User Tag List

First 11192021

Results 201 to 208 of 208

  1. #201
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    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.

  2. #202
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemonday View Post
    That's not a definition I recognise
    You don't recognize "logical and factual" as essentially the same as "not influenced by personal feelings" and "based on fact"?

    what hope is there?
    tell me about it.
    I don't wanna!

  3. #203
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    But I could be wrong.
    I agree.

    It's not a question of theory. Theory can be molded six ways from Sunday to suit mood. It should be a matter of observation of people of type.

  4. #204
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    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.

  5. #205
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    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?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  6. #206
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemonday View Post
    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.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #207
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    ^ I'd reply, but I'm too disinterested to give a suitably subjective answer.

  8. #208
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    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."

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 11:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO