I saw that in the beginning but decided not to smart ass Jack and try to "correct" his definition. However perhaps an INTP 5 is very detached... but not particularly objective. The most objective in such a way I'd guess as being an ENTJ. They are the ones who are most likely to decide what an entire organisation SHOULD be doing according to their grand scheme and then reorganise people as they see fit. Sure you may not see the detachment first up but it's evident in the process which happens before they get embroiled in the whole hammering square peg into round hole process.
Having an agenda entails the opposite of being objective.
I can't believe an INTP would ask these questions in earnest.
Are you sure you're not an INTJ?
For one I'm still arguing the point. If I was an INTJ then you'd just have been declared as wrong several posts back and I'd not have returned except to look at your posts with scorn
Though really, do you actually think that as soon as any kind of narrowing of the field is done then objectivity is lost? Man I thought I was a purist. Oh and in which case then aren't you not an INTP, speaking objectively? Surely you do things which are un INTPly and therefore you're aren't an INTP at all.
Have you read Popper? (Or taken too many )
So if you're only being objective if you don't decide anything about something then you've no idea what it is and can't actually call it an objective look less you become subjective.
Like INTPc it's amusing to read a lot of stuff written by objective robots (not that this is what's going on here, merely an extreme case to show the contrast) when what you're reading has such emotion laced within it.
Also part of this thread is devoted to defining the nuances of what is this "objective" and also defining other items as well. Surely if all the INTPs were objective then agreement could be reached very quickly as to what things were to be labelled as. The fact that there is disagreement kinda shows that either it's not yet been found (a favourite stand of any decent INTP) or that it's mired in subjectivity.
Perhaps I'm being too perfectionistic about this? It's common.
That's weird. I missed this post. And yet I immediately wrote about robots straight after.
I've said this already, but since you aren't going to read the thread, Mr Pretty Vacant, I'll say it again:
Objective <> correct.
You can be objectively wrong.
If all INTPs agreed on a definition, that would make us all equally brilliant. Some of us are more INTP than others.