The objective judgement could be just as prone to inaccuracy - if the ref couldn't see any evidence that the player with the bad rep started the fight, then his judgement would be that he didn't - but in all reality, he could've done and 'probably' did. His judgement, though objective, might still be unfair.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.
Go on thenIn terms of objectivity, maybe we should begin by inserting (traditional) MBTI evals on the basis of your (fantastic, I might add) assignments.
By the way, is that fantastic as in 'based on fantasy' or as in 'brilliant'?