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