• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
If I'm not mistaken, he has a profile on INTPc as well.

His appreciation for MBTI details seems aromatic of a well-rounded S. I would imagine he's probably a bumpy mix of Is/nTP traits.

Seems to me that an S is more likely to be more interested in concrete applications of ideas rather than their theoretical essence. Moreover, would make a good use of his memory and rely on authority of influential writers on MBTI.

The detailed aspect you refer to is a property of Ti--analyzing systems as scrupulously as possible. In philosophy we notice the detailed thought you mentioned was quite common among INTP thinkers. Hegel, Heidegger, and Spinoza were intensely focused on nuance of concepts. This is clearly not the same thing as the kind of an S-detail you seem to have in mind. The salient difference is that the former is radically abstract, focuses primarily on analysis of concepts, the latter is very concrete. Most concerned with retraing ideas from memory and depicting what can be observed with one of the five senses. Sensing is most concerned with what is in the physical world, what is and not what could be. Therefore little energy tends to be devoted to analysis of concepts that often have little to do with the concrete world as is often practiced by INTPs.

The merit of your comparison is at best superficial, as we see they appear 'detailed' for incompatible reasons.

*The reason INTPs tend to be interested in detailed analysis of concepts is because unlike ETJs, they do not rely on external symbols and craft their own. Thus, they can break down concepts into very small entities if necessary. They do this to the end of ensuring clarity of thought is preserved by 'leaving no stone unturned', by making an effort to get a conscious grasp of even the least significant notion.
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
After reading/skimming thru this thread the answer is...





I dunno.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
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.

Well, I think I'd say it because you are basing all of this on the concept that sensing is a perception based function based on Jungian theory. So, I would say, yah... it kinda does exist only in your mind. Ss are, by testing (objective) definition less likely to use theoretical approaches such as this.

That what makes this thread hillarious. It's still going on about some poorly validated theory (not MBTI, which has objective evidence that could be used to support it and is not even being used) to decide who is objective.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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:

This is the definition of "objective" we should be using, because this is the one the owner of the thread wanted. We should debate it using this definition, and worry later over whether it's the proper definition. At least it will give us a standard to measure our claims against.

This all needs to be based on the workings of the theoretical model, not tested members of the actual types, because the theory isn't testable to that degree.

In one case, I believe it might well be ESTP. They perceive current reality as directly as possible (through Se), and become aware of as many nuances as possible within it. Ti waits behind it for a ready analysis of what was perceived.

In another sense, an analysis of the nature of reality (not just how it appears) with little personal bias, that would be ENTJ. The reason I say ENTJ over ESTJ is because of the nature of their perceiving functions. Si is more likely to see reality as it "should" be rather than as it is. Ni just looks for patterns/meaning in the way reality is laid out, which is (slightly) less of a hindrance in my opinion. Also, they have tertiary Se to help them out.

INTP and ISTP wouldn't meet the criteria because they're too invested in their ideas. They want to derive structure in everything, and focus a bit more on the nature of their own thoughts than the object in question. In fact, IxTP's are known for coercing evidence into agreement with the idea. I like their ideas, but I wouldn't call them objective, at least not where dealing with tangible reality is concerned.

I think the second sense is the one that was intended, so I'll go with that. Let me try listing them in order from most to least objective:

ENTJ
ESTJ
ESTP
ENTP

Finally, I think ptgatsby's argument that MBTI theory is not a good indicator of objectivity was valid. If we really want to know, we need to administer a test of objectivity. And when I say "test," I don't mean discussion/debate, I mean an actual, thought-out test that checks your tendencies to look at things in biased way, your ability to distinguish objective information from subjective information.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Pt, I'm sympathetic to your desire of having our theories proven to your standards and referenced. I'm not a scientist, tho I wish I were.

I also believe that it would be absolutely great for you to experience strong N first-hand. No, I'm not a recruiter for the army of N :)

You had a self-image of N some time ago, did you not? I'm sure that strong N is still very much different to what you experienced then.

Experiencing N is like the matrix: No one can be told what it is. You have to see for yourself.
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
Just joining the game? Your friendly non-NT commentator breaks it down for you!

This thread tickles my toes. While I cannot follow it (hell no I'm not reading through 19 pages of this), can I just say it is like the the WWC Smackdown of MBTIc: The Iron Cage of NT. Or Rationality Rummmmmbbbbbbblllllle! (If you grew up watching WWF wrestling, you would laugh, trust me)

As soon as I read the title, I thought "oh no he did-int!"

The gauntlet has been thrown and challengers enter the ring!

Two men enter! One man leaves!

In this corner, Philsopher of Pain: BlueWing! No man has ever beat him in a game of endurance! In that corner, Existential Bard of Bruises: Substitute! He breaks theories like he breaks hearts!

::the crowd roars::

..

Except in this case it's 4 or 5 or 3 men and possibly women, and it's kinda tag team with 2 or 3 sides? I can't tell...

Anyhow, me likey!

:popc1:

And my money is PTGatsby!

Go PT!!

:static:
 
Last edited:

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Dang I wanted to say more in this thread before it got out of control (too late). So far I think athenian200 is the only one not arguing for his/her type, so based on the sample set of this thread INFJ is the most objective type. ;)

Anyway this is how I determine what the most objective type is based on this definition. (My bolding.)

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:

Ok we are looking for an analysis of reality without personal bias. The first thing I have to say is that the introverted functions (Ti,Ni,Fi,Si) all put the focus upon the individual while extraverted functions put the focus upon the outside world, i.e. reality. This makes the extraverted functions more objective than their introverted counterparts (Te more objective than Ti, Se more objective than Si, etc...).

Now lets compare T vs. F and S vs. N. Even though Fe is more objective than Fi, it is clearly a reflection of a person's internal values. Therefore thinking is more objective than feeling. (Also Magic Poriferan's definition talks about analysis which should clarify further than thinking is more objective.) Now if we compare S to N, sensors see things as they simply are while intuitives interpret what they see. I think it should be clear that Se is more objective than Ne since Se plainly sees reality as it is.

So according to Magic Poriferan's definition we are looking for a type that views reality without bias (Se) and can analyze it (Ti). Since the unbiased nature is the most important aspect, the most objective type is ESTP, but I'll add that ISTP is a close second.

As an aside a good case can also be made for ESTJ being the most objective type. In this case though their objectivity comes from their unbiased decision making process (Te). I don't believe this is what Magic Poriferan was referring to in the definition though, so I stick by ESTP as the most objective type.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Dang I wanted to say more in this thread before it got out of control (too late). So far I think athenian200 is the only one not arguing for his/her type, so based on the sample set of this thread INFJ is the most objective type. ;)

:blush: Um... thanks? Well, Thinking types would tend to be more concerned about whether or not they are objective than Feeling types, because we've accepted that we prefer/tend to judge things subjectively. But in most situations, a Thinking type should be less swayed by personal motivations.

Ok we are looking for an analysis of reality without personal bias. The first thing I have to say is that the introverted functions (Ti,Ni,Fi,Si) all put the focus upon the individual while extraverted functions put the focus upon the outside world, i.e. reality. This makes the extraverted functions more objective than their introverted counterparts (Te more objective than Ti, Se more objective than Si, etc...).

Yes, in most cases. Although the Extraverted functions can in some cases be influenced too much by present circumstances/context, they would usually be less biased by the structure of the individual's psyche.

Now lets compare T vs. F and S vs. N. Even though Fe is more objective than Fi, it is clearly a reflection of a person's internal values. Therefore thinking is more objective than feeling. (Also Magic Poriferan's definition talks about analysis which should clarify further than thinking is more objective.) Now if we compare S to N, sensors see things as they simply are while intuitives interpret what they see. I think it should be clear that Se is more objective than Ne since Se plainly sees reality as it is.

So according to Magic Poriferan's definition we are looking for a type that views reality without bias (Se) and can analyze it (Ti). Since the unbiased nature is the most important aspect, the most objective type is ESTP, but I'll add that ISTP is a close second.

As an aside a good case can also be made for ESTJ being the most objective type. In this case though their objectivity comes from their unbiased decision making process (Te). I don't believe this is what Magic Poriferan was referring to in the definition though, so I stick by ESTP as the most objective type.

I agree with most of this (ESTP is most objective in the first sense), but I would also consider ENTJ to be an equal candidate with ESTJ for the other kind of objectivity, because they have tertiary Se along with dominant Te. Si can tend to focus more on a collection of past experiences than current realities. (Although it may also be able to use those experiences as a more precise/accurate yardstick.) What do you think? It might depend on the situation...

Perhaps we should come up with a set of scenarios, and debate which response to each would be the most objective to get a better idea of what we're talking about?
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Dang I wanted to say more in this thread before it got out of control (too late). So far I think athenian200 is the only one not arguing for his/her type, so based on the sample set of this thread INFJ is the most objective type. ;)

Anyway this is how I determine what the most objective type is based on this definition. (My bolding.)



Ok we are looking for an analysis of reality without personal bias. The first thing I have to say is that the introverted functions (Ti,Ni,Fi,Si) all put the focus upon the individual while extraverted functions put the focus upon the outside world, i.e. reality. This makes the extraverted functions more objective than their introverted counterparts (Te more objective than Ti, Se more objective than Si, etc...).

Now lets compare T vs. F and S vs. N. Even though Fe is more objective than Fi, it is clearly a reflection of a person's internal values. Therefore thinking is more objective than feeling. (Also Magic Poriferan's definition talks about analysis which should clarify further than thinking is more objective.) Now if we compare S to N, sensors see things as they simply are while intuitives interpret what they see. I think it should be clear that Se is more objective than Ne since Se plainly sees reality as it is.

So according to Magic Poriferan's definition we are looking for a type that views reality without bias (Se) and can analyze it (Ti). Since the unbiased nature is the most important aspect, the most objective type is ESTP, but I'll add that ISTP is a close second.

As an aside a good case can also be made for ESTJ being the most objective type. In this case though their objectivity comes from their unbiased decision making process (Te). I don't believe this is what Magic Poriferan was referring to in the definition though, so I stick by ESTP as the most objective type.

Objectivity should be understood to be as being devoid of all bias, not just internal bias. Extroverts are more likely to be enmeshed in external bias, than introverts in internal simply because there will be more on the way of external biases to sink in.

Ti does not have personal bias in a way that Fi does, the only personal bias it has is for logic. Ni and Si have personal biases towards unconscious perceptions.

Logic is the path to see the world in as an impersonal light as possible, therefore the most T type is most objective. The personal bias in favor of logic should not be considered a negative factor because such a bias does not preclude us from seeing the world in a fashion independent to our tastes and prejudices. You can think of feelings and tendencies of perception as items enmeshed within our worldview (basically things that we see within our picture of what the world is like), yet logic is outside of it. It is a way to see the world, yet it does not interfere with the vision because it is the vision itself. Logic, as famously known leads us to detach, or remove ourselves from the picture. To be objective means to see the essence without relying on your own perspective. Thus, if you can remove yourself from the picture that renders you objective. T is the property that leads to detachment, therefore it is the most effective path to objectivity.

Extroverted Thinking is less objective than Introverted Thinking because it is less of a property of T, therefore less removed from the picture. Thus, to be less removed from the scenario means to be less objective.

The salient factor of objectivity is 'Thinking' the rest have very little relevance. To answer the question of which type is most objective we have to discover what type is in closest affinity with their thinking faculty. An example of this would be that both Extroverted Thinking and Introverted Thinking make decisions based on logic. Personal biases have almost nothing to do with the thought of these two types. We should not even consider the matter. Personal biases you can associate with mostly F, and to a smaller degree with our unconscious perceptions. Therefore the less F the type has, the less he is influenced by his personal biases. S is more biased because it does not have a conscious notion of one's inner thought like an N does. An N can be judicious about what perceptions to gravitate towards because he has a vision thereof. Though the S is almost always forced to accept whatever unconscious tendencies that be. Which is why for instance, we notice SFs are more likely to be superstitious than NFs. STs more than NTs---because the latter are more likely to be judicious about their perceptions. Moreover, Sensing is in closer affinity with our nature, it is a property of our impulse. One that we cannot subdue with our minds. Yet, N is more malleable in that regard because it is more of a property of the intellect, therefore more easily extricable from our natural biases. Thus we more naturally long for food and water (S)--along with further ramifications of such tendencies, this we can do little about. However, we much less naturally long for ideas, for instance materialism over ontological idealism, empiricism over rationalism and so on. We also see that Extroversion, along the lines of Sensing is in closer affinity with our physical nature because extroversion is closer in tune with the external world. Thus, we see that Extroverted philosophers more easily gravitated towards materialism rather than idealism, as they took the external world for granted. The Introverted mind is more malleable because it is closer to the property of the intellect rather than impulse. Here we notice that introverted philosophers had a much easier time concocting a system where the realm of mind held primacy over realm of material entities, or vice versa. Yet Extroverts could hardly imagine the material world being non-existent. This evinces the higher propensity of Extroversion towards inability to extricate from bias, and Sensing along the same path.

So in summary, what we have is:

1) Thinking is the primary path to objectivity because it allows for us to remove ourselves from the picture

2) Attunement with mind/internal focus is the secondary path to objectivity because, as property of the intellect it is more easily controlled by our conscious and thus places us in the position to overcome our natural biases.

Thus, we see that the INTP is the most objective type because of property 1--Thinking, and because of the most intense focus inwards. We know that the INTP is the most internally focused type because Thinking is the most 'tough-minded' approach towards decison-making, therefore most intense focus. Thus more internally focused than Introverted Feeling for this reason. And more intensely internally focused than Introverted Intuition, as Introverted Thinking--as a judging function is clearly directed inwards, whilst the Ni 'dabbles'. Conversely, we see with Te of INTJ for example, a stronger external focus than for the Ne of the INTP.

---------------------------------------------------------------

1)INTP
2)ENTJ (intense thinking preferrence overrides their external focus, moreover Introverted Intuition, as a property of mind, highly intellectualized--therefore in the position to subdue our biases compensates).
3)ENTP (Stronger Thinking preferrence than of the INTJ, Ti>Te)
4)INTJ
5)ISTP
6)ESTJ
7)ESTP
8)ISTJ
9)INFJ (Ni--property of mind, plus Ti)
10)ENFP(Tertiary T)
11)ENFJ (Ahead of INFP Ti>Te, or in other words Ti is simply more T)
12)INFP
13)ISFJ
14)ESFP
15)ESFJ
16)ISFP

---------------------------------------------------------------

So, here we see that T is a salient factor and N(or property of mind, inner focus) only takes over when we have a big discrepancy, comparing a Sensor to an Intuitor. Yet, however, the T factor holds primacy in almost all other situations, as we see that the ENFJ is ahead of the INFP because of the stronger T despite the INFP having a firmer grasp of his/her biases due to introversion.

---------------------------------------------------------------

*In regards to the lack of objectivity on behalf of Sensation, we should take note of how Sensors are more likely to cling to beliefs they were acclimated to, and at a later point view new notions through the scope of the perspectives they have situated themselves in. Whilst Intuitives are able to 'clear their minds', and tackle new ideas from a fresh perspective. This I argue is by virtue of Intuition being closer to the essence of mind therefore more easily controlled by our conscious intellect.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Thank you BW, excellent post.

PT and liquid, you both seem to advocate the view that objectivity is the same as noticing the self-evident facts (S), whereas refining the information (N) is an inherently subjective process. This is nuts.

A human being would be severely restricted in making objective evaluations in this model. They would only be able to be objective about the blatantly obvious pieces of information, like that of Sweden being a country in Scandinavia - but then, anyone can be objective about it.

Pt already proposed the idea that objectivity can be independent of accuracy.

Pt's ST would only be objective by restricting themselves to obvious facts which are mechanically derived and understandable for a strong S. With that restriction, they are hampering themselves by not being able to be objective about issues in the realm of N.

In the model already discussed, N is something that is created upon the observations of S. The N then includes the ability to make S-kind of observations, making it a more powerful perception function in this sense. N will perhaps make more random errors in S-like issues, and omit some information randomly, but this does not mean that there would be a bias, or subjective factor involved.

Pt does not equate objectivity with accuracy. There is more variation of perception in the realm of N than there is in the realm of S, but as noted, it doesn't affect objectivity. Perceptions within N are something that N people can discuss within their group, and even communicate to others (S) to some extent. This makes the N perceptions an issue that can be objectively discussed. People can (and do) learn to skill to make expert perceptions on N-like matters which are most devoid of subjective biases.

By refusing to even state N-like perceptions or to acknowledge their existence, S limit their understanding so much as to render their objectivity of little value. N-kind issues exist, and those who do not recognize them, can't be objective about them. What is the objectivity about the issue when there is no knowledge? Objectivity over a null set of knowledge?

There is indeed this issue that BW raised about S being the victim of their perceptions. With no way to engage in meta-thinking, thinking about thought, they can not hope to practice self-correcting thought patterns with the virtue of their mind. Thus they must rely on the reality to get their feedback - and their perceptions with S. But then, you remember that the S was lacking in it's scope. They will only get their feedback about obvious items, those that can be seen in the external world, or those simple, agreeable items that are easily handled within the mind.

This is not to argue that S is only a restricted version of N. S tend to make more observations, they have more speed, accuracy and they probably memorize more often and with better quality. It's just that none of these advantages promote objectivity in any special way.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Umm... I wasn't arguing for my type either... I did say I didn't think ENTP was objective, and that I didn't really want to be - at least, not in the extreme sense that's being debated. I believe I said that I couldn't see any use for it outside of a chemistry lab, and that an ExTx with no S/N or P/J preference would be the most objective.

So there. :p

edit - actually, I think I'll go with ESTP. They're meant to be the ultimate realists, so I've read. I think their judgements would be the most objective, but not the most accurate or ...well, 'good'; I wouldn't want one in charge of my business while I take a vacation, since they're lacking both insight and any great skill at contingency planning, in theory.
 

substitute

New member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,601
MBTI Type
ENTP
Perhaps we should come up with a set of scenarios, and debate which response to each would be the most objective to get a better idea of what we're talking about?

How about asking people of different types how they'd typically respond to my soccer referee situation? (the bolded part) How would they decide what to do, and what do they think would be the best judgement/decision?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
BlueWing:

When I said that ESTP, ENTJ, or ESTJ was likely the most objective type, I mean in terms of being best at describing/experiencing external reality as accurately as possible, as it is directly known to be, without personal bias. I was using a very specific definition. Don't read too much into the fact that we used the word objective, it seems to have a lot of connotations associated with it that I wasn't considering when I made that judgment.

Feeling is a pattern in other people and in yourself that you infer, not part of reality itself. But you certainly couldn't say that Feeling doesn't impact how we react to things, or that it isn't part of how they are perceived. Therefore, in order to truly understand a situation involving people, it's an aspect that must be considered.

Intuition is similar, except that the patterns that are inferred actually do (or can) reflect reality to some extent. Sometimes it is the only way we can understand an aspect of reality too complex (or even impossible) to observe directly. Intuition is in fact only based on the way our minds interpret reality and its patterns, but we can't perceive reality directly, outside our minds, so it is a necessary aspect of our own understanding of reality. Even a Sensing type can't take in information without inferring some kind of pattern onto it to make it understandable to themselves, even if it's only the bare minimum possible.

If you asked me which type was most logical, I would say INTP, followed by ISTP. If you asked me which type was most aware/perceptive of meaning/patterns, I would say ENxP, followed by INxJ (possibly vice-versa if we're dealing with things that are purely abstractions/concepts such as the experience of the way ideas themselves are perceived). But I was asked objective, which simply means most aware of all that can be directly known about the literal object without further processing.

Remember I don't think objective in this case means logical, intelligent, rational, or meaningful, which would all be different types in my opinion.

I'm actually beginning to think, though, that in order to be as objective as possible, one would have to consider all aspects of our perception of reality as fully as possible to get the most information out of our perceptions. I'm not sure which type would find this easiest, though.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
BlueWing:

When I said that ESTP, ENTJ, or ESTJ was likely the most objective type, I mean in terms of being best at describing/experiencing external reality as accurately as possible, as it is directly known to be, without personal bias. I was using a very specific definition..

Do you meant the concrete physical world, as Santu said facts? In that case the ENTJ does not belong there. Introverted Intuitors tend not to be well aware of their physical environment.

Otherwise, INTPs have the top on understanding the world. As they are the supreme system builders, Einstein, Aristotle, Spinoza are the case in point. Understanding the world free from bias is a property of primarily Thinking. INTPs excell at this more than other types because their thinking is the most intense.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well... That narrowed definition didn't narrow much.
I will say this; by the definition of "objective" that I spefically put forward for this topic, it does become clear to me that S's are more objective.
I still, however, question why the J is going to be the objective one.
 

Ivy

Strongly Ambivalent
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
23,989
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6
I would agree that a P is probably more likely to be objective- the "decisive" qualities of Judgers are going to cut into objectivity IMO.

-forgive me for diving in without taking any cheap shots as seem to be the custom in this thread. Magic Poriferan, you're a doodie head! There. Now I feel better.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
I would agree that a P is probably more likely to be objective- the "decisive" qualities of Judgers are going to cut into objectivity IMO.

-forgive me for diving in without taking any cheap shots as seem to be the custom in this thread. Magic Poriferan, you're a doodie head! There. Now I feel better.

With Te, they can constantly and impersonally evaluate an external situation to see if it meets a particular standard of truth. Theoretically, it only considers objective data presented about the situation in a uniform fashion. Whether people who should have Te actually use it the way it should theoretically work is another question altogether, however. It often comes across as "pushing" things towards results, sometimes forcing things into particular patterns.

I was thinking more about the theoretical definitions of the functions, not how they work in tested examples of types.
 

Ghost of the dead horse

filling some space
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
3,553
MBTI Type
ENTJ
I will say this; by the definition of "objective" that I spefically put forward for this topic, it does become clear to me that S's are more objective.
Wondering why, I search a bit and found this on the second page..
I was wondering which was most objective in practice.
It's contrary to the impression I got from your original post, where you asked about objectivity without the qualifier "in practice".

The understanding of the concept of "practice" in this forum (as everywhere) is already biased by the subjective views of S; they tend to hold a veto power on what is considered real. With their tendency to deny more complicated things, we can never promote the real, actual N perceptions to the status they rightfully deserve.

The only practical thing with S world-view is that they practically deny the validity and merits of N; as this happens all over, it is a part of our practical reality :doh:

You may then find what is "objective" in the "practical" issues in the commonly accepted sense, but it isn't very practical to do so.

Who has determined that S practice objectivity in their selection of what is considered "real" or "practical"? They repeatedly demand simpler and more mechanical explanations than appropriate for the things being explained. It can't possibly be that one would get a realistic, objective view of the world with the intellectual habits like that.
 
Top