[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

[ptgatsby]

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.

Hmm, quick question... Does objective mean accurate? I'm assuming it does not (because, as a result, the real question would be "who has the most information to make a decision".)

 

[Economica]

Not interested in juggling semantics with you.

Would you please spell out your rationale for reducing Randomnity's objection to mere semantics?

I apologize if you felt offended.

Would you please point out where Randomnity wrote something to indicate that she had taken offense?

 

[substitute]

Hmm, quick question... Does objective mean accurate? I'm assuming it does not (because, as a result, the real question would be "who has the most information to make a decision".)

Well I just meant to point out that neither Se nor Ne give anyone an advantage on being objective, because both 'perception methods' are as prone to inaccuracy as each other, and as I also said, all types have some kind of inferior function related pitfall that will threaten their objectivity in many cases unless they're very disciplined.

I think the idea of objectivity (in the 'internal' NT ideal, or doctrine, you might say) is that it's supposed to increase the chances of accuracy. Or rather, to decrease the chances of the kind of inaccuracy that results from incorrect or inappropriate/irrelevant prejudices/expectations. Whether this works or not, is what we're discussing... I think...

 

[Athenian200]

Why the political correctness? If you feel that ST types should be included in a discussion of rationalism/objectivity, explain why rather than just complaining that they aren't, please?

They were specifically trying to figure out which NT's were most objective. (And they weren't even sure if they mean objective, logical, or rational, so that was an issue as well.) I don't think anyone would argue that in many (if not most) situations, an S can be more objective than any N because they look at exactly what they see rather than inferring a pattern, and have slightley fewer cognitive filters applied to their sensory process (with the possible exception of memory). However, in some situations an S could be too predisposed to focus on past experiences or how things appear on the surface rather than looking "beyond" the surface to see that things are different than they seem.

ST objectivity -- Sees things as they are, doesn't try to fit them into anything, doesn't try to form connections from what it sees, reports it accurately.

NT objectivity -- Looks directly at patterns/ideas as they are, is better at aligning things with the idea in an objective manner, without allowing the exact nature of it to interfere with the understanding of its relationship to the idea.

 

[Night]

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.

I think this is an interesting point.

In terms of perceptual placement, the ISTPs I've met have always put very specific definition to maintaining a detached perspective until they feel sufficiently confident that their observations can be ascribed to falsifiable environmental variables. I've noticed a certain vigor that some ISTPs emote when they finalize a decision and are able to accord their ideas to a chained pattern of events. Kind of like a Eureka! moment.

It can be somewhat startling!

 

[Night]

Would you please spell out your rationale for reducing Randomnity's objection to mere semantics?

Would you please point out where Randomnity wrote something to indicate that she had taken offense?

No.

I'm not interested in pursuing this further. Miscommunication seems the key element that led to our disagreement.

 

[substitute]

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.

In which case, NT would be naturally superior to ST when it comes to rationalism, going by this:

NT objectivity -- Looks directly at patterns/ideas as they are, is better at aligning things with the idea in an objective manner, without allowing the exact nature of it to interfere with the understanding of its relationship to the idea.

SP's aren't exactly well-known for their long-sighted vision and big-picture planning

So actually at the moment I'm beginning to see a good distinction coming along here - ST's being more naturally objective, with NT's more rational. Maybe. If we're talking about the 'judgemental objectivity' I defined earlier, as opposed to 'perceptional objectivity'... I'd say yeah, ST's for the former, but all are equal in the latter.

 

[ptgatsby]

I think the idea of objectivity (in the 'internal' NT ideal, or doctrine, you might say) is that it's supposed to increase the chances of accuracy. Or rather, to decrease the chances of the kind of inaccuracy that results from incorrect or inappropriate/irrelevant prejudices/expectations. Whether this works or not, is what we're discussing... I think...

If we are talking about prejudice and just what MBTI measures, I don't see how N could be considered as objective - or would you argue that abstract, imaginative, conceptual, theoretical and original thinking would be as objective as their counterparts?

To give an example, the first pages involved arguing from theory that INTPs > ENTPs because functional dominance plays a role. Do you believe that is objective thinking?

 

[substitute]

would you argue that abstract, imaginative, conceptual, theoretical and original thinking would be as objective as their counterparts?

Yes, I would

To give an example, the first pages involved arguing from theory that INTPs > ENTPs because functional dominance plays a role. Do you believe that is objective thinking?

No, I don't. That's what I've been saying (that I don't think it is). Or so I thought anyway...

 

[Night]

In which case, NT would be naturally superior to ST when it comes to rationalism, going by this:



So actually at the moment I'm beginning to see a good distinction coming along here - ST's being more naturally objective, with NT's more rational. Maybe. But not necessarily, if we're talking about the 'judgemental objectivity' I defined earlier, as opposed to 'perceptional objectivity', in which case both ST's and NT's are equal (and I think all other types too).

I think it depends on the internal digestive process, once the information has been incorporated. I've noticed that STs seem quite good at expressing their logical plans, once they've decided how to move.

A lack of impulsivity with processed data alongside a reliance on personal experience as the critical negotiator seems approximate to what I've observed - I think this combination makes the ST resourceful, yet committed to their original schematics.

Reliability of data input appears chief among ST concerns.

 

[ptgatsby]

Yes, I would

Eh, then we'll just disagree.

 

[substitute]

I think it depends on the internal digestive process, once the information has been incorporated. I've noticed that STs seem quite good at expressing their logical plans, once they've decided how to move.

A lack of impulsivity with processed data alongside a reliance on personal experience as the critical negotiator seems approximate to what I've observed - I think this combination makes the ST resourceful, yet committed to their original schematics.

Reliability of data input appears chief among ST concerns.

Hm, I'd say there was a difference there between STP and STJ. Yes, reliability of data and lack of impulsivity with STJ, but with STP, more like completeness of data, and plenty of impulsivity!

 

[Night]

Hm, I'd say there was a difference there between STP and STJ. Yes, reliability of data and lack of impulsivity with STJ, but with STP, more like completeness of data, and plenty of impulsivity!

Interesting - it sounds like our experiences differ.

Do you find spontaneity a hallmark feature of the STPs you've known?

 

[Athenian200]

If we are talking about prejudice and just what MBTI measures, I don't see how N could be considered as objective - or would you argue that abstract, imaginative, conceptual, theoretical and original thinking would be as objective as their counterparts?

To give an example, the first pages involved arguing from theory that INTPs > ENTPs because functional dominance plays a role. Do you believe that is objective thinking?

No. That's a good point, actually. It would have been more objective to create a definition of objectivity, and then measure several individuals who tested as ENTP or INTP, and then see how well they met each of these criteria.

They were really more focused on which one should, based on their theoretical nature, be more objective, and then using that to determine whether the tests themselves were creating results for people matching up with what should have been in their theoretical natures. They were refining their agreement/dispute on what the idea was supposed to be in the first place, rather than thinking about what was true in the current implementation.

 

[substitute]

No. That's a good point, actually. It would have been more objective to create a definition of objectivity, and then measure several individuals who tested as ENTP or INTP, and then see how well they met each of these criteria.

Um, hang on, that's exactly what I was trying to do!! I proposed a definition of objectivity and wanted to discuss it and get other perspectives on it to improve it, then see who/how people fitted it, but only Night responded to it, and nobody else was proposing any other ones or saying what was wrong (if anything) with mine, so I just carried on doing the best I could with what I had

The rest of what you said... I don't relate to that at all, either I wasn't doing what I thought I was, or you've mistook me somehow...

 

[Athenian200]

Um, hang on, that's exactly what I was trying to do!! I proposed a definition of objectivity and wanted to discuss it and get other perspectives on it to improve it, then see who/how people fitted it, but only Night responded to it, and nobody else was proposing any other ones or saying what was wrong (if anything) with mine, so I just carried on doing the best I could with what I had

The rest of what you said... I don't relate to that at all, either I wasn't doing what I thought I was, or you've mistook me somehow...

Well, I know you did. I was just telling him that I agreed that what the thread was doing originally (not in your post) wasn't as purely objective/unbiased as it was a dispute about what should be true in theory, what the theory actually means by certain things, and whether the tests map types to the proper location in the theoretical framework, etc. Basically, I was just letting him know that everyone knew the difference between objective methods and subjective ones.

 

[Xander]

Objectivity of one NT versus another NT would depend entirely upon how close the subject was to the focus points of the individuals own feelings.

Admittedly it has always seemed to me that the introverts held an advantage over the extroverts but I'm now of the thinking that this has more to do with the display of emotion and bias more so than any inherent lack or deficiency of objectivity.

As for J vs P, I think that's more to do with abstract objectivity or practical objectivity. What is absolutely true is not always what is best in reference to real world contexts and the NTJs I know tend to be aiming for practical solutions where as the NTPs tend to be looking for abstract truth (if the delineation makes any sense to you).

I'd say that in terms of capability of getting close to pure objectivity I'd reckon that INTPs are probably top of the list. Wouldn't have thought it'd be by much though.

 

[Night]

Um, hang on, that's exactly what I was trying to do!! I proposed a definition of objectivity and wanted to discuss it and get other perspectives on it to improve it, then see who/how people fitted it, but only Night responded to it, and nobody else was proposing any other ones or saying what was wrong (if anything) with mine, so I just carried on doing the best I could with what I had

The rest of what you said... I don't relate to that at all, either I wasn't doing what I thought I was, or you've mistook me somehow...

Agreed.

What we are parsing is a fundamental picture of how people appreciate their world. As I lack practical context for how an S differentiates, so to does an S lack experience for my divisions.

As an example, I can't speak for BlueWing, but it seems possible his reluctance to deviate from theory to speculate on what "works" might suggest a respect for the complexity of the academic model. His awareness of his personal strengths probably influence his reading of the text. What "works" is intimate to the user.

 

[ptgatsby]

Well, I know you did. I was just telling him that I agreed that what the thread was doing originally (not in your post) wasn't as objective/unbiased as it was a dispute about what should be true in theory, what the theory actually means by certain things, and such.

*shakes head*

The funny part is that we are trying to come up with a definition for objective. I'd either use the dictionary... or maybe the etymology of the word.

But that's just me.

 

[substitute]

So come on then... do any of the non-NT's (apart from Night) want to make some improvements on my definition of objectivity, so we can agree on one before holding each type and/or function up to it, comparing the theory with experience/practice and then proceed to the final judgement?

Or are we just gonna sit around and whinge all day? Cos I've got eggs to boil and sandwiches to make, y'know

EDIT - ah, pt I see we synchronized there. Okay then... but I will point out that, as a linguist, I have the privilege to confidently say that dictionaries are not objective.