User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 208

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Oh, well... that's easy. Floofy = degree of N-ness.

    The more N you are, the less objective you are, of course.



    Actually, floofiness and objectivity aren't mutually exclusive. Objectivity is relatively irrelevant in isolating sensing and intuition. We see differently, but may handle what we see with equal deference.

  2. #52
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Actually, floofiness and objectivity aren't mutually exclusive. Objectivity is relatively irrelevant in isolating sensing and intuition. We see differently, but may handle what we see with equal deference.
    Ah. This is where it all started to go downhill in the other thread. Cos see, PT argues that the way N's see is inherently subjective; that Se 'seeing' is the only method of perception that's validly objective. And you can imagine how N's took to that.

    *hides under table*
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Ah. This is where it all started to go downhill in the other thread. Cos see, PT argues that the way N's see is inherently subjective; that Se 'seeing' is the only method of perception that's validly objective. And you can imagine how N's took to that.

    *hides under table*
    Naturally. PT is simply incorrect.

  4. #54
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Ah. This is where it all started to go downhill in the other thread. Cos see, PT argues that the way N's see is inherently subjective; that Se 'seeing' is the only method of perception that's validly objective. And you can imagine how N's took to that.

    *hides under table*
    I was overstating the whole thing because of the attitude in the thread.

    The reality is that "objective" fact based decision making is learnt. NTs will worship objectivity, yes, but that's entirely different than actually being objective.

    No one is objective because of personality type. It's simply not a factor. Some correlation, perhaps, but weak - very weak - at best. One learns to be guided by certain principles, or not... learns to identify when concepts are thought first, then justified (INTPs are prone to using this as their "i'm objective" defense). Others learn to block out contrary data (TJs, I'm looking at you), or reframe it (NPs I'm looking at you.) Others will actively disregard new information (Ss, I'm looking at you) or close minds to alternative explanations (SJs, I'm looking at you).



    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Actually, floofiness and objectivity aren't mutually exclusive. Objectivity is relatively irrelevant in isolating sensing and intuition. We see differently, but may handle what we see with equal deference.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Naturally. PT is simply incorrect.
    Well, I defined it that way, so meh to you. Floofy = N. And Floofy = not objective. Therefore, N = not objective.

    Hah! (In all seriousness, I still haven't heard, from anyone, how to determine and test what makes one objective )

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. The jarring, screeching noise of your N-grinding axe distracted me

    Tsk. Nothing worse than a convert, is there?
    Pshh, nothing to do with it. The axe is just for taking certain types down a notch.

    A notch, a head, a foot. Whatever measurement is needed.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Well, I defined it that way, so meh to you. Floofy = N. And Floofy = not objective. Therefore, N = not objective.

    Hah! (In all seriousness, I still haven't heard, from anyone, how to determine and test what makes one objective )
    Did you say test? No, that won't work. Part of the whole N thing, for me at least, is truly knowing something without being able to explain it. I know what objectivity is. If you don't, oh well, sorry, can't help you, kid!

  6. #56
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Well, I've got a brand new bag, man. I'm no longer a worshipper in the cult of objectivity.

    I've actually found that subjectivity is where it's at. No, don't come after me with anti-F pitchforks yet - let me explain!

    See, if I can listen to and really understand someone else's subjective perceptions and opinions, then I'll have a more objective idea of who they are, what they're all about, and what their actions and words are aimed at achieving. This is a more accurate way of predicting behaviour than using my own objective observations of their behaviour and comparing them to what i consider 'facts'. If I can understand general trends of subjective workings in various strata of society, I can more accurately understand and predict how those things will interact with each other.

    I can also control them more easily. As long as I'm aware of my own subjective workings, and not in denial of them; I can control those better too, that way.
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by substitute View Post
    Well, I've got a brand new bag, man. I'm no longer a worshipper in the cult of objectivity.

    I've actually found that subjectivity is where it's at. No, don't come after me with anti-F pitchforks yet - let me explain!
    Pff, typical ENTP bull. lol j/k.

  8. #58
    Senior Member substitute's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Pff, typical ENTP bull. lol j/k.
    Well, you'd know
    Ils se d�merdent, les mecs: trop bon, trop con..................................MY BLOG!

    "When it all comes down to dust
    I will kill you if I must
    I will help you if I can" - Leonard Cohen

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Definitions of objective used are:

    -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion

    -expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
    I'll summarize that definition as lack of bias.

    What is the proposed measuring mechanism of bias?
    1. (Number of things said that are provably true)/(Number of things said)
    2. (Number of things believed that are provably true)/(Number of things belived)
    3. (Number of things entertained that are provably true)/(Number of things entertained)
    4. something else.


    EDIT: I can be humorous, I swear.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #60
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I'll summarize that definition as lack of bias.

    What is the proposed measuring mechanism of bias?

    [*](Number of things entertained that are provably true)/(Number of things entertained)
    Oh Oh! Can we use this one? Please?

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