[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

[Magic Poriferan]

Wondering why, I search a bit and found this on the second page..
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

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.

That seemed a little biased against S's.
I will say, that some of what you said is why I had concluded the N to be more objective, but seeing as how anything and everything abstract just complicates this discussion, it makes one wonder exactly how objective someone can be about abstract matters.

Anyway, I still believe the INTP or ENTP to most objective as I first implied it a year ago, but this thread has become something else completely, and my original definition of objectivity was too multi-faceted to work-out here.
I gave out my current definition on this thread to see if we could come to a result and work from there.

...

Apparently not.


As much of disaster as it could be, I might make a thread about parts of the MBTI's mechanics that I doubt.
I don't know when, though. It will be tedious, and I'm sure BlueWing will swoop in on it like a hawk.

 

[Ivy]

That seemed a little biased against S's.
I will say, that some of what you said is why I had concluded the N to be more objective, but seeing as how anything and everything abstract just complicates this discussion, it makes one wonder exactly how objective someone can be about abstract matters.

Excellent point! Casting the question as "objective in practice" slants it toward the S, but what other kind of objectivity is there? "Objectivity" at first blush seems like a T trait, but the more I read this thread the more I agree that it may be more of an S trait. (And on a more experiential tip, from what I've observed, Ts are more likely to consider themselves completely objective and without bias, but that don't make it so.)

As much of disaster as it could be, I might make a thread about parts of the MBTI's mechanics that I doubt.
I don't know when, though. It will be tedious, and I'm sure BlueWing will swoop in on it like a hawk.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Casting the question as "objective in practice" slants it toward the S, but what other kind of objectivity is there? "Objectivity" at first blush seems like a T trait, but the more I read this thread the more I agree that it may be more of an S trait. (And on a more experiential tip, from what I've observed, Ts are more likely to consider themselves completely objective and without bias, but that don't make it so.)

Depends on our definition of practice. Practice as what is mutually agreed upon more often (S) or practice that covers more ground (N)?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Depends on our definition...

I am so tired of reading that.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Excellent point! Casting the question as "objective in practice" slants it toward the S, but what other kind of objectivity is there? "Objectivity" at first blush seems like a T trait, but the more I read this thread the more I agree that it may be more of an S trait. (And on a more experiential tip, from what I've observed, Ts are more likely to consider themselves completely objective and without bias, but that don't make it so.)

Sensors tend to be objective in regards to facts and concrete observations, as pointed out by Santu. Yet, less objective with abstractions because they tend to get frozen in their old perceptions. For this reason we see much more sensors struggle tackling new ideas with an open-mind and embrace traditions in effect, whilst Intuitors have an easier time letting go off old notions. It is almost a truism, however, that Ns have an easier time understanding the point of view of others.

The N is easier for a conscious intellect to control, yet S is not. Therefore it is easier to purge N biases than S.

I have difficulty imagining S being more objective than N in any other respect than in collection of concrete facts and observation of physical phenomenon. As sensors simply perceive better, whilst the senses of intuitors are clouded within their abstract perceptions. But an objective understanding of the world does not stop at objective understanding of the physical world and facts. Far from it.

Objectivity is a T thing, because to be objective means to be unaffected by your biases. T removes you from the picture. Other functions do not. The only personal bias Ts have is for removing themselves from the picture.

 

[Ivy]

(And on a more experiential tip, from what I've observed, Ts are more likely to consider themselves completely objective and without bias, but that don't make it so.)

Objectivity is a T thing, because to be objective means to be unaffected by your biases. T removes you from the picture. Other functions do not. The only personal bias Ts have is for removing themselves from the picture.

Case in point.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Case in point.

Yes, you can say I have a strong personal prejudice in favor of logic. So I ignore whatever is not logically supported. Though this protects me from many others prejudices that you're not immune to.

You only said that Ts are not as objective as they think they are, yet you did not give any argument to support that.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I am so tired of reading that.

Hahah! I'm personally content to go with the definition that you've put forward. A couple of the posters in this thread seem to be suggesting that the only definition that should count is the one that makes NTP's the most objective lol. What a subjective way to choose a definition.

 

[Nocapszy]

/* This script written by Nocapszy on 11/18/2007
This script proves conclusively beyond all shadow of doubt, logically, that INTPs are not more objective simply because they have thinking as their strongest preference
This script is not for use in a real build. It's just illustrating a concept...
*/


#define Thinking (logic)
#define Objective (unbiased)
#define ePerceptions (object oriented)

main()
{

if Thinking == Objective
{
T is the objective trait;
INTP is the objective temperament;
}
else
{
T is not the objective trait;
INTP is not the only objective temperament;
}



if ePerceptions != bias+personal
extraverted perceptions are not biases
else
extraverted perceptions are biases

}

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.

I've even entertained the thought that Fe can be used objectively. Someone may be particularly fair in interpersonal relations. He/she would not favour one person over the other on subjective basis and then claim the opposite.

Making unbiased evaluations of people has great importance in many functions in the society. An unbiased person might better assign people to different workgroups, decide on someone's club membership, decide on a patient's ability to continue in some medical treatment, etc..

Still, most of anyone's feelings are inherently subjective. Good, bad, liking someone, hating, etc.. some of those evaluations are learned and used as a tool, but T is much more a tool -like function. F is more like something that may get the job done, but mostly something that the person likes, what is agreeable, etc..

Keeping in line with what I said about N, the most objective person would realize the fact that many people exercise lot of F for their personal pleasure and their decision making. This is something that continues to exist, so that concepts, feelings and situations stemming from F will have to be considered as well in objective decision-making.

The last point was humorously portrayed in a season 1 Star Trek:TOS episode I recently watched, The Galileo Seven. Spock and his landing party were stranded on a planet, Scotty trying to fix their shuttle and the whole party being harassed by large humanoids native to the planet. On the top of it, everybody was getting angry about the lack of personel management skills on Spocks part.

Spock had decided that the most effective way to deter the humanoids would be to display their strength by phaser fire; make them respect them. A rational creature would accurately evaluate the landing party as something dangerous, and thus avoid it for reasons of self-preservation.

Of course the plan back-fired catastrophically. The creatures gathered in a big group and attacked the shuttle with spears and rocks. While the humanoids were pounding the shuttle with 300-pound boulders, McCoy snapped at mr. Spock for the failed plan.

McCoy: "Well Mr.Spock, they didn't stay frightened very long, did they?"
Spock:"Most illogical reaction. We demonstrated our superior weapons, they should have fled!"
McCoy:"You mean they should have respected us?"
Spock:"Of course!"
McCoy:"Mr.Spock, respect is a rational process! Did it ever occur to you that they might react emotionally, with anger?"
Spock:"Doctor, I'm not responsible for their unpredictability."

So yes, I consider F something where you should be objective as well to be most objective as a person. Given only one of the two, I'd go with T to be most objective, though.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

/* This script written by Nocapszy on 11/18/2007
This script proves conclusively beyond all shadow of doubt, logically, that INTPs are not more objective simply because they have thinking as their strongest preference
This script is not for use in a real build. It's just illustrating a concept...
*/


#define Thinking (logic)
#define Objective (unbiased)
#define ePerceptions (object oriented)

main()
{

if Thinking == Objective
{
T is the objective trait;
INTP is the objective temperament;
}
else
{
T is not the objective trait;
INTP is not the only objective temperament;
}



if ePerceptions != bias+personal
extraverted perceptions are not biases
else
extraverted perceptions are biases

}

Go back and re-read post 192.

 

[Nocapszy]

Go back and re-read post 192.

Impossible.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Go back and re-read post 192.

Impossible.

Posts can indeed be re-read. Messages in here don't work like the mission briefings in Mission Impossible. It also saves space when not everything has to be replied to each person individually.

 

[Nocapszy]

Posts can indeed be re-read. Messages in here don't work like the mission briefings in Mission Impossible. It also saves space when not everything has to be replied to each person individually.

No I mean I can't reread it because I didn't read it in the first place.

 

[Athenian200]

No I mean I can't reread it because I didn't read it in the first place.

Well then, go read it, whether it's for the first time or a review, silly.

The last point was humorously portrayed in a season 1 Star Trek:TOS episode I recently watched, The Galileo Seven. Spock and his landing party were stranded on a planet, Scotty trying to fix their shuttle and the whole party being harassed by large humanoids native to the planet. On the top of it, everybody was getting angry about the lack of personel management skills on Spocks part.

Spock had decided that the most effective way to deter the humanoids would be to display their strength by phaser fire; make them respect them. A rational creature would accurately evaluate the landing party as something dangerous, and thus avoid it for reasons of self-preservation.

Of course the plan back-fired catastrophically. The creatures gathered in a big group and attacked the shuttle with spears and rocks. While the humanoids were pounding the shuttle with 300-pound boulders, McCoy snapped at mr. Spock for the failed plan.

McCoy: "Well Mr.Spock, they didn't stay frightened very long, did they?"
Spock:"Most illogical reaction. We demonstrated our superior weapons, they should have fled!"
McCoy:"You mean they should have respected us?"
Spock:"Of course!"
McCoy:"Mr.Spock, respect is a rational process! Did it ever occur to you that they might react emotionally, with anger?"
Spock:"Doctor, I'm not responsible for their unpredictability."

So yes, I consider F something where you should be objective as well to be most objective as a person. Given only one of the two, I'd go with T to be most objective, though.

Would you say that Spock's decisions were usually objective as well as logical?

I remember that there was also a scene (perhaps in a different episode) in which a number of crew members wanted to risk their lives to bury a dead member of the crew. Spock thought it was illogical, and wanted to leave him behind. Interestingly, I agreed with his choice rather than the one of the crew members, which seemed to border on total insanity to me. I would have claimed that it was out of concern for the people who were still alive, believing they were more valuable than the dead because something could still be done to help them. I would have used emotions such as fear and concern to come to a similar choice. I was thinking to myself, "Why do a kindness for someone who can no longer feel gratefulness/suffering, or return the favor?" What does that mean?

Anyway, do you think there is a way of determining if someone is able to distinguish objective from subjective in a particular situation?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

No I mean I can't reread it because I didn't read it in the first place.

Why didn't you just stay quiet and maintain the impression that you've given this thread a even a bit more attention than just a passing glance? We try to avoid unneeded repetition in here to the best of our abilities so as to respect each other's valuable time and to promote a better atmosphere for discussion.

#define Thinking (logic)
#define Objective (unbiased)
#define ePerceptions (object oriented)

if Thinking == Objective
{
T is the objective trait;
INTP is the objective temperament;
}
else
{
T is not the objective trait;
INTP is not the only objective temperament;
}

The real challenge in here would be to define the equality operator and the two types so as to make the comparison possible, so nothing has been accomplished.

if ePerceptions != bias+personal
extraverted perceptions are not biases
else
extraverted perceptions are biases

Thanks for the pseudo-tautologies.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Would you say that Spock's decisions were usually objective as well as logical?

Only if disregarding the feeling judgement of the situation. One could of course argue that Spock was being an example in logic, and that everything would have been fine if the others would have just done the same.

(Situation is similar to asking N not to be N, but to be S instead.)

This approach got the crew into troubles, as the crew was unable to eradicate their feeling to the extent Mr.Spock desired. Feeling judgement actually has some merits which Spock is famously unable to realize. The solution is thus not to dismiss feeling, but to take it into account to some extent.

In addition to being objective, there are other motivations for considering or dismissing feeling judgement. It's sometimes hard to tell what motivations are affecting people in different situations. I sometimes make a point in presenting myself as calm and unemotional, so as to show that people don't necessarily have to experience negative emotions in a challenging situation.

I remember that there was also a scene (perhaps in a different episode) in which a number of crew members wanted to risk their lives to bury a dead member of the crew. Spock thought it was illogical, and wanted to leave him behind. Interestingly, I agreed with his choice rather than the one of the crew members, which seemed to border on total insanity to me. I would have claimed that it was out of concern for the people who were still alive, believing they were more valuable than the dead because something could still be done to help them. I would have used emotions such as fear and concern to come to a similar choice. I was thinking to myself, "Why do a kindness for someone who can no longer feel gratefulness/suffering, or return the favor?" What does that mean?

Spock's thinking and your feeling processes mirror each other in here.

I think it's natural that societies tend towards results that take into account all parties to some extent. Rational thought can be emotionally motivated, and feelings can be the result of what is rational.

The idea of death can be handled with feeling, which serves to keep the person alive. The same effect could be accomplished with calculating one's own value of life in some currency, like we did in Pt's risk thread. Yet, in the end, the "value of life" would be based on our "meaning" of it, our feelings about it, and similar.

It's no wonder that feeling and rationality follow each other, yet take different paths ever so often.

Anyway, do you think there is a way of determining if someone is able to distinguish objective from subjective in a particular situation?

Being acquainted with the decision factors of the situation, characteristic subjective views for that type of situation (and the people present) and being themselves inclined to making objective judgements.

I did not answer as well as I would expect of myself. I'm tired, and I'll have to get some sleep now after all, feeling of tiredness is a real thing..

 

[ptgatsby]

Oh, while I'm refraining from posting in this thread, I thought one thing should be mentioned... it is decidedly against MBTI, Jung and whatever personal version is being referenced to use traits, functions and their derivatives as a measurement of ability or aptitude.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh, while I'm refraining from posting in this thread, I thought one thing should be mentioned... it is decidedly against MBTI, Jung and whatever personal version is being referenced to use traits, functions and their derivatives as a measurement of ability or aptitude.

Oooooh.... nice shot with the sniper post!
I bet you could drop a fly at 200 yards.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Oh, while I'm refraining from posting in this thread, I thought one thing should be mentioned... it is decidedly against MBTI, Jung and whatever personal version is being referenced to use traits, functions and their derivatives as a measurement of ability or aptitude.

Unfortunately, nobody could ever obey that rule, because relativist quagmires like this one would also happen in regards to what "aptitude" is.

I think admitting that there is any difference at all is admitting that are different levels of competence concerning different fields.


Do I get paid for saying "different"?