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."