[NT] NT Objectivity Scale

[The_Liquid_Laser]

This thread is one big illustration of why INTP's are not objective. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time. Ultimately I think pt is right when he said (somewhere in this thread) that there can be obective people of any type (and of course subjective people of any type as well).

 

[Eldanen]

This thread is one big illustration of why INTP's are not objective. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time. Ultimately I think pt is right when he said (somewhere in this thread) that there can be obective people of any type (and of course subjective people of any type as well).

You stole my idea! Or maybe we just had the same idea.

 

[Xander]

This thread is one big illustration of why INTP's are not objective. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time. Ultimately I think pt is right when he said (somewhere in this thread) that there can be obective people of any type (and of course subjective people of any type as well).

I'm not sure what's the funniest though, the idea or the not noticing of the whole irony.

 

[wildcat]

Errmmm can I just say OH MY WORD... this is getting WAY too silly now.

Objective is in relation to the object no? Well then you'd be better off first looking at those who deal with the object than the self no? So that's INTJ or ENTJ... shocking...

Btw if testing is irrelevant then details are irrelevant... as is this discussion and many others. Kinda removes the point of interaction if you ask me.

Anyhow the most objective person is one who recognises their own inability to be objctive. That is more likely to be INTPs admitedly but the whole obsession with some fine distinction way past when it is of any use kinda of makes them a little too driven to be all that objective.

To make it about the ball you have to be able to put the damn thing down once in a while so you can see it.

Anyhow... may I ask why this even came up? Is it for predictive purposes or merely a mine's bigger than yours?

Objective is not in relation to the object.

 

[Salomé]

I'm not sure what's the funniest though, the idea or the not noticing of the whole irony.

Rather than giggling away, it might be more constructive to explain what you mean....for the ironically-challenged amongst us.

 

[Xander]

Objective is not in relation to the object.

Please expand... need detail.

The way I was looking at it was from the point of view that objective is discovered where as subjective is more extrapolated. Hence objective is more directly linked to the object (okay it should be "the subject of whatever" but that's crossing object and subject over which tends to confuse). If I am considering a rock then I can consider what it means to me but that's making me the focus where as to consider the rock as a rock is more objective as it retains focus upon the rock itself.

That's not very well explained.. I'm tired.

 

[Xander]

Rather than giggling away, it might be more constructive to explain what you mean....for the ironically-challenged amongst us.

It's not supposed to be a competetive statement you know..

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.

 

[Salomé]

That's not very well explained.. I'm tired.

Too tired to read the thread?

We are equating objectivity with impersonality here (not with OBJECTS).

Perhaps we should change the thread title to the "NT impersonality scale".

NTs are often described as robots. Doesn't get much more impersonal than that.

Proposed revision:

Most Robotic: ROBOT...INTP...ENTP...INTJ...ENTJ: Least Robotic

 

[wildcat]

Please expand... need detail.

The way I was looking at it was from the point of view that objective is discovered where as subjective is more extrapolated. Hence objective is more directly linked to the object (okay it should be "the subject of whatever" but that's crossing object and subject over which tends to confuse). If I am considering a rock then I can consider what it means to me but that's making me the focus where as to consider the rock as a rock is more objective as it retains focus upon the rock itself.

That's not very well explained.. I'm tired.

Your rock is object to the subject.

The rock as such is beyond perception.

 

[Xander]

Too tired to read the thread?

We are equating objectivity with impersonality here (not with OBJECTS).

Perhaps we should change the thread title to the "NT impersonality scale".

NTs are often described as robots. Doesn't get much more impersonal than that.

Proposed revision:

Most Robotic: ROBOT...INTP...ENTP...INTJ...ENTJ: Least Robotic

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.

 

[Xander]

Your rock is object to the subject.

The rock as such is beyond perception.

That was my initial thought. I'm trying to become more moderate in my thinking as I progress.

 

[Salomé]

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.

 

[wildcat]

That was my initial thought. I'm trying to become more moderate in my thinking as I progress.

Good lad.
Moderation is distance. Distance is perception.

 

[Xander]

Having an agenda entails the opposite of being objective.

Not necessarily. Having an agenda means you're trying to DO something with all that perception. That's nothing wrong... well unless you're a classic INTP 5... then it's just pure eeeeevil.

Good lad.
Moderation is distance. Distance is perception.

Arf.



Do you find you get dizzy doing that? I mean all that zooming up to try and see the detail and then zooming back out again... I'm more surprised I cans till tie my shoe laces each day!!

 

[Salomé]

Not necessarily. Having an agenda means you're trying to DO something with all that perception.

Objectivity isn't the same as perception. It's a mode of perceiving.

As soon as you have solidified your position, formulated an agenda and started trying to DO something about it, you've lost your objectivity. You've moved from perceiving to judging.

 

[Xander]

Objectivity isn't the same as perception. It's a mode of perceiving.

As soon as you have solidified your position, formulated an agenda and started trying to DO something about it, you've lost your objectivity. You've moved from perceiving to judging.

The only manner in which a person can observe and not classify nor quantify is if they are in a coma, or they're actually a CCTV camera. Everything else involves judgement.

Besides, objectivity (if that is correct by your description) is useless and illogical. What is the point of seeing in perfect clarity if it requires you to be brain dead in the first place?

 

[Salomé]

The only manner in which a person can observe and not classify nor quantify is if they are in a coma, or they're actually a CCTV camera. Everything else involves judgement.

Besides, objectivity (if that is correct by your description) is useless and illogical. What is the point of seeing in perfect clarity if it requires you to be brain dead in the first place?

I can't believe an INTP would ask these questions in earnest.
Are you sure you're not an INTJ?

 

[Xander]

I can't believe an INTP would ask these questions in earnest.
Are you sure you're not an INTJ?

Definitely.

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.

I'm sorry but how is this NOT madness?

 

[Salomé]

I'm sorry but how is this NOT madness?

 

[Salomé]

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.

Anyway...
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.