[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

[substitute]

Feeling is necessarily a hindrance because it is antithetical to Thinking.

Indeed. Which is why someone who's more aware and in control of their Feeling would probably find it less of a hindrance than someone for whom the entire function was an enigma they can neither understand nor control.

No it wouldnt, because it is a property of Thinking, and therefore impersonally founded. The more the INTP introverts, the more impersonal he becomes by contrast to your clause. As here we equate the inner purpose with the pure essence of objectivity.(That is because the more the INTP introverts, the more into the T essence he goes)

I don't buy that. It'd be true if INTP's were as android-ish as some of them claim to be, but most are not - and simply wanting to not have feelings isn't the same thing as actually not having them; wanting to separate yourself completely from them isn't the same as having successfully done so - which I'd theorize that no healthy human being either could or should do. In practical reality, my experience is that the more the INTP introverts, the more they become caught up in their own subconscious workings, whilst being consciously certain that they're objective and uninvolved. The risk of intellectual conceit is higher, IMO.

I've always assumed ENTJ's were the most objective.

You might have a point there... actually...

Of course, remember logically consistent doesn't always mean objective/true, and the question becomes harder to answer, since it's possible that an ENTP might be more faithful to the emerging pattern, without being constrained by their prior understanding of logic.

Absolutely. That's what I was trying to say here:

Sometimes I find hyperactive Ne can join dots that don't really belong joined, but once the connection's been made, if we don't realise in time that the connection's false, then we'll soon find all the faulty conclusions being drawn from it tumbling out pêlle-mêlle. For me it's usually a case of "Connecting dot X with dot 3.24, the logical conclusion is..." and the conclusion would be logical if X and 3.24 were actually related in the way I perceived them to be - but they're not, so my conclusion is illogical.

You could argue that ENTP is therefore more prone to flawed logic, having greater reliance on Ne. But equally, it could be said that, being more practiced with Ne and disciplined with it, ENTP would be more likely to make the right connections in the first place, than INTP.

 

[proteanmix]

Slightly less, because Te is further away from the quintissence of Thinking than Ti. All introverted functions are stronger than the extroverted because the essence of all cognitive process inheres within the unconscious mind. Introverts are closer to the unconscious because they are more internally focused.

Last time (in the ENTJ thread) you explained yourself privately and I didn't post my response to you. This time I am.

I've told you you need to go and re-read your Jung. He explicitly states that introverted functions aren't any closer to the unconscious than extroverted ones, so stop patting yourself on the back. As long as you have conscious control over a function be it introverted or extroverted, it's just as far away from the unconscious as any other. You seem to be taking the definition of introversion literally in relationship and distance to the unconscious. It seems to me you're even implying that the distance from the unconscious to the conscious is measurable by functions and function order. If that's the case, an introverted perceiving function (IJs/Si or Ni) is closer to the unconscious not a dominant judging function (that includes Ti).

And by making introversion the default and standard position, you're making any type that isn't deviant from the norm. Maybe Wildcat should jump in on this one, but as he is so fond of stating, introversion and extroversion are the way a person orients themselves to the object. So evidently there's something anchored out there in the real world that we either move towards or away from. Introverts are introverted in comparison to something else. Are you using the unconscious as the starting line? You're playing with a different set of definitions than everyone else.

Re the OP: how are you defining objectivity? You're putting completely within the realm of thinking (Te or Ti). Why is objectivity only something that thinking can do? It almost seems to me that people assume thinkers are able to completely cut themselves off from subjective influences. Seriously, it's lame. If I'm wrong then please enlighten me, but it seems to me that the implication is feeling values are a smidgen better than instincts and there's no rationale or logic behind them, so they can't possibly be objective. Am I detecting a slight undertone of sexism?

If you want to compare lengths on which thinking type is the most objective, then I'd say an ETJ. Why, because they typically use clearly observable data/standards that most people can agree on. Ti is no less subjective than the most subjective of functions Fi. And I'd put an ENTP as more objective than an INTP because once again, Ne perceives and connects tangible possibilities. Yeah, I'm using extroversion as my starting point.

 

[Oberon]

Asking which type is more "objective" is like asking which species of fish is best at math.

Though one may compare types against each other, nobody is a truly objective thinker. The INTP's dominant thinking mode may make him logical, but he will still be inclined to favor his own logical constructions over others'.

I don't trust the idea that shunning emotion makes one more objective; I suspect it merely makes one's subjectivity more cerebral.

 

[reason]

I am always amused when Bluewing tries to explain what and how INTPs think, since he inevitably just explains how Bluewing thinks, which has a habit of changing every few months or so. It is even more amusng, because as one who has been described as "INTP as they get", I never agree with his description of what and how I supposedly think. It's just b******t.

 

[Night]

Asking which type is more "objective" is like asking which species of fish is best at math.

Though one may compare types against each other, nobody is a truly objective thinker. The INTP's dominant thinking mode may make him logical, but he will still be inclined to favor his own logical constructions over others'.

I don't trust the idea that shunning emotion makes one more objective; I suspect it merely makes one's subjectivity more cerebral.

I stand by my original belief that the OP wanted a division on the basis of Functional probability as a determinant for rational pattern creation.

That said, the Ti is the well-sharpened choice.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

ENTP is clearly more objective than INTP, because extraverted functions are more objective than introverted funtions. Even the ESFJ is more objective than the INTP, although it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges since one is thinking and the other feeling. Comparing apples to apples though Te is more objective than Ti, Ne more objective than Ni, etc...

Speaking from experience my objectivity comes from observation and not from judgement. All of my subjectivity comes from judgement, from Ti. The ENTJ is the opposite, perceiving subjectively and judging objectively. Don't be fooled by the INTP's logic. It's intense, but it's not objective in the slightest. Focus is not the same as objectivity. In fact the two are not far from being opposites.

 

[reason]

Am I the only one who thinks that this whole discussion is going nowhere fast? There seem to be so many alternative definitions for the same terms that everyone is simply talking past one another.

 

[substitute]

Re the OP: how are you defining objectivity? You're putting completely within the realm of thinking (Te or Ti). Why is objectivity only something that thinking can do?

I agree, which is what I was starting to get at here:

I agree with the second part - that Feeling is incorporated, but I don't think that automatically means the first part is true about making value judgements necessarily compromising objectivity. Just because Feeling is incorporated, it doesn't mean it's the ENTP's own feelings - just the human factor, generally. It's taken into account in ENTP's argument much more than INTP. This could simply mean having a greater diversity of facts at ENTP's fingertips.

I was beginning by trying to dismantle BlueWing's theory about why ENTP's would be less objective (beginning with challenging his concept/definition of objectivity), but as I was pushed for time I thought I'd think a bit more on the objective qualities and abilities of Feeling functions and get back to it later.

 

[proteanmix]

Uggg! Now I'm late for work. Damn these objectivity vs. subjectivity threads!!

 

[substitute]

Uggg! Now I'm late for work. Damn these objectivity vs. subjectivity threads!!

Hm.. I'm not sure if that was actually the point of it... I suspect the OP's intention was to pit the xNTP's against each other as to which of them, I's or E's, fulfilled most naturally/easily the NTP criteria/definition/ideal of logic and objectivity.

Speaking from experience my objectivity comes from observation and not from judgement. All of my subjectivity comes from judgement, from Ti. The ENTJ is the opposite, perceiving subjectively and judging objectively. Don't be fooled by the INTP's logic. It's intense, but it's not objective in the slightest. Focus is not the same as objectivity. In fact the two are not far from being opposites.

Well said - same here, the bolded part. Actually most of what I say is just voiced observations, pretty much inviting correction/fine tuning. It often gets mistaken as judgement though, when the observation is of something others judge as not good. I'm not interested in judging it - only in looking at it neutrally and considering its potential.

 

[Oberon]

I stand by my original belief that the OP wanted a division on the basis of Functional probability as a determinant for rational pattern creation.

That said, the Ti is the well-sharpened choice.

Well, of course it is. Your definition was burdened with the term "rational," which pre-selects for Ti at the outset. It's a tautology.

A solid consensus on the meanings of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are in order, I think, if we're to get any further.

 

[substitute]

A solid consensus on the meanings of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are in order, I think, if we're to get any further.

Good call. Are we talking about objectivity here, or rationalism? Is anyone equating the two? (cos I don't)

 

[Night]

Well, of course it is. Your definition was burdened with the term "rational," which pre-selects for Ti at the outset. It's a tautology.

In terms of tautology, I'm afraid you may have slipped on the interchangeability of "rational" as an MBTI delineation against a (common) synonym for logical.

To be quite honest, I'd be curious to hear how my use of "rational" contextually changed the direction of my point?

A solid consensus on the meanings of "objectivity" and "subjectivity" are in order, I think, if we're to get any further.

Agreed.

On a fun side-note, Midsummer is a great play.

 

[substitute]

Aha, so now we have three terms: rational, logical and objective. They seem to have been equated by some, whilst others are drawing distinctions. Can we agree on what these words mean, how they're different and if/where they overlap?

 

[Night]

Aha, so now we have three terms: rational, logical and objective. They seem to have been equated by some, whilst others are drawing distinctions. Can we agree on what these words mean, how they're different and if/where they overlap?

Thank you, substitute.

 

[substitute]

Haha, so it took only us 55 posts to begin to create a proper framework for the discussion to be constructive. Yay for us!

(now this is ENTP style debate - the first hour is just everyone throwing their thoughts onto the table, the next hour is sifting through which ones are relevant and finding pertinent questions to ask, and only by the third hour does it begin to actually emerge with theories and conclusions... if the ENTP's haven't got bored/distracted by something else by then and started talking about Star Wars or something...)

 

[Athenian200]

Aha, so now we have three terms: rational, logical and objective. They seem to have been equated by some, whilst others are drawing distinctions. Can we agree on what these words mean, how they're different and if/where they overlap?

Here's my take:

Logical -- To form a philosophy/argument that consists of/with, and is constrained by the nature of logic. Meaning it must not contradict itself, and follow a consistent set of rules that are applied uniformly.

Objective -- To look at/see something as it actually is, without bias or interpretation. Note that this is technically impossible, because reality for people is filtered first through their limited senses, their mental system for representing that information, and often even through their memories and experience before it becomes conscious. The question is what is closest to this, because nothing actually is such.

Rational -- To base one's decisions on what would be considered by most people to be acceptable criteria for a long-term decision, especially one that affects/involves more than one person. A society or business might be good example.

 

[substitute]

You know I love your lists Athenian

I agree with logical, and kinda with the others too, but maybe I'd say about objectivity that since I agree with how you say it's technically not possible in its purest form, then the closest equivalent we can get to it, or what the NT tends to usually have as an ideal for it, is to look at things and judge them without any deliberate or conscious personal bias (excepting obviously those things we can't help such as sensory perceptions - if we see something as blue because our eyes work that way, then even if it's not truly blue, if it's a 'fact' that everyone concerned can agree on then we can regard it as objective for this purpose). I suppose it's a form of non-prejudice, not letting what we previously think or feel about something to influence our current considerations of it.

I might say that 'rational' is seen by NT's generally as being a method of decision making that utilizes objective logic, as much as possible, as an ideal.

edit - but the OP'er needs to clarify whether we're talking about NT ideals here, or actual objective facts. Cos the kind of rationalism I just described is, I think, an NT ideal and one that's not shared by everyone. I can see why Proteanmix got cross about equating Thinking with Objectivity, but I think in a way what the OP is addressing and wanting to discuss is a sorta 'internal affair', in as much as NF's might debate what's 'good' or moral or whatever - there can be two ways of doing it, depending what you're hoping to achieve by it. Would they prefer non-idealists to come in and question the assumptions their ideals are built on every time? Or is it like some religious debates, where you just want to talk about the internal logic/rightness of something, not currently interested in how it relates to the external bigger picture?

Not sure if I put that right - I'm in a hurry again, maybe someone else could rephrase it better for me!

 

[Night]

You know I love your lists Athenian

I agree with logical, and kinda with the others too, but maybe I'd say about objectivity that since I agree with how you say it's technically not possible in its purest form, then the closest equivalent we can get to it, or what the NT tends to usually have as an ideal for it, is to look at things and judge them without any deliberate or conscious personal bias (excepting obviously those things we can't help such as sensory perceptions - if we see something as blue because our eyes work that way, then even if it's not truly blue, if it's a 'fact' that everyone concerned can agree on then we can regard it as objective for this purpose). I suppose it's a form of non-prejudice, not letting what we previously think or feel about something to influence our current considerations of it.

I might say that 'rational' is seen by NT's generally as being a method of decision making that utilizes objective logic, as much as possible, as an ideal.

Would you say that a "rational" statement is one comprised of many "objective" fibers?

If so, the difference appears to be an issue of constituency - "rational" seems an application reserved to describe a system of thought, whereas "objective" seems the basic elemental spices that cooperate within a "rational" process.

 

[substitute]

Nifty -- it only took 39 posts for a non ENTP/INTP/INTJ to enter the lion's den.

*applause*

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...)