User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 332

  1. #71
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    I like both definitions. One seems to hint at a personality endemically open to possibilities, while the other appears to seek closure.
    ...which seems to speak of a P/J difference rather than E/I. It's saying that P's and J's can be just as objective, but in different ways. Doesn't shed any light on the E/I thing though. But it could... possibly... if we're talking about extraverted and introverted functions as opposed to types.

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

    By the way, is that fantastic as in 'based on fantasy' or as in 'brilliant'?
    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

  2. #72
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    <sniff> This ISTP feels left out. Ah well, artisan's never get any credit anyway.

  3. #73
    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 Randomnity View Post
    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?
    As you wish...

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    <sniff> This ISTP feels left out. Ah well, artisan's never get any credit anyway.
    See above.

    Random didn't fully read the available posts before rendering judgment...

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post

    By the way, is that fantastic as in 'based on fantasy' or as in 'brilliant'?
    Why don't we (appropriately) begin with ISTP?

    Thoughts? (PT, I'm looking your way...!)
    Last edited by MacGuffin; 11-17-2007 at 12:58 PM. Reason: merged posts

  4. #74
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Well yeah, I wasn't assuming objectivity to be an N thing, though I admit probably to begin with (until just slightly before Proteanmix's post) I was erroneously holding it as a T thing, before I started to consider the place of my own tertiary Fe. The OP seemed to assume it to be an NTP thing, the only question being I or E.

    Going by the definitions of objectivity I've proposed above, I don't see how any one particular type has a great advantage... potentially... I want to see what others think. This is a process for me as much as for the thread itself

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Well you see....
    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. #75
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    See above.

    Random didn't fully read the available posts before rendering judgment...
    Uh, actually I did. I saw your suggestion to consider other types, which I agree with. I also saw it dismissed on the grounds that we're only talking about NT rationalism, which is somehow different from another type's rationalism.

    What I was pointing out was the implication that NTs would automatically be superior in "the NT ideal of objectivity/logic guided thought". Just because NTs are called the rationals, it doesn't automatically follow that they are better than an ST at logic and reasoning. They may well be, but I would like to see a reasoned argument for this rather than assumptions.

    I saw that over >50 responses, you were the only one who even brought up the possibility of other types being as objective, and this thought was seemingly immediately dismissed as irrelevant because types would supposedly have different definitions of "objective". If I was wrong about it being dismissed, I apologize, but that is how it seemed to me.

    I was looking for a logical argument for ignoring Ss, not an insinuation that I can't read.

  6. #76
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Not interested in juggling semantics with you. I apologize if you felt offended.


    Do you have anything to contribute relevant to the discussion at hand?

  7. #77
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Uh, actually I did. I saw your suggestion to consider other types, which I agree with. I also saw it dismissed on the grounds that we're only talking about NT rationalism, which is somehow different from another type's rationalism.
    I don't think it was saying NT rationalism was 'somehow different' or superior to other type's. But just trying to keep vaguely close to the OP, we were talking about whether NT rationalism was actually different (not saying that it was but trying to discover if it was, see the distinction?), and if so, in what way? The method we were beginning to use to answer these questions was to first figure out what NT rationalism is, then compare it to other types. And again, paying lip service to the OP, then 'deciding' which is the 'most objective'

    Does that clear it up a bit? I know with me no 'elitism' was meant at all, so I apologize if I've given offence.
    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

  8. #78
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Do you have anything to contribute relevant to the discussion at hand?
    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    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.
    Maybe you should try reading posts. Nothing I said was irrelevant to the discussion. The OP concerned which type was most objective, and I gave my response to the OP, as everyone else did.

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute
    I don't think it was saying NT rationalism was 'somehow different' or superior to other type's. But just trying to keep vaguely close to the OP, we were talking about whether NT rationalism was actually different (not saying that it was but trying to discover if it was, see the distinction?), and if so, in what way? The method we were beginning to use to answer these questions was to first figure out what NT rationalism is, then compare it to other types. And again, paying lip service to the OP, then 'deciding' which is the 'most objective'

    Does that clear it up a bit? I know with me no 'elitism' was meant at all, so I apologize if I've given offence.
    I wasn't offended. I was pointing out what I saw to be an assumption that perhaps people (the OP as well as replies) hadn't realized they were making. I was also genuinely interested in an argument for NTs being potentially better at objectivity than STs. Thanks for your clarification though, it seems I had slightly misunderstood you.

  9. #79
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Thoughts? (PT, I'm looking your way...!)
    Eh, nothing I will post, since it deals with MBTI theory...

    Course, you can read that as a comment that I think Ns are distinctly less objective than Ss, and I would go as far as to say that S types are nearly, by definition (the categories measured in Step II), more objective. But then, I'm not sure how many Ss would argue that INTPs > INTJs because of functional order, so I can't really say.

  10. #80
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post

    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".
    Okay, I can work with that. But what about Se perhaps only seeing things 'as they appear'? It's no empty cliche about things not always being what they seem. Se could be just as much at risk of 'as I think they are' as Ne.

    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?
    I can see what you're saying. However, I don't think what you're seeing there is a difference in decision making processes - more in the perception part. The ISTP I call one of my best pals sometimes makes 'objective' decisions, based on Se, which are incorrect because they fail to take into account lots of intuitive information; I do the same in reverse sometimes.

    For example, when he's been conversing with my N-predominant colleagues and he's been convinced that somebody was wrong with something they said, but only because he didn't pick up on all the stuff that was to be intuitively 'taken as read' (which everyone else did take as read, without needing any prior introduction). It's very difficult to point out this information to him that he missed, without him getting defensive and saying that we think he's stupid.

    I do find in my experience that many SP's do have this sorta paranoia about people thinking they're stupid, which I think acts in much the same way as the INTP's 'inner purpose' (that BlueWing mentioned) and the ENTP's image consciousness - IOW, all these things cloud objectivity.
    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

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