• 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!

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Well, going by Magic's definition above ^^ I'd say in that case... the most objective type would be ExTx - somebody with dominant Te and no preference where S/N or J/P were concerned, so that their perception was as complete/balanced as possible, taking into account both intuitive and sensory data.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
It is?

Oh. :doh:

It seems that my concerted effort at drawing a distinction between "objectivity" as implied in the OP, which is purely an NT and even individual NT ideal, as defined by a majority of NT's (the 'internal affair' I mentioned), and actual true objectivity, and whether it exists, is possible and if so, my theory that no type has a monopoly or advantage with it.

Night and I were going (in absence of any objection or other input at the time) with first off defining the 'internal affair', then comparing it to other types' ideals of objectivity in order to test its validity/worth, then with a er... objective analysis of all of the above, followed by well, other stuff. Night suggested going on an inter-type approach, but we decided to start small and broaden out ('build a vehicle before test driving it'), and nobody objected.

It's like I said about a group of theologians debating the religious doctrines and their internal logic, having their discussion gate crashed all of a sudden by an atheist saying 'Ah, but your definition of transubstantiation is incorrect because you failed to account in it for the fact that I don't believe in God!'



That's what I was trying to ascertain. It's not how I define objectivity, it was just a working theory for the time being, at that point. You could imagine me beginning with with "Suppose..."



Yes, that's what BlueWing was saying, but I took issue with that because I believe that Ti can be just as swayed by interior goals and opinions.



No, I don't think it would. That's what I was beginning to say to BlueWing when he was asserting that ENTP is less objective due to having 'stronger Fe and weaker Ti'.

Night had it in his last post when he used the word 'parsing'. That's just what we were doing, but it's a gradual process - a process. You can't jump into the middle of a process and start judging it when you haven't grasped either where it's trying to go, where it's currently at, or even the fact that it is a process. I don't mean 'you' here athenian, more like 'one can't...', just to clarify :)



No, not making up out of the blue! As you can see the dictionary is quite economical in explaining exactly how objectivity is manifested or seen, how it works etc - simply looking at the dictionary definition doesn't really help that much in determining how we're supposed to recognize it, or whether there are different styles of it. That's why I was trying to get a slightly longer, more detailed definition going on.



You see - well, I dunno if you cut and pasted that definition cos if you did then I'd be hesitant to trust a dictionary that can't spell phenomenon/phenomena! :laugh:

But what I mean is that it just says 'observed'. It doesn't go into a discussion about the different methods of observation, and whether it's the same thing as perception; it doesn't say whether observing something intuitively is equally as valid as observing it by the senses.

EDIT - anyway, bugger this for a game of soldiers, it's 7pm here and time for dinner!!



I agree with you that Ti can be swayed by an inner mindset exactly like Te by external circumstances. Here is how this works. A Ti is most interested in physics say, like Einstein. He will focus intensely on physics gaining the most objective understanding of that subject. Yet, because he is not interested in philosophy or sociology, he will be less objective about his knowledge of that subject. A Te for example, would take interest in all of those subjects a bit more evenly in relation to each. The Te's interests will be influenced by external status of the subject. So for example, he may chose to study physics because it is in demand. (Whilst a Ti because his inner being is more comfortable with it).

However, this does not have anything to do with objectivity as I defined the term. Such things make neither the Te nor a Ti less of a T.

Earlier, I have equated objectivity with Thinking. Ti is more of a T because type inheres within our unconscious mind. Whatever is more internally focused is closer to the unconscious mind. That, namely Ti. (With Schopenhauer, Jung learned that all of mind is unconscious, conscious is only the external manifestation of the unconscious.)
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, going by Magic's definition above ^^ I'd say in that case... the most objective type would be ExTx - somebody with dominant Te and no preference where S/N or J/P were concerned, so that their perception was as complete/balanced as possible, taking into account both intuitive and sensory data.

Imagine however, the ETJ would have a moderately sound understanding of 10 things. Whilst an ITP an in depth sound understanding of 4 things. Because Introverted Thinking gives you more of a focus on a T--and then we translate both of those units into ostensible essences to all. We will see that the understanding the ITP derived of the four entities outweighs the understanding an ETJ derived from 10.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Do you have an example? I don't mind changing my mind, but I can't think of a single example in which theory/abstract and so forth is not a creation of uncertainty to explain something - removed from reality and manipulated in the mind.

Yes, many examples. I live my whole life around my intuitive perceptions, and if they were mere 'creations' in my own mind, then I would have ended up in a lunatic asylum, and not the well-travelled owner of a successful business with a good social life.

Okay - take for example yesterday when two women were talking to each other and I was just listening, not participating. I was sitting beside my friend, ISTP man. One woman (call her X) said to the other (call her Y), "Good morning, so nice to see you here again", in what seemed to the senses to be a bright, welcoming tone. There was nothing there perceptible to the senses to suggest anything but friendliness and pleasure at seeing Y.

Now, I perceived something in X's persona, I don't know what to call it, I shy away from words like 'aura' because of the spiritual/wishy-washy connotations they can carry, but for argument's sake let's use that word for now. I could 'sense' something about X was hostile, and that when she said "Good morning", she was being sarcastic in a way that only Y would pick up on (so she thought), and when she said "so nice to see you here again", she was actually trying to say a combination of "you've been slacking" and "you're not welcome because of that". These were all sub-linguistic cues that went beyond words, body language or facial expressions.

Later, Y was talking to me and saying she was sick of X digging at her all the time; she was in tears. Later still, X was crowing to me over how she put Y in her place earlier that day. My perception was not flawed, it was not just a creation of my mind - it was true and accurate.

But ISTP said to me this morning "It was nice to see X and Y friendly again yesterday, wasn't it?"

These sorts of things are what a lot of bullying consists of - these subtle messages sent out so that only the victim's intuition picks it up, and the majority of others around the place think the bully is just 'being nice'. The nastiness, the malice is really there, but using senses alone you won't perceive it.

In fact, I'd say that in order to actually perceive anything intangible - anything that isn't a 'thing' in the solid, material sense - things that truly exist, like malice, greed, love, sorrow - you need intuition.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
In fact, I'd say that in order to actually perceive anything intangible - anything that isn't a 'thing' in the solid, material sense - things that truly exist, like malice, greed, love, sorrow - you need intuition.

Yah, we aren't ever going to agree on this. I'll just drop out now.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Man, you sound like my ol' pa haha... "Seeing is believing, kiddo, so quit that silly nonsense and eat your meatloaf!" :laugh:

He was ISTP too, and very frequently failed to make connections between things that were so screamingly obvious to me (and my brother, so unless we were both 'hallucinating' the same intangible things...) it beggared belief :)
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
When we talk about types, we talk about our unconscious tendencies. Not human behavior. As the former is the very definition of 'type'.

I agree with you that Ti can be swayed by an inner mindset exactly like Te by external circumstances. Here is how this works. A Ti is most interested in physics say, like Einstein. He will focus intensely on physics gaining the most objective understanding of that subject. Yet, because he is not interested in philosophy or sociology, he will be less objective about his knowledge of that subject.

I admit the immediate above is taken out of context, but I think it still applies. First you say that it's not about behavior, but instead about unconscious tendencies. Of course I understand those tendencies translate into behavior, but is it so far off to assume that just because the INTP uses thinking more avidly, that it doesn't actually make the ENTP any less objective.

It's preference - not strength according to everything I've ever read. Taking this into consideration, it only says that the INTP is more apt to go into a thinking mode. I don't see how it implies at all that the Ti of an INTP is better or more logical - just more commonly frequented.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I admit the immediate above is taken out of context, but I think it still applies. First you say that it's not about behavior, but instead about unconscious tendencies. Of course I understand those tendencies translate into behavior, but is it so far off to assume that just because the INTP uses thinking more avidly, that it doesn't actually make the ENTP any less objective..
Not unless we equate objectivity with Thinking.

It's preference - not strength according to everything I've ever read. Taking this into consideration, it only says that the INTP is more apt to go into a thinking mode. I don't see how it implies at all that the Ti of an INTP is better or more logical - just more commonly frequented.

Well, since you use this function more naturally, does this not imply you use it more? Practice makes perfect?
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Not unless we equate objectivity with Thinking.
Actually, no. Even if we equate objectivity with thinking, the ENTP still uses thinking to decipher and analyze. I think you've got sort of a non-objective attachment to being the most objective.


Well, since you use this function more naturally, does this not imply you use it more? Practice makes perfect?

I don't think that's how it works. I think Ti is used to hone skills, which is how practice makes perfect, but it's the Xe work that it's making perfect. Like we see in the STPs who use Ti to break down all the work Se is doing and find the best way to do it. Unless you're Tiing your Ti, I don't think practice really makes perfect.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Man, you sound like my ol' pa haha... "Seeing is believing, kiddo, so quit that silly nonsense and eat your meatloaf!" :laugh:

He was ISTP too, and very frequently failed to make connections between things that were so screamingly obvious to me (and my brother, so unless we were both 'hallucinating' the same intangible things...) it beggared belief :)

Hmmm, you really stick a personal hook into your posts. Well, I'll bite.

I see your association of "failed to make connections" flipped around to "you make associations up". The first isn't a lack of objectivity - it is an intelligence or capability issue. The second, however, is a complete failure of objectivity. If I retold the exact same story without you being accurate, it'd be a case for a lack of objectivity (you "sensed" something "wrong" therefore reflected personal bias - that's what you'd call an F, and have, if I'm not mistaken, if they were over sensitive to what you said... but you "sensed" something "right" and are therefore objective). Just because you were accurate does not change that your biases were instrumental in reading the situation. Biases are normally heuristic in nature, hence useful - but they are not objective.

Of course, the story you tell isn't you being objective - you knew the subjective impression of what was happening. You read trained queues, existing in your own mind, based on your own impressions and your own experiences to come to the conclusion you did. The ISTP was, literally, being objective.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Nocapszy, fancy taking the ENTP banner off me? I think I'm gonna go watch a few episodes of Star Trek by way of a well-earned break from this nonsense. Maybe I'll have an ethereal cup of coffee that I'll delude myself into enjoying (since enjoyment doesn't really exist, being an intangible abstract noun and all). :D

pt, for the record, you're repeatedly failing to notice that I'm not equating perception with objectivity, but only trying to establish what part it plays in it. Never mind, like you say, we're not gonna agree :)
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Nocapszy, fancy taking the ENTP banner off me? I think I'm gonna go watch a few episodes of Star Trek by way of a well-earned break from this nonsense. Maybe I'll have an ethereal cup of coffee that I'll delude myself into enjoying (since enjoyment doesn't really exist, being an intangible abstract noun and all). :D

We'll tag team it.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
We'll tag team it.

Over to you then. No quitting before you find another ENTP to carry on the work heheh... you've got it cut out for you - you've got to prove the validity of intuitional perception as well as how the use of it doesn't necessarily exclude or compromise objectivity. And then there's BlueWing...

Good luck mate! :hi:
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Actually, no. Even if we equate objectivity with thinking, the ENTP still uses thinking to decipher and analyze. I think you've got sort of a non-objective attachment to being the most objective..

I dont get it? Isnt the one who is more comfortable with Thinking deciphers and analyzes better? As we have established, the more you use Thinking, the better you tend to be with it? Since its more of a preferrence for the INTP, they tend to use it more, and therefore analyze and decipher better?
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Do you have an example? I don't mind changing my mind, but I can't think of a single example in which theory/abstract and so forth is not a creation of uncertainty to explain something - removed from reality and manipulated in the mind.
You seem to have made a compound statement which I can't answer as a whole, so I'll just answer the part where you equate theory with something that is removed from reality.

Well, I'm hoping I won't derail the conversation too much with my idea. I've just noticed that N type thinking promotes the use of statistics, comparisons, interrelations and the similar - and these can be completely objective.

The average of the numbers presented. The median, the minimum, the maximum. Standard deviation. Common items in set A and set B. Correlation between this and that.

These are the kinds of things that N run in their mind without touching a calculator or running a spreadsheet. The averages, medians, differences, correlations, etc made up in the mind are good, immediate extra information, even tho they are just approximations or hunches. Someone who's never heard of mathematics might consider these to be "theories".

S who don't "refine" the information they gather are missing a lot. N who don't bother to inspect the individual items of information are also missing a lot. Demanding an example is also very much an S thing - even when inappropriate. Not all concepts are well illustrated by individual examples. How should I prove the average of a set of numbers with a singular example?

The same reasoning applies to more complex judgements than calculating an average. Who's popular? What's beautiful? Is movie X a crime drama or psychological thriller? Does someone look old?

Making a judgement on these kind of issues requires us to compare a lot of information. It's time-consuming to scrutinize 100 movies to make a detailed comparison on the features of drama and thriller movies. Even then, the result can be disputed. "What is drama? What is considered exciting? Who has decided on these definitions? I refuse to believe that thrillers exist."

S will have to contend to the fact that many well-established concepts exist only for groups of items, which requires some pattern recognition, or intuition. We wouldn't be able to use many common sense, every day concepts without using some N. Have you given a thought about why machine learning is so difficult?

We are not able to explain all of the real, inexact concepts with entirely exact language.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
Over to you then. No quitting before you find another ENTP to carry on the work heheh... you've got it cut out for you - you've got to prove the validity of intuitional perception as well as how the use of it doesn't necessarily exclude or compromise objectivity.
Simple. The Ne of the ENTP calls upon Ti for direction. Of course, it's typical of a thinking dominant to exclude information such as this.

As I see it, the ENTP is more actively searching for the truth in the name of objectivity where the INTP is more inclined for deciphering what little chunks of information that intuition brings in the name of objective reality.

The ENTP is by no means by definition less likely to be working its way towards logical discovery of truth, which is after all, the hallmark of being objective, is it not?

And then there's BlueWing...


Good luck mate! :hi:
Is that a jest or a jab? Somehow I can't tell...
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
I dont get it? Isnt the one who is more comfortable with Thinking deciphers and analyzes better?

How does commonality make it any stronger or better? If an ENTP breaks something down into the simplest parts and forms them into a logical framework, the INTP can do no better.

There IS such a thing as objective truth - a point at which no more information can be gathered, or deduced into a smaller system. I don't see how having a stronger preference for thinking makes the INTP any more capable of it. He might get there first, but that's equally as unlikely because the ENTP seeks information at a higher rate.

Objectivity is, in all fairness, the culmination of perception and logic.
 

Maverick

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
880
MBTI Type
ENTJ
The most objective type is ENTJ. Extraverted Thinking is directed towards the external world and Intuition enables abstraction and distance from it.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
People can be really confused over something rather easily. Let me try one more time to cut the Gordian knot here.

INTP's have the strongest Ti, and hence the strongest connection to pure "logic," as I defined it earlier, because logic is based on seeing and applying very specific patterns in a particular way rather than anything tangible.

ENTP's have the strongest Ne, and are best at perceiving patterns for their own sake, without predetermined bias towards previously accepted rules. This makes them more objective and rational than INTP's, but not more logical.

ST's are the most objective types, because they come to conclusions about actual observations without making inferences. Among them, ISTP's would be the most logical (dominant Ti, and second only to INTP's), ESTP's the most objective (dominant Se). ExTJ's would be the most rational (dominant Te).

INTJ's are second to ENTP's in objectivity and rationality (dominant Ni), but it's close. Their strengths by comparison are their insight and decisiveness.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
How does commonality make it any stronger or better? If an ENTP breaks something down into the simplest parts and forms them into a logical framework, the INTP can do no better.

There IS such a thing as objective truth - a point at which no more information can be gathered, or deduced into a smaller system. I don't see how having a stronger preference for thinking makes the INTP any more capable of it. He might get there first, but that's equally as unlikely because the ENTP seeks information at a higher rate.

Objectivity is, in all fairness, the culmination of perception and logic.

Why should perception be part of the objectivity definition? Unless you're talking about making objective external decisions. Not just thinking clearly. Then I'd agree. But we still have not settled on what we understand for objectivity to be.
 
Top