User Tag List

First 2331323334 Last

Results 321 to 330 of 332

  1. #321
    Senior Member copperfish17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    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?
    Yes. Unless we agree on a very specific definition of objectivity first.
    Enneagram: 5w4 5-9-2 (5w4 9w1 2w1) sp/so

    "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience." - Greg King
    The worst mistake people make in political arguments is assuming that the other side is not trying to do the right thing. This simple oversight makes productive conversation nearly impossible.

  2. #322
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    it is not possible to determine "who is more objective" by looking at MBTI types?

  3. #323
    Consulting Detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    JiNe
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    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?
    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!
    JiNe
    Ti | Fi | Ne | Si | Te | Ni | Fe | Se
    Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

  4. #324
    Senior Member manzanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    133

    Default

    All I know is I'm an ENTP and I'm kind of nuts and have a highly subjective sense of right and wrong.

  5. #325
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Pick a definition for the word objective, and then you can objectively argue which type is more objective...objectively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
    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.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  6. #326
    Probably Most Brilliant Craft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    1,200

    Default

    Objective perception sounds like an oxymoron.

  7. #327
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    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.


  8. #328
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    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.

  9. #329
    Consulting Detective Mr. Sherlock Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    JiNe
    Enneagram
    5W4
    Posts
    1,456

    Default

    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?
    JiNe
    Ti | Fi | Ne | Si | Te | Ni | Fe | Se
    Enneagram: 5w4 sx/sp

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

  10. #330

    Default

    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!
    Call me Visa, please!
    visakanv.com
    visaisahero.tumblr.com

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