User Tag List

First 5678917 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 332

  1. #61
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    What's Night, then - chopped liver?!

    (I must say, if my ESFJ mother conversed like this, we'd get on a hell of a lot better...)
    Hehe...I think I might be the INTJ she's referring to.

  2. #62
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Hehe...I think I might be the INTJ she's referring to.


    I gotta admit I've been suspicious... but I resisted the call to question BlueWing's type... so...
    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

  3. #63
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post


    I gotta admit I've been suspicious... but I resisted the call to question BlueWing's type... so...
    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.

  4. #64
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    So, *ahem* back to the topic... (you have no idea how hard that is for an ENTP to say!)...

    We've got the differences between logic/objectivity and rationalism to explain/agree on. And also to clarify whether we're talking about the internal aspects of NT ideals, or from an external viewpoint, or both.

    Oh, and whether, as the title of the thread suggests, we're just comparing ENTP and INTP, or actually trying to establish which type is the most naturally objective.

    (look at that Te go! lol)
    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. #65
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post

    We've got the differences between logic/objectivity and rationalism to explain/agree on. And also to clarify whether we're talking about the internal aspects of NT ideals, or from an external viewpoint, or both.

    Oh, and whether, as the title of the thread suggests, we're just comparing ENTP and INTP, or actually trying to establish which type is the most naturally objective.
    Although it might run contrary to expectations of the OP, I vote we enlarge the system to incorporate as many Types as possible. Doing so would naturally increase the gravity of our expenditure by allowing for a truly "objective" reticule to shape our judgments.

    Logically, it seems dismissive to view certain Types as inferior on the basis of predominant trait expression. Yet, a reliable counterweight could allow for a continuum of (possibly) digressive artifacts that might actually prove to stymie - rather than promote - the creative process.

    Curious.

    Thoughts?

  6. #66
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Well you see, I was thinking that if we were just talking about the NT ideal of rationalism as meaning the whole objectivity/logic guided thought process, then considering other types and how they view the ideal of objectivity is a bit like taking into account that an atheist doesn't believe in God when you're trying to figure out whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation is the more theoligically valid doctrine. It just sorta comes from left field a bit. That's what I meant about the internal affair.

    I didn't mean to suggest that I view other types or their ideals or definitions of objectivity as inferior. Just different and possibly not relevant in the present discussion if it was remaining 'internal'.

    What about if we first establish what the internal position is, and then branch it out to see how it relates to and/or is validated/challenged by the views of other types? Sorta like building a vehicle before you test drive it, kinda thing?
    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. #67
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Well you see, I was thinking that if we were just talking about the NT ideal of rationalism as meaning the whole objectivity/logic guided thought process, then considering other types and how they view the ideal of objectivity is a bit like taking into account that an atheist doesn't believe in God when you're trying to figure out whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation is the more theoligically valid doctrine. It just sorta comes from left field a bit. That's what I meant about the internal affair.

    I didn't mean to suggest that I view other types or their ideals or definitions of objectivity as inferior. Just different and possibly not relevant in the present discussion if it was remaining 'internal'. ?


    You didn't. My words were unclear - I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Well you see, I was thinking that if we were just What about if we first establish what the internal position is, and then branch it out to see how it relates to and/or is validated/challenged by the views of other types? Sorta like building a vehicle before you test drive it, kinda thing?
    I like this idea. Very sensible.

    Would you care to begin?

  8. #68
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Well, we already seem to have a working model of rationalism...

    But there are two possible kinds of objectivity as I see it: perceptional and judgemental objectivity. Perceptional objectivity being a way of seeing things that takes minimal account of personal feelings, opinions, expectations and experiences. Like suspension of disbelief when reading a fictional work, you could say that objectivity is suspension of judgement or suspension of prejudice, to look at something with an attitude of it being unique, avoiding the pitfalls of attributing qualities to it that don't exist simply because one's mind sees resemblances in it to other things, which might only be deceptive.

    Judgemental objectivity (a phrase I just invented, heh) would be basing a decision on only the facts gained by objective perception, only those things which are directly pertinent to the situation, and not on any prior personal agenda or preference.

    We need some analogies I think. Say, a soccer referee - supposed to be objective (= unbiased?). Imagine two players get into a scuffle but it all happened so fast that nobody caught what was said or who started it. Say one of the players has a reputation for aggression and starting fights - would an objective perception be to simply use all the available evidence to piece together a reconstruction of what happened, and then make an objective judgement based solely on that, disregarding this player's reputation and the ref's prior experience?

    So, with that in mind, what are we doing? Deciding which is the most objective (by that definition) out of the XNTP's? Would it help to figure out who'd be the best ref in that game?

    Ugh, trying to be intellectual when I've got kids arguing about Pokemon all around me! LOL
    Last edited by substitute; 11-18-2007 at 09:22 AM.
    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

  9. #69
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Well, we already seem to have a working model of rationalism...

    But there are two possible kinds of objectivity as I see it: perceptional and judgemental objectivity. Perceptional objectivity being a way of seeing things that takes minimal account of personal feelings, opinions, expectations and experiences. Like suspension of disbelief when reading a fictional work, you could say that objectivity is suspension of judgement or suspension of prejudice, to look at something with an attitude of it being unique, avoiding the pitfalls of attributing qualities to it that don't exist simply because one's mind sees resemblances in it to other things, which might only be deceptive.

    Judgemental objectivity (a phrase I just invented, heh) would be basing a decision on only the facts gained by objective perception, only those things which are directly pertinent to the situation, and not on any prior personal agenda or preference.
    I like both definitions. One seems to hint at a personality endemically open to possibilities, while the other appears to seek closure.

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    We need some analogies I think. Say, a soccer referee - supposed to be objective (= unbiased?). Imagine two players get into a scuffle but it all happened so fast that nobody caught what was said or who started it. Say one of the players has a reputation for aggression and starting fights - would an objective perception be to simply use all the available evidence to piece together a reconstruction of what happened, and then make an objective judgement based solely on that, disregarding this player's reputation and the ref's prior experience?

    So, with that in mind, what are we doing? Deciding which is the most objective (by that definition) out of the XNTP's? Would it help to figure out who'd be the best ref in that game?
    Your example is evocative.

    These principal strategies seem to permit a fundamental difference in how behavior is computed and qualified.

    In terms of an "objective" referee (one would discount (as best he can) his bevy of personal biases/prejudices and instead choose to account on the basis of immediate - empirical - evidence) seems to qualify his logical acuity around his capacity to efficiently observe; compare; catalogue and respond to stimuli in his environment. His would probably be a mindset concise to your Judgmental Objectivity.

    Oppositional (and equally as "credible", for the purposes of our examination) to the Judgmental profile is the referee who considers previous knowledge and is able to intuitively extrapolate (accuracy notwithstanding) centered on a fluid evaluation of crystallized knowledge and instinctual acumen to arrive at a best-fitting "jacket" of information.

    In terms of objectivity, maybe we should begin by inserting (traditional) MBTI evals on the basis of your (fantastic, I might add) assignments.

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Ugh, trying to be intellectual when I've got kids arguing about Pokemon all around me! LOL
    Me too. I'm teaching!

  10. #70
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    I hate to interrupt all you Ns frantically trying to figure out which one of you claims the prize, but why is N assumed to be more objective than S?

    I would think that Se, as a function which sees things "are they are" would inherently be more objective than Ne, as a function which see things more "as they could be" or "how I think they are".

    As far as experience rather than theory: I have found the ISTPs I've known to be (slightly) more objective in their choices than the ENTP and INTP I know, and about the same as the INTJs. I can accept that this is a personal rather than type effect though, if given a reasonable argument.

    Can someone explain this to me?

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