• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

copperfish17

New member
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
712
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
So... I take it that both of you agree with me that it is not possible to determine "who is more objective" by looking at MBTI types? :blush:

Yes. :smooch: Unless we agree on a very specific definition of objectivity first.
 

Mr. Sherlock Holmes

Consulting Detective
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
1,450
MBTI Type
JiNe
Enneagram
5W4
So... I take it that both of you agree with me that it is not possible to determine "who is more objective" by looking at MBTI types? :blush:

I object the objection to our ability to objectively analyse the objectiveness of the term objectiveness and who is more objective as its objectivity is objectionable!
 

manzanita

New member
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
133
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
All I know is I'm an ENTP and I'm kind of nuts and have a highly subjective sense of right and wrong.
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Pick a definition for the word objective, and then you can objectively argue which type is more objective...objectively.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary said:
ob·jec·tive adj \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\
Definition of OBJECTIVE

1
a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2
: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Personally, I think 1d is the most effective definition for this argument.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Objective perception sounds like an oxymoron.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
it occurs to me that no INTP or ENTP can probably be very objective as to this matter,
given that they are the subject of the question.

:thinking:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I've mostly decided to stay out of this thread, cuz I think it's fucking ridiculous, as the truth is that no type is perfectly objective, if objective is differentiated from the idea of impartiality, and delineated more as the idea of "being correct".

An individual from any type can be correct, and an individual from any type an be incorrect.

***

However, I'm also not a believer that we should just stop at the relatively relativistic conclusion.

I do believe that probability distributions are the most pertinent way of looking at many different issues, and I would not be willing to simply condone the idea that all type are equally represented across the spectrum of a probability distribution when it comes to "being correct" -- that is, seeing the object/issue/matter before them correctly.

I think it's probably more likely that certain types will actually see the object/issue/matter before them correctly than it is that all types will be evenly distributed in their ability to correctly see the object/issue/matter before them.

Note: that by "see", I mean "understand".

That being said, a lot of NTPs have been throwing around the idea of Ti being the "truth" function; this is utterly fucking ludicrous.

***

I think Eric B put it best when he said there are three ways to think of the terms "objective" and "subjective" with regards to typology.

1. Introverted vs Extroverted: extroverted functions are "objective" in the sense that they are focused on the external world; introverted functions are "subjective" in the sense that they're focused on the internal self.

2. Perceiving vs. Judging: perceiving functions are "objective" in the sense that they take place pre-judgment; judging functions are "subjective" in the sense that they take place post-judgment.

3.a. Thinking vs. Feeling: thinking functions are "objective" in the sense that they try to judge from an unbiased, impartial standard; feeling functions are "subjective" in the sense that they judge from a biased, partial standard.

3.b. Sensing vs. Intuition: sensing functions are "objective" in the sense that they try to perceive what is; intuitive functions are "subjective" in the sense that they perceive what could be.

So, with this construction in mind (personally, I think it's a very effective way of looking at things), each function can be broken down according to these three categories, and an overall "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness" could be given to each function. For example (labeling objective as "O" and subjective as "S"):

Se is extroverted (O), a function of perception (O), and tries to see what is (O).

If we combine all three senses of the terms objective and subjective for these two functions, we get:

Se = OOO
Fi = SSS

If we do it for all eight functions, we get:

Se = OOO
Si = SOO
Ne = OOS
Ni = SOS
Te = OSO
Ti = SSO
Fe = OSS
Fi = SSS

Now, these constructions aren't perfect, because one could argue as to whether the "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness" of (1) introversion vs. extroversion, (2) perceiving vs. judging, and (3)(a) thinking vs. feeling or (3)(b) sensing vs. intuition deserve equal-weighting when it comes to overall "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness", or whether certain meanings of "objective" and "subjective" should have greater weightings or less weightings regarding their level of impact on overall "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness"...

If we make the assumption that they all deserve equal treatment with regards to overall "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness", then the order of the overall "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness" of the individual functions (assuming that the three types of "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness" explicated above properly circumscribe the types of "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness" that account for overall "objectiveness" and subjectiveness") is as such:

Most objective:
Se = OOO

More objective:
Si = SOO
Ne = OOS
Te = OSO

Less objective:
Ti = SSO
Ni = SOS
Fe = OSS

Least objective:
Fi = SSS

Now, I'm not saying that all three types of "objectiveness" and "subjectiveness" should be equally weighted when it comes to overall objectiveness, but I do think the above breakdown provides some kind of value.

First of all, I think people are pretty willing to say that Se could be called the most objective function.
Second, I think people are pretty willing to say that Fi could be called the most subjective function.

And these two propositions hold true, according to the above breakdown, regardless of whether you choose to equally weight the three types of objectiveness and subjectiveness or not (hence, why people seem more willing to agree to these two propositions).

As for the middle six: these are more up for debate, because their order could change depending on how much weight you put on the three types of objectiveness and subjectiveness.

So, if you are willing to accept the above breakdown as is (i.e., you are willing to accept giving equal-weighting to all three types of objectiveness and subjectiveness, with regards to overall objectiveness and subjectiveness), then you could move on from here, and extrapolate further, regarding how "objective" and "subjective" the various types are (depending on the degree to which you stick to or deviate from the dominant paradigm of typological theory, as well as the level of functional development of a particular individual).

However, if you are not willing to accept the above breakdown as is (i.e., you are not willing to accept giving equal-weighting to all three types of objectiveness and subjectiveness, with regards to overall objectiveness and subjectiveness, or you are not willing to accept that the above three types of objectiveness and subjectiveness properly circumscribe the factors that should be used to determine overall objectiveness and subjectiveness), then you cannot really move on from here, and extrapolate further, regarding how "objective" and "subjective" the various types are (at least according to this construction), as you won't be able to determine how objective and subjective, overall, Si, Ne, Te, Ti, Ni, and Fe are relative to each other.

Note: I do not believe this is by any means the only way to examine objectivity and subjectivity with regards to function and type. I do, however, think it is a reasonably effective way to try to tackle the issue.
 

Mr. Sherlock Holmes

Consulting Detective
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
1,450
MBTI Type
JiNe
Enneagram
5W4
Here's one. Is Sherlock Holmes objective? He constantly stresses the need for accuracy and objectivity, as can be seen in my second quote, and yet he makes assertions that cannot be known conclusively to be true until they are tested and derived through deductive and therefore subjective processes. Is he objective?
 

visaisahero

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
557
MBTI Type
ENTP
Zarathustra:

I really enjoyed that! Thank you for sharing!

EDIT: Although, now that I think about it... it's hard to label a perceptive function objective simply because it happens pre-judgement- isn't perception generally selective, regardless of judgement?

Also, it seems counter-intuitive (hur hur) that Te would come across as relatively more objective than Ti- considering that Ti has less room for interpretation than Te, which is more "divergent" compared to Ti's "convergence".

Still, I see value in your interpretation!
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Zarathustra:

I really enjoyed that! Thank you for sharing!

Glad it helped. :D

It's been a very useful framework for me.

But fyi, I came upon the idea via Eric B and uumlau, so they deserve most of the credit.

EDIT: Although, now that I think about it... it's hard to label a perceptive function objective simply because it happens pre-judgement- isn't perception generally selective, regardless of judgement?

Absolutely agree with this -- it is one of the issues I had early on.

I would say it still is an issue, but I would add that if perception is not objective, then the judgments based off that perception definitely aren't.

Therefore, by labeling perceptive functions "objective" and judgment functions "subjective", we're not so much saying that perceptive functions see the thing as it is, but merely that, relative to making a judgment based on that perception, it is more objective, less subjective. It's simply a matter of: has a value judgment been made or not.

You might also have noticed that, among the perceptive functions, the arrangement of most objective to least objective goes: Se, Si, Ne, Ni.

You might also notice I'm an Ni-dom.

Now, just because I'm willing to label Se as most objective, doesn't mean that I don't think that Ni (or Ne, or Si) has insights into reality that Se might miss -- so there definitely seems to be a limit to the degree to which this framework can be used to determine objectivity and subjectivity.

Hence, why I think it's an interesting and useful framework to start a conversation about objectivity and subjectivity, but it's not meant to be the end-all, be-all determining model for that topic.

Also, it seems counter-intuitive (hur hur) that Te would come across as relatively more objective than Ti- considering that Ti has less room for interpretation than Te, which is more "divergent" compared to Ti's "convergence".

Still, I see value in your interpretation!

Hmmm... :thinking:

Not sure how I feel about this one...

The difference in the subjectivity/objectivity between Te (OSO) and Ti (SSO) in my construction signifies that Te is extraverted and thus focuses on, sources from, or puts emphasis on the external world, while Ti is introverted and thus focuses on, sources from, or puts emphasis on the internal world. Going by those criteria, the labeling is valid.

Now, as to whether the labeling is sound... well, that's a whole nother matter.

What it seems like you're pointing out is the fact that either Ti's introversion makes it more convergent, and thus more objective, or that the "T" aspect of of Ti (as opposed to the "F" aspect of F functions) is more "powerful" or "objective" than the T aspect of Te.

These two arguments would basically be bringing up reasonable questions as to how sound the above construction really is...

I think there's certainly something to be said about introverted functions robustness (I started a thread about the matter a few months ago), and, in that sense, I do agree that Ti tends to be more exacting and demanding than Te when it comes to say, accepting something as true: it tends to want everything completely spelled out -- for it to be shown that the conclusion(s) follow(s) clearly from the premises, and that the premises are all clearly enumerated. In this way, I can see how Ti could be called more objective.

I also see how Te could be called more objective though, too.

From what I can tell (and I've had a disagreement with a Ti-user about this, while other Ti-users, as well as many Te-users, have agreed), Te does seem to be less concerned with providing as robust a logical proof as does Ti, but, at the same time, I believe it moves its focus from this activity, which I would call checking for internal/logical consistency (i.e., validity, as determined by certain assumed premises), to checking for soundness of the premises. It's kinda like: Ti is rationalism, while Te is empiricism. Ti seems to be very good at starting with first principles and then making a whole bunch of deductions from there, while Te seems to be designed to test the accuracy of those first principles. Te seems to be focused on attaining hard evidence, via rigorous scientific testing.

It seems to me the Ti users tend to be concerned with their own internal model, that is based off certain assumptions and definitions.

Te users seem to be less concerned with some internal model based off certain assumptions and definitions, but more concerned with seeing what definitions actually are true.

(I can just feel the Ti backlash coming in the form of "Te doesn't care about what's true, it only cares about what works".)

But I think this construction is overused and overly simplistic, because it begs the question: what is the relationship between representational truth (what is true about the world) and pragmatic truth (what works).

I mean, if something doesn't work; then how can it be representationally true? If it does work, while it might not be perfectly representational of the real world, at least it works...

I don't think it's true to say that Te users only care about pragmatic truth. I just think that pragmatic truth is, for the most part, as good as it gets for human beings (along with internally consistent truth), because the principle of uncertainty always prevents us from being absolutely certain as to whether what we think we know is actually representationally true.

I dunno, those are my thoughts on the matter...

As I said before, the construction is not perfect: it is what it is.
 
Top