• 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] NT Objectivity Scale

INTJMom

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
5,413
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
The argument has degenerated into disagreements over the timeline of decision making instead of the mindset notion I advanced some time ago. Do what you will, but you're hardly arguing against my position anymore.

From me, in the first stage of the debate:

See OP for the definitions. In my words, however: Being objective is making analyses, decisions, speaking and taking action with a big picture view in mind, as opposed to large concern for self interest.
With those parameters in mind, I would say the Es would be most objective followed by the Is.
I think the I tends to limit one's horizons.
But I could be wrong.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You don't recognize "logical and factual" as essentially saying the same thing as without prejudice and based on fact?

tell me about it.

Objectivity has nothing to do with facts. We had this discussion some pages back. It may be related to logic, it may not.

Shall I give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about?

I'm arguing here about something about which I care not one wit.
I'm occupying one position, but I could just as easily occupy another.
I am disinterested, whilst still being interested.
I'm interested in reaching a conclusion, a truth, but am prepared to accept that that outcome is neither possible nor desirable.
Perversely, if I really had a fixed opinion on all of this, I probably wouldn't bother to share it.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Analyze behavior, speech, etc., not fabricated function orders.
Noting this earlier post and in an attempt to find some grounds upon which something meaningful can be constructed, would an objective person as defined by your parameters be one who does not reach a conclusion pre-emptively but does formulate a theory against which further evidence is evaluated?

I must admit I'm struggling with the whole time thing as I rarely find that I have all the information at the outset of thinking and therefore usually give responses with clauses that allow for further information to be included (which often frustrates those of a more certain mindset such as my INTJ friend).

As a theory I would think that what your parameters are actually achieving is describing the INTP mindset in further detail which is a tad unfair as with such parameters it would be unlikely that any other type would come before an INTP though that would also place ENTP as second being the most mentally flexible of the four.

This leads me to think that what you are looking at, function wise (I'm using functions only to progress past the borders of individual types into the wider pattern), is Ti>Te and Ne>Ti which kind of directs me to think that what your definition of objective is holds more relation to the interplay of those two preferences than it does to any broader definition of objective such as those which have been being introduced progressively throughout this thread.

Am I getting warm?
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
Objectivity has nothing to do with facts. We had this discussion some pages back. It may be related to logic, it may not.

Shall I give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about?

I'm arguing here about something about which I care not one wit.
I'm occupying one position, but I could just as easily occupy another.
I am disinterested, whilst still being interested.
I'm interested in reaching a conclusion, a truth, but am prepared to accept that that outcome is neither possible nor desirable.
Perversely, if I really had a fixed opinion on all of this, I probably wouldn't bother to share it.
Your level of interest only gives guidance upon whether or not you are actually getting more toward a subjective manner of thinking it is not a good gauge in and of itself. Disinterest could equally colour your thinking as interest, especially if your mind wanders.

That actually promotes me to think more that Jack's definitions do lead to INTPs being first mostly due to the inbuilt ability to focus way beyond what most people can summon. However I would think that within terms of focus an INTJ could give an INTP a run for their money as long as it was based around something of practical use.

This leads me further down this path Jack set in that if objective is meaning more thought for thoughts own sake rather than for any actual solution then yes perhaps INTP is top of the list. Not that I'd call that objective.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
^ I'd reply, but I'm too disinterested to give a suitably subjective answer. ;)
 

Jack Flak

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
9,098
MBTI Type
type
Noting this earlier post and in an attempt to find some grounds upon which something meaningful can be constructed, would an objective person as defined by your parameters be one who does not reach a conclusion pre-emptively but does formulate a theory against which further evidence is evaluated?
I've been analyzing type differences for many an hour, and once focussing on the difference in objectivity as defined, the conclusion was instantaneous. I thought I would share it, but I can't imagine anything which could change my mind, and certainly haven't seen anything like that here.

I must admit I'm struggling with the whole time thing as I rarely find that I have all the information at the outset of thinking and therefore usually give responses with clauses that allow for further information to be included (which often frustrates those of a more certain mindset such as my INTJ friend).
This is probably why we, as INTPs, almost always include qualifiers when stating assertions. If I don't include a qualifier, it means I'm certain, and can't easily be dissuaded. Certainty is always fallible though, in anyone.

As a theory I would think that what your parameters are actually achieving is describing the INTP mindset in further detail which is a tad unfair as with such parameters it would be unlikely that any other type would come before an INTP though that would also place ENTP as second being the most mentally flexible of the four.
I don't believe that's what I'm doing. It's analysis et reportage.

This leads me to think that what you are looking at, function wise (I'm using functions only to progress past the borders of individual types into the wider pattern), is Ti>Te and Ne>Ti which kind of directs me to think that what your definition of objective is holds more relation to the interplay of those two preferences than it does to any broader definition of objective such as those which have been being introduced progressively throughout this thread.

Am I getting warm?

I hadn't considered functions, because I have problems with functions. If I were to use them to argue right now, I would have free rein to argue whatever I want, as has been demonstrated by others. I could say "Fi is the antithesis to objectivity. INTP & ENTP have little use of Fi, and are therefore more objective than INTJ or ENTJ. Ti is by its very nature detached from emotion and neutral about all data presented to it, therefore the Ti dominants are most objective, thus placing INTP slightly ahead of ENTP. ENTJs, with their dominant Te, will be too concerned with their surroundings to possess the same capacity for detachment as the INTJ, and are therefore slightly less objective than INTJs. The final order is as follows, from most to least objective: INTP, ENTP, INTJ, ENTJ."
 
Top