User Tag List

Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24323334
Results 331 to 332 of 332

Thread: INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

  1. #331
    Just do it Array Zarathustra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    4w5 sx/so


    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post

    I really enjoyed that! Thank you for sharing!
    Glad it helped.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by visaisahero View Post
    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!

    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.
    The Justice Fighter

    XXXX - XwX Xdw XwX sx/so - Neutral Good

    "I trust what you are doing though…I just see it a little differently.
    I don’t see it as you stepping away from the fire. I see it as the fire directing your course.
    No matter how airy or earthy or watery you become... to many of us you will always be...a super nova."

    "Behind these gates of seeming warmth sits, loosely chained, a fierce attack dog. Perhaps not crazy, but dangerous"

    The Aggressive 6

  2. #332


    Call me Visa, please!

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