[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

[Oberon]

I'm disappointed with my fellow ENTPs for not behaving true to type.

Who wants a beer?

 

[Nocapszy]

What have you done to refute that?

Oh jesus...

For starters,

How does commonality make it any stronger or better? If an ENTP breaks something down into the simplest parts and forms them into a logical framework, the INTP can do no better.

There IS such a thing as objective truth - a point at which no more information can be gathered, or deduced into a smaller system. I don't see how having a stronger preference for thinking makes the INTP any more capable of it. He might get there first, but that's equally as unlikely because the ENTP seeks information at a higher rate.

Objectivity is, in all fairness, the culmination of perception and logic.

Thank you. Good to see that someone else sees that taking in information doesn't taint objectivity and somehow make it personal. I don't think that makes us more objective necessarily. The fact that we take in more information only matters as long as we use our Ti to break it down and systemize it.


Disagree. Making inferences doesn't by any means count as a point towards bias. It only serves to give an idea as to what should be searched for. It helps for future perceiving.

Check the rest of my post history in the thread.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Oh jesus...

For starters,




Check the rest of my post history in the thread.

Back to square one. What do you understand for objectivity to be. We cant get anywhere until we settle this point.

 

[Athenian200]

You still dont understand. If I asked you what your intuitions are like, you'd have no way of knowing. Whatever you'd pass off as your answer would be the product of your Ti.

I can describe my intuitions, and my Thinking isn't likely to be strong enough to impact my description, so what you're reading is from my Ni function. If Fe were part of it, it would likely be more focused on the underlying emotion.

I begin by interpreting symbols as ideas/concepts, and then looking at what the interrelationships of the ideas to other ideas are. I then select the one that it seems to have the "strongest" connection to, and look where it leads. If I want to be more certain, I carefully examine the interrelationships for "flaws" that could sever them, and then after I've severed the ones with flaws, I follow the strongest one that remains.

You may well need to use Ti to become conscious of your perceptions, but I believe a dominant Percieiving type such as an ENTP wouldn't necessarily, because their minds are structured differently.

 

[Nocapszy]

You still dont understand. If I asked you what your intuitions are like, you'd have no way of knowing.

Yes I would.

Whatever you'd pass off as your answer would be the product of your Ti.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't make the intuition any less objective.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Yes I would.

Fair enough, but that still doesn't make the intuition any less objective.

Intuition is basically a non-substance. Converted into substance after conscious analysis. However objective you'd be will depend on how well you use your Ti. Since INTPs use Ti better, they'd edge ahead.

 

[Nocapszy]

Back to square one. What do you understand for objectivity to be. We cant get anywhere until we settle this point.

I understand objectivity to be what it is: Not holding personal opinion; being bound to the factual evidence, and gathering as much of it as is necessary to come to an argument which explains, logically why things are the way they are.

I could elaborate further, but I think if you've got any perceptive ability at all, you'll get it.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I can describe my intuitions, and my Thinking isn't likely to be strong enough to impact my description, so what you're reading is from my Ni function. If Fe were part of it, it would likely be more focused on the underlying emotion.

I begin by interpreting symbols as ideas/concepts, and then looking at what the interrelationships of the ideas to other ideas are. I then select the one that it seems to have the "strongest" connection to, and look where it leads. If I want to be more certain, I carefully examine the interrelationships for "flaws" that could sever them, and then after I've severed the ones with flaws, I follow the strongest one that remains.

You may well need to use Ti to become conscious of your perceptions, but I believe a dominant Percieiving type such as an ENTP wouldn't necessarily, because their minds are structured differently.

You can use Fe to make sense of intuitions because it is a conscious function.

The more you withdraw into Ni, the less of Fe you have, and therefore the more difficult it will be for you to explain your perceptions to others.

 

[Nocapszy]

Intuition is basically a non-substance. Converted into substance after conscious analysis. However objective you'd be will depend on how well you use your Ti. Since INTPs use Ti better, they'd edge ahead.

That's ridiculous. The Ti doesn't do anything without perception. If you Ti something to death, but have bad information, or not enough of it, you're not objective.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I understand objectivity to be what it is: Not holding personal opinion; being bound to the factual evidence, and gathering as much of it as is necessary to come to an argument which explains, logically why things are the way they are.

I could elaborate further, but I think if you've got any perceptive ability at all, you'll get it.

Still not clear enough. We cant depend on Intuition to establish our terms because they will be too ambiguous. And again, we will be using the same words to depict different, if not incompatible ideas.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

That's ridiculous. The Ti doesn't do anything without perception. If you Ti something to death, but have bad information, or not enough of it, you're not objective.

Ne is a perception. Unconscious by definition. That was my thesis. It goes all the way back to Jung, who acquired the notion from Schopenhauer. Who argued that the most congenial state of mind is that of unconscious perception without judgment.

 

[Nocapszy]

Still not clear enough. We cant depend on Intuition to establish our terms because they will be too ambiguous. And again, we will be using the same words to depict different, if not incompatible ideas.

I didn't say that perception was the objective trait. I said it's just as crucial as judgement. This is ridiculous. You don't even bother to figure out my assertions before you toss them aside.

 

[Athenian200]

Still not clear enough. We cant depend on Intuition to establish our terms because they will be too ambiguous. And again, we will be using the same words to depict different, if not incompatible ideas.

Very well then. Give a definition, and we will work from it to determine which term applies to what type.

 

[Nocapszy]

Ne is a perception. Unconscious by definition. That was my thesis. It goes all the way back to Jung, who acquired the notion from Schopenhauer. Who argued that the most congenial state of mind is that of unconscious perception without judgment.

Are you listening at all? Unconscious or not, it's part of the process wherein objectivity is 'acquired'

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Are you listening at all? Unconscious or not, it's part of the process wherein objectivity is 'acquired'

I did not say it was not part of the process.

 

[Nocapszy]

I did not say it was not part of the process.

Yes you did.

 

[Athenian200]

What does all this have to do with the question of which type is most objective? I think that before we can answer that question, we have to:

1. Define objective.

2. Agree on an acceptable test of objectivity.

3. Apply the test to several members of each type in question and compare results.

What's "part of the process" or not in someone's opinion is pure conjecture, and has nothing to do with the question we're trying to address.

But personally, I do disagree with the idea of perception as a whole being unconscious, as a tangential thought path can be followed without thinking it through. That's why Ne is often used in a humorous and random fashion. I agree that it's judgment that makes the perceptions more useful and finds meaning in them, but that doesn't mean perception can't work independently (especially N, which can use a hunch as a judgment). I have nothing to back it with, though.

Also, BlueWing didn't technically say it wasn't part of the process, but saying it was unconscious and a non-substance implied that he didn't think it was as important as judgment. But in pointing that out, he didn't address whether he believed perception played a lesser role in objectivity than did the judgment functions. He already stated that he did, and Nocapsky disagreed about it's importance. So their disagreement is about which function plays the more integral role, and it's, of course, purely hypothetical. None of us have any way to show our views on the matter to be better than anyone else's. So one guess is as good as another.

 

[substitute]

As I see it, the ENTP is more actively searching for the truth in the name of objectivity where the INTP is more inclined for deciphering what little chunks of information that intuition brings in the name of objective reality.

The ENTP is by no means by definition less likely to be working its way towards logical discovery of truth, which is after all, the hallmark of being objective, is it not?

Indeed.

Is that a jest or a jab? Somehow I can't tell...

Heh, use your intuition

I was also gonna say that I don't see how the Sensor gets off by making out that data that comes in via intuition is a mere 'creation' of the intuitive's own mind and therefore not objective - or even real, as seemed to have been suggested - whilst Sensing perceptions are 'obviously' infinitely more real and therefore reliable and objective.

I mean, surely if a Sensor sees a leaf on the ground, then when he says "I see a leaf" he's only able to say that and identify the object because of his prior experience of leaves, he's seen a lot of them and knows what one looks like. He only identifies anything that his senses perceive because of what he's previously perceived. As a child grows up and accumulates more experiences, so the perceptions become more reliable. But the leaf could just as easily be made of plastic and you'd have to touch it before you realised this.

I don't see how that's any different to someone who's lived their life primarily perceiving and interacting with the intangible, who 'sees' say, boredom, efficiency, decline or any other thing that's deduced by correlating patterns and abstract concepts - I know what they are and I can confidently identify them because I've seen them a lot of times before, they're as familiar to me as the leaf to the Sensor. As I've grown up I've accumulated experiences and so my 'predictions' etc have become more reliable, like a computer that gathers data on which to make predictions which become ever more reliable as the database grows and cross-references with itself and what is currently happening in the external world. It's no different to Sensing - it just deals with and emphasizes different things.

Just because Ne deals primarily with things that Se doesn't perceive, it's no grounds for claiming that what it deals with is not real. And just because everyone has senses and therefore will back up the Sensor with what they perceive through them, and just because not everyone has well enough developed intuition to be able to back up the iNtuitive, again it's no fair argument for Sensing perception being 'more real' or 'more valid'.

Don't forget though, that I also have a sense of sight, a sense of hearing, smell, taste, touch - and none of them are impaired in any physical way (except when I sometimes wear glasses for reading, heh ), only by my own semi-voluntary preference for intuition. So in this case, perhaps it could be argued that the iNtuitive simply has access to more information, having senses anyway that can be used at will but also well-developed intuition to perceive the abstract?

Again, I'm not equating accurate observation/perception with objectivity, but only pointing out that, since it obviously plays a large part in it, it's important not to buy into false prejudices about what kind of perception is more or less reliable.

Also, don't forget that ISTP, just like INTP, has inferior Fe, which could compromise their objectivity as was mentioned earlier in the thread, thereby off-setting any 'advantage' that might be gained by Se, assuming there even is one. Not saying that Fe cannot be objective (I actually argued the opposite earlier), but that inferior versions of any function can and frequently do.

I'd like once more to push home that I don't believe ENTP to be the 'most objective type' going by the criteria in the OP, or what Magic clarified later, or even my own definitions. I wouldn't want to be that objective, I don't think it's constructive in any situations outside of a chemistry lab. And I'm also not saying that IxTP are not objective. I'm just trying to consider what handicaps each type might have, and what strengths. I've already pretty much decided that, if anything, and only going by the above criteria, ExTJ with balanced perceiving functions would be the 'most objective'.

 

[substitute]

1. Define objective.

Check, done that. Magic's thread so his definition outranks all others

2. Agree on an acceptable test of objectivity.

I think that's what we're doing with establishing what part accurate perception plays in it. Already agreed on impersonal-ness as the judgement part, in which case Te seems to take the prize.

3. Apply the test to several members of each type in question and compare results.

Been sorta doing that, testing for accuracy of perception and impersonal-ness of judgement. In a roundabout way. It just needs a bit of consolidating.

Do you wanna do another of your famous lists then, and go through each type's advantages and disadvantages with objectivity as defined by Magic? Cos I really am off to bed now, it's 2.25am here

I was trying to point out that there are different 'stages' of a decision making process, one of which is gathering data on which to decide, and that true objectivity can only be achieved if every stage along the way is executed 'objectively' - including the perception part.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Also, don't forget that ISTP, just like INTP, has inferior Fe, which could compromise their objectivity as was mentioned earlier in the thread, thereby off-setting any 'advantage' that might be gained by Se, assuming there even is one. Not saying that Fe cannot be objective (I actually argued the opposite earlier), but that inferior versions of any function can and frequently do..

Let me humor you here and say that indeed the outburts of inferior function due to our poor control is truly salient. Hold this one against the inferior Fe of INTP. Lets talk about the inferior Si of the ENTP. In an outburst of an Si, the ENTP will through inaccurate concrete data all over the place effusively. This is more of a problem than inferior Fe, because if you dont have the data, you simply dont know what you're talking about. You wont even be able to establish your argument. Whilst, having accepted your claim, I can say that the INTPs judgments will be undermined by an out of control Fe, yet the ENTPs basic notion of what he is discussing will be undermined by an inferior Si. Lack thereof, rather. This is a more significant defect. Moreover, to argue that outbursts of Fe undermine INTPs logic (Ti) is analogous to saying that outbursts of Si undermine ENTPs abstract perceptions. You wouldnt want to make such a claim would you? Though is indeed warranted as a parallel to your inferior Fe of ITPs statement. Thus, if we are to say that the INTP is not more objective than the ENTP because of the inferior Fe factor, we ought to also say that ENTP is not any more innovative than the INTP because of the inferior Si factor. Thats close to absurd, as the most common-sensical view is that the type with stronger N is more innovative and type with stronger T is more logical. Introversion does not detract from the INTP's objectivity, however, it merely makes him more focused on the few subjects Ti deems important.

I argue that objectivity is to be equated with logic, and to be objective means to be able to extricate yourself from your prejudices and rely on hard logic as much as possible. What do I mean when I say that the INTP is the most objective type? Suppose we give the INTP and the ENTP a problem to solve: the INTP will have an easier time seperating himself from external biases than the ENTP. The ENTP we will notice will be more influenced by the external popular notions, Feelings and and a myriad of other factors that encircle him, whilst the INTP will rely on logic more. Extroversion is not a step towards becoming unprejudiced, quite the contrary. As an extroverted mindset is more volatile or fickle than the introverted. More easily influenced by external essences, whilst the introverted does the opposite-clings to the inner sources of ideas. Yet, the latter can also produce prejudices, however much less significant than that of the former. As the latter relies more on one's individual habits, which should be fewer in number than a myriad of external notions that belie the ENTP. As an example to support such a claim, consider a neurotic ESFJ in juxtaposition with a neurotic ISFP. Which would you think is more prejudiced? I'd argue the ESFJ because the extroverted mindset, if very unhealthy, will absorb nearly 'everything', yet the introverted, tends to be rather judicious by comparison. At worst it will incur the prejudices of its own methodology and the few notions that ensue from therefore.


We also notice that an ENTP is more influenced by the unconscious due to his heavier reliance on Intuition than of the INTP. Extroverted Intuition is most closely associated with external perceptions of the environment, those collected by the ENTP and those immanent within the psyche of others. The INTP on the other hand, will be very judicious about what Intuitions to emend, to embrace or to reject. Yet the ENTP will be forced to absorb almost all indiscriminately until the secondary Ti enters the act. This is a factor that detracts from the objectivity of an ENTP, as to be influenced by perceptions indiscrimantely means to succumb to biases. One can argue than an INTJ is just about as biased as the ENTP due to internal perceptions of Intuitions as well as lack of proper judgment, such a comparison would be fit as the two types are both Intuition dominanted. However, INTJ is more likely to be objective due to the introversion factor (see ISFP/ESFJ comparison). Moreover, whilst the ENTP/INTJ comparison is warranted, the ENTP/INTP is not. Whilst the INTJ may have similarly of a difficult time extricating himself from his inner bias to the extent that the ENTP from the outer( yet the INTJ still edges out slightly due to almost exclusively introversion), the INTP has even more of an easier time extricating himself from the biases due to the presence of Introverted Thinking in his psyche. Whilst the INTJ may become 'addicted' to his inner biases due to inner perceptions which are unconscious, the INTP is much less likely to because he applies conscious analysis to his inner world. Unlike for the INTJ, it is not based on his unconscious preferrences, but actually on what is most logical. What is most logical has nothing to do with the biases of an INTP, as they would be evinced by virtue of the INTP's affinity with logic. You can argue that the INTP is biased in a sense that he favors logic, yet this particular bias will duly extricate the kind of biases ENTP, INTJ and Fs are afflicted with. (Prejudices in a vernacular sense of the word.) Though, however, despite the INTJ being a more objective perceiver, the ENTP is all around more objective because of the stronger Thinking preferrence. (Ti>Te)






.

I've already pretty much decided that, if anything, and only going by the above criteria, ExTJ with balanced perceiving functions would be the 'most objective'.

Here you should also note that the ETJ has the same problem with Fi as ITP with Fe. Though in argument in defense of your clause would be the ETJ has more control over Fi because he is less radically T-inclined. (Feeling is introverted, and Te is less T than Ti).

But the reason I think the ETJ is less objective than the ITP is simply because his T is weaker and F stronger. As earlier stated, objectivity ought to be equated with Thinking.

Yes you can say that an outburst of inferior F or inferior S can cause us problems, but I do not think this is much relevant to the point. Such outbursts tend to be very rare, as moreover, the significance of our inferior function is elsewhere. You've exaggerated the importance of this matter. However, significant the role of the inferior function may be, you seem to have exaggerated the importance of this matter as the inferior function tends to remain in the closet. In the case of an INTP it is a plus that the Feeling is in the closet because that way it does not interefere with Thinking. Yet in case of the ENTP, it is a downfall that Feeling is significant enough (third) to interfere with thinking as well as it also is that Sensing is defective (inferior) therefore does not allow for the ENTP to properly collect essential concrete information.

Now lets get to your counter-clause. ENTPs collect better perceptions. Yes, they collect information more objectively. However, I'd say this is less of an advantage than being able to make decisions in a dispassionate fashion. I am not saying that being a good 'T' is all that makes you objective, there certainly are other factors and this is one of them. However, the 'T' factor should be deemed more salient. You will collect information in an unbiased fashion (unlike an INTP who will unconsciously gravitate towards only the kind of information Ti judgment deems appropriate), yet you will not be able to make decisions with your Intuitions. Moreover, the ENTPs advantage of 'perception' over the INTP is very slight. It is still debatable whether it is true that ENTP is a better information collector. As we see the INTP has an advantage in the regard that his Si is less defective. Therefore ENTP will have difficulty making sense of his abstractions not only because his Ti trails behind Ne, but also because of his inferior Si problem--he will not be able to understand where exactly the intuitions came from, how to relate them to the real world, and even more importantly what they are. Once more, due to the poverty of his concrete data.

Thus, in summary the INTP has a clear advantage in decision making because the Thinking function is primary as opposed to secondary, yet the ENTP has only a slight advantage in collection of information.