[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

[ptgatsby]

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.

But making up a definition is (better)? When in the middle of deciding what type would fit that decision? By consensus?

Objective:

- Based on observed phenonom
- Without personal bias
- End goal

Found three so that everyone can be happy (S, Ti and Te). Done!

 

[white]

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.

*creeps out from cave into cross-fire*

I rather like Athenian's point of creating a definition of objectivity then measuring via testing the xNTPs (or all others too).

But I wonder how that could be done, and would for e.g. if 80% of a general population says something is right, is objectivity then to mean the tested has to say it is right too? How truly objective can one be (as someone else earlier had it), even the one coming up with the test?

We'd all be evaluating a circumstance based on our own past experiences, our beliefs and values - that which we hold dear. Whether this be the internal white logic of an INTP, or the focus/value of decisions one can derive from objectivity for an INTJ. I think all of these does shape our relative objectivity. We all have different stressors too.

I'd hazard in different situations, different personalities could have the upper hand in objectivity... I'm not certain, but to me, to say that one type is always the most objective (whether it is the ENTP or INTP or whichever), essentially means we're measuring objectivity by that particular personality's scale only?

and uh... given how heated this debate is getting, if I raise any feathers unintentionally / am completely out of point, I do apologize.

*creeps back into cave*

 

[nightning]

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

There's 3 pages of comments to read through... and I set my post per page pretty high... I can see why non NTs don't want to step into this mess.

Refering back to your definition... I don't know what the best working definition might be... but according to what you put up... I feel like throwing in a loose cannon ball.

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.

If that's how you're defining objectivity... then perceptional objectivity has nothing to do with T... It's the ability to step out and view the situation without expectations... or pulling it inside out. The ability to view all aspects of the situation and weight them equally. That in my mind belongs to Ni. Ne is slightly limited by what's apparent in a given situation. Now what about Si or Se? Si is based upon memories... our inner sense of conventions... that can be biased. Se is even worse... what you see is what you get.

Judgmental objectivity... I don't think you can argue against Ti being the lead function here. It's judgment towards understanding... Te will always be influenced by the intended goal...

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
...
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?

Another loose cannon... Would objectiveness be best served by disregarding all feelings/emotions/reputation etc or by taking all of that into account?

 

[hotmale]

In my experience, the INTPs have been more objective than the ENTPs.
Is that just a fluke?

I guess the first function could make no difference at all, resulting in a tie.

Neither are objective. Everyone knows ESTJs are the most objective of any personality.

Now that we've cleared that up, I want to say that INTPs/ENTPs are as different as night and day. A more apt comparison would be INFJ vs. INTJ or
ENTP vs. ESTP. My 2 cents.

 

[substitute]

and uh... given how heated this debate is getting

It is?

Oh.

It seems that my concerted effort at drawing a distinction between "objectivity" as implied in the OP, which is purely an NT and even individual NT ideal, as defined by a majority of NT's (the 'internal affair' I mentioned), and actual true objectivity, and whether it exists, is possible and if so, my theory that no type has a monopoly or advantage with it.

Night and I were going (in absence of any objection or other input at the time) with first off defining the 'internal affair', then comparing it to other types' ideals of objectivity in order to test its validity/worth, then with a er... objective analysis of all of the above, followed by well, other stuff. Night suggested going on an inter-type approach, but we decided to start small and broaden out ('build a vehicle before test driving it'), and nobody objected.

It's like I said about a group of theologians debating the religious doctrines and their internal logic, having their discussion gate crashed all of a sudden by an atheist saying 'Ah, but your definition of transubstantiation is incorrect because you failed to account in it for the fact that I don't believe in God!'

If that's how you're defining objectivity... then perceptional objectivity has nothing to do with T...

That's what I was trying to ascertain. It's not how I define objectivity, it was just a working theory for the time being, at that point. You could imagine me beginning with with "Suppose..."

Judgmental objectivity... I don't think you can argue against Ti being the lead function here. It's judgment towards understanding... Te will always be influenced by the intended goal...

Yes, that's what BlueWing was saying, but I took issue with that because I believe that Ti can be just as swayed by interior goals and opinions.

Another loose cannon... Would objectiveness be best served by disregarding all feelings/emotions/reputation etc or by taking all of that into account?

No, I don't think it would. That's what I was beginning to say to BlueWing when he was asserting that ENTP is less objective due to having 'stronger Fe and weaker Ti'.

Night had it in his last post when he used the word 'parsing'. That's just what we were doing, but it's a gradual process - a process. You can't jump into the middle of a process and start judging it when you haven't grasped either where it's trying to go, where it's currently at, or even the fact that it is a process. I don't mean 'you' here athenian, more like 'one can't...', just to clarify

But making up a definition is (better)?

No, not making up out of the blue! As you can see the dictionary is quite economical in explaining exactly how objectivity is manifested or seen, how it works etc - simply looking at the dictionary definition doesn't really help that much in determining how we're supposed to recognize it, or whether there are different styles of it. That's why I was trying to get a slightly longer, more detailed definition going on.

Objective:

- Based on observed phenonom
- Without personal bias
- End goal

You see - well, I dunno if you cut and pasted that definition cos if you did then I'd be hesitant to trust a dictionary that can't spell phenomenon/phenomena!

But what I mean is that it just says 'observed'. It doesn't go into a discussion about the different methods of observation, and whether it's the same thing as perception; it doesn't say whether observing something intuitively is equally as valid as observing it by the senses.

EDIT - anyway, bugger this for a game of soldiers, it's 7pm here and time for dinner!!

 

[ptgatsby]

You see - well, I dunno if you cut and pasted that definition cos if you did then I'd be hesitant to trust a dictionary that can't spell phenomenon/phenomena!

Paraphrasing, so my fault.

But what I mean is that it just says 'observed'. It doesn't go into a discussion about the different methods of observation, and whether it's the same thing as perception; it doesn't say whether observing something intuitively is equally as valid as observing it by the senses.

Eh, using your example of a ref taking statistical data into account to accuse someone of doing something that was observed is my definition of unobjective.

Objective isn't about accuracy or making "the best decision with the information present". It's about objective information leading to an objective decision. Both the information and the method of judgment need to be objective. This denies theory, it denies unconcerned information (ie: statistics, as in your example) and it denies personal bias (judgment based upon unrelated information).

Two reference points do not change the nature of someone's objectivity - for example, two refs in two different locations. They can both be objective and disagree. One ref judging someone based on his personal information is, however biased (dislike of player). One ref not observing but assuming judgment based on past offenses is also biased (historical example).

 

[nightning]

No, I don't think it would. That's what I was beginning to say to BlueWing when he was asserting that ENTP is less objective due to having 'stronger Fe and weaker Ti'.

I was trying to bring up an issue with Fe... Please excuse fluzzy explanation... hard to get at that point in my head. Nobody is of one function... so the only way to remove subjectivity is by understanding them and so you can either remove all or incorporate them all. More ore less, how do we know we are objective unless we know/can account for all the aspects of subjective thinking?

Objective:

- Based on observed phenonom
- Without personal bias
- End goal

The process of defining the end goal can be biased... define your goal in a specific way, the results will naturally be tailored in a specific direction. Are ENTPs or INTPs or other types more likely to be open when it comes to that?

 

[substitute]

Ah, a double meaning which could be quite enlightening if explored: obective in the sense of a goal, and in the sense we're debating here. What if objective (noun) were merged with objective (adjective), so that the two meanings collide? Does it shed light on what either one really means to us either individually or as a society?

I say this because, following from what pt said about etymology - for example the English word 'reality' comes from the Latin res meaning 'thing', telling quite pointedly that in English speaking societies reality has become inextricably associated with 'things' - that which is observable to the senses. It's only when we look at other languages which have different roots for their word for reality, that we see this is not the only way of thinking/seeing the world. Arabic for example, has 'al-haqq', which also means 'ultimate truth' (i.e. the true meaning of what we see), suggesting that the Arabic culture has grown up generally around a shared assumption that 'reality' equals those things that only intuition can perceive, as opposed to English which favours the Sensing approach.

This ties in with what I was saying about the differences in perception, and pt's "empirical" take on the meaning of objectivity.

But also considering the word 'objective' and its double meaning, could this point to a bias either in English speaking cultures or on the part of dictionary compilers and grammarians, towards the idea that an object (ie goal) oriented approach, which aims to achieve the goal without being 'distracted' by other things or other objects, is at the root of our concept of 'objective'?

Because if that were the case, then having a prior agenda wouldn't necessarily preclude objectivity.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I've accidentally created a monster.

 

[substitute]

I've accidentally created a monster.

Ha! About time you showed up!!

If you'd interjected earlier to give us more of an idea of how you wanted this to go, and guide the process in line with your vision for the thread, maybe it wouldn't have turned into a 'monster' while we desperately tried to figure out your plan whilst trying to fulfill it! :steam:

Tsk, tsk, these people who create threads and don't take responsibility. A thread is for life, not just for Christmas, you know.

Nah c'mon, it's been fun. Still got plenty of mileage in it left yet

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I've always assumed ENTJ's were the most objective. If you presume INTP's really had a dominant T despite testing as P's, then they would probably be as objective (or at least as logical) or more so. ENTP's are probably more adaptable, but less purely logical. But what they lose in pure logic, they make up for in perceptiveness and adaptability. 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.

Anyway, this J/P "switch" for introverts you discuss is contested in Socionics vs MBTI discussions. In Socionics, Ti/Ne is INTj (LII), and Ni/Te is INTp (ILI). It's based on Jungian theory, but its so different from MBTI that the tests somehow give people different types than they should have in MBTI. In fact, according to one source, the types only correlate in 30% of cases. Anyway, it's closer to the essence of the Jungian idea of Rationality/Irrationality than MBTI's interpretation.

If you're interested:

Socionics in the West

The 'Socionics, Mentology and Personality Psychology' journal. Issue 1/2007

http://www.the16types.info/

SOCIONICS: Personality Types and Relationships

ENTJs only seem more objective because their T is on the outside for everyone to see. Though actually the INTPs have a stronger T due to the introversion factor. Ti is stronge than Ti for reasons stated earlier.

 

[Totenkindly]

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

The ones that run around in schools, silly!

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I had to sleep at some point!

 

[SolitaryWalker]

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.

This does nothing to subvert my clause.

As I have already argued that ENTJs can use Thinking just as well as INTPs, only externally. Same with ENTPs and INTJs. Yet there I argued that Nietzsche for instance, is more imaginative than the ENTP Voltaire because of the boost of introversion. Same can apply for INTP and ENTJ. I'd write thousands of words explaining how this is the case in clear-cut step by step rationale, yet I doubt this would get us to the same page.

In order for you to show that my argument does not hold true, you must show that the essence of mind derives not from within, but from without. I have difficulty imagining how this would be.

Moreover, we seem to be talking about different notions of objectivity. Using the same word to depict different ideas. I've equated objectivity with Thinking. You seem to be thinking of objectivity as the ability to interact with the object proficiently, or external world. In that respect, I'd agree with your claim and LL
s statement that even the ESFJ is more objective than the INTP. There we equate objectivity with Extroversion. But this was not at all, what I was talking about.


Yes, Thinkers are able to cut themselves off from subjective influences, but this is not always a good thing. As we know that sometimes it would be good to take the human element in consideration in order to make sound decisions.


Dont get so hung up on the word objectivity. When I say that INTPs are most objective, I mean that they are the soundest thinkers because the Thinking preferrence is strongest.

Now, lets consider another definition of objectivity. Most objective is one who is most in tune with the object. The object is the external world. Werent INTPs the ones who knew how the world worked best? Galileo, Aristotle, Einstein..and so on..those INTPs may not have understood how the practical world works, but thats because they did not bother to analyze it. INTPs, just like INFPs are very selective about what they think about. (You can compare this to how INFPs are selective about people they attach themselves to). Thus, INTPs did not understand many of the things the (less T types like ENTs) did, not because they were unable to, but because they did not make the effort to. As they were too busy focusing on the few ideas they explored in depth. Much like Einstein devoted so much of his time to analyzing physics, that he knew hardly anything about politics or human relationships. But he certainly would have been able to understand those subjects thoroughly, should they have caught his interest. As we see, this is because his 'objectivity', affinity with the Thinking faculty makes him most in tune with the object. Or the external world. Basically to be able to be objective, and to be able to understand the world mean the same thing.

I think we all should abandon our notions of what objectivity is and embrace this one: proficiency with impersonal decision making.

 

[substitute]

The ones that run around in schools, silly!

I had to sleep at some point!

That would be an acceptable excuse for any other type, but we know you INTP androids do not require sleep

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Looks, we here need to settle on the definition of the term we accept as 'objective'.

The kind of objectivity that I am talking about is one that is most germane to decision making. We equate it with impersonal reasoning. The opposite of this would be making decisions based on personal values. Appears to be this is the notion of objectivity invoked in the OP.

If we accept this definition, we equate objectivity with Thinking. In order to prove that the INTP is most objective type, we'd have to show that the INTP is most in tune with the Thinking faculty. We know that the essence of the mind derives from within. Therefore a function that is closer to the essence of the mind resembles the archetypal quiddity it derives from the most. In this case it is the quiddity of Thinking. The INTP has a slightly stronger T than 'his' Introverted Thinking counterpart because Intuition gives a boost. As Intuition draws us in closer to the essence of the mind.


Now, this is just one definition of objectivity. I am saying INTP is most objective only in this regard. I do not also imply that the INTP is most objective in all other ways others have defined objectivity.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I was thinking of objectivity as in an analysis of reality without any personal bias. That's obviously impossible for a human being, but I wondered which type got the closest...

And I don't want to hear anyone say something about reality being an illusion!!! :steam:

 

[substitute]

I was thinking of objectivity as in an analysis of reality without any personal bias. That's obviously impossible for a human being, but I wondered which type got the closest...

Okay, right, well it's your thread so this now overrides any other definition of objectivity. So if people are tearing us to shreds because of how we're comparing other types to your definition, just remember that, nnkay?

And I don't want to hear anyone say something about reality being an illusion!!! :steam:

Quite. But I still think the sorta-discussion about different perceiving methods (intuitive and sensing), for perceiving 'reality', is pertinent. See, pt seems to be quite staunchly on the side of only those things perceptible to the senses constituting 'reality', whilst I personally think that some things only perceptible by intuition are just as 'real', and not 'just made up' in the heads of the iNtuitives.

Basing a decision either wholly or partially on data gathered through intuition doesn't make it necessarily any less objective than if based on data gathered through empirical/sensory methods. IMO.

 

[Randomnity]

Ok, I have 7 minutes before I leave for a while, so my quick responses to the more recent posts:

But making up a definition is (better)? When in the middle of deciding what type would fit that decision? By consensus?

Objective:

- Based on observed phenonom
- Without personal bias
- End goal

Found three so that everyone can be happy (S, Ti and Te). Done!

This definition works for me, though for me I see it as pretty much exclusively the middle one.

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?

Agree

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.

This is exactly what objectivity means to me, and why I thought that ISTPs in particular would be equally good at it as NTPs.

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.

I was not at all being politically correct. I DID point out why I thought STs should be included. And furthermore I was more pointing out and wondering at assumptions rather than making an actual argument. And if you go back and read the OP, it says something like "I think NTPs are clearly more objective, etc etc" and that is what I was responding to. The thread title may be about NTs but I was challenging the assumption inherent in the OP, which I don't think is unreasonable.

Ironically, bolded is exactly why I think Ss should be more objective than Ns.

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.

A valid point, but I don't think this makes Ss more or less objective than Ns.

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.

Again, valid, but Ns have similar things clouding objectivity as well.

 

[ptgatsby]

See, pt seems to be quite staunchly on the side of only those things perceptible to the senses constituting 'reality', whilst I personally think that some things only perceptible by intuition are just as 'real', and not 'just made up' in the heads of the iNtuitives.

Do you have an example? I don't mind changing my mind, but I can't think of a single example in which theory/abstract and so forth is not a creation of uncertainty to explain something - removed from reality and manipulated in the mind.