs. N. Even though Fe is more objective than Fi, it is clearly a reflection of a person's internal values. Therefore thinking is more objective than feeling. (Also Magic Poriferan's definition talks about analysis which should clarify further than thinking is more objective.) Now if we compare S to N, sensors see things as they simply are while intuitives interpret what they see. I think it should be clear that Se is more objective than Ne since Se plainly sees reality as it is.

    So according to Magic Poriferan's definition we are looking for a type that views reality without bias (Se) and can analyze it (Ti). Since the unbiased nature is the most important aspect, the most objective type is ESTP, but I'll add that ISTP is a close second.

    As an aside a good case can also be made for ESTJ being the most objective type. In this case though their objectivity comes from their unbiased decision making process (Te). I don't believe this is what Magic Poriferan was referring to in the definition though, so I stick by ESTP as the most objective type.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  10. #190
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Dang I wanted to say more in this thread before it got out of control (too late). So far I think athenian200 is the only one not arguing for his/her type, so based on the sample set of this thread INFJ is the most objective type.
    Um... thanks? Well, Thinking types would tend to be more concerned about whether or not they are objective than Feeling types, because we've accepted that we prefer/tend to judge things subjectively. But in most situations, a Thinking type should be less swayed by personal motivations.

    Ok we are looking for an analysis of reality without personal bias. The first thing I have to say is that the introverted functions (Ti,Ni,Fi,Si) all put the focus upon the individual while extraverted functions put the focus upon the outside world, i.e. reality. This makes the extraverted functions more objective than their introverted counterparts (Te more objective than Ti, Se more objective than Si, etc...).
    Yes, in most cases. Although the Extraverted functions can in some cases be influenced too much by present circumstances/context, they would usually be less biased by the structure of the individual's psyche.

    Now lets compare T vs. F and S vs. N. Even though Fe is more objective than Fi, it is clearly a reflection of a person's internal values. Therefore thinking is more objective than feeling. (Also Magic Poriferan's definition talks about analysis which should clarify further than thinking is more objective.) Now if we compare S to N, sensors see things as they simply are while intuitives interpret what they see. I think it should be clear that Se is more objective than Ne since Se plainly sees reality as it is.

    So according to Magic Poriferan's definition we are looking for a type that views reality without bias (Se) and can analyze it (Ti). Since the unbiased nature is the most important aspect, the most objective type is ESTP, but I'll add that ISTP is a close second.

    As an aside a good case can also be made for ESTJ being the most objective type. In this case though their objectivity comes from their unbiased decision making process (Te). I don't believe this is what Magic Poriferan was referring to in the definition though, so I stick by ESTP as the most objective type.
    I agree with most of this (ESTP is most objective in the first sense), but I would also consider ENTJ to be an equal candidate with ESTJ for the other kind of objectivity, because they have tertiary Se along with dominant Te. Si can tend to focus more on a collection of past experiences than current realities. (Although it may also be able to use those experiences as a more precise/accurate yardstick.) What do you think? It might depend on the situation...

    Perhaps we should come up with a set of scenarios, and debate which response to each would be the most objective to get a better idea of what we're talking about?

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