In retard language will someone explain:

[simulatedworld]

Things would be "true/false" even if there were no people here to judge good/bad.

This is exactly what a Ti user would say. Ironically, Ti and Fi users both tend to think their internal judgments are "objective", when in fact neither is. It is just as obvious to an Fi-er that his idea of right/wrong exists as an inherent property of the universe as it is to a Ti user that his idea of true/false does, but both good/bad and true/false are arbitrary constructs born purely of human interpretation.

I have difficulty accepting the subjectivity of my own logic as well, but at the end of the day all Ti reasoning is arbitrary and internal. If it's uninfluenced by external conditions, it's subjective, regardless of whether or not it's based on personal emotions.

The use of the terms subjective/objective in that MBTI test question is erroneous--just another mistake in a poorly designed testing system for a concept that can't be tested empirically. When they say subjective/objective, they really mean personal/impersonal, which is not the same thing. The use of "subjective vs. objective" as a description of F vs. T is a common error, but an error nonetheless. Ti's judgments are less personal and less emotional, but that doesn't make them any more objective than Fi's.

 

[Tamske]

This is close and a good effort, but not quite. You've inaccurately associated F with subjectivity and T with objectivity, when it's actually introverted functions that are subjective (i.e., dependent upon the subject--the self) and extroverted functions that are objective (i.e., dependent upon the object--outside the self.)

You've got a point here... I guess I've been using a different definition of subjective/objective, the same as Eric B.
To me, subjective = according to a "subject" which is "a person" - so they correspond to Fe (according to community) and Fi (according to me).
Objective = according to "objects" which have nothing to do with people.

Ti speaks in language of if, then, true and false. Ti users disagree when their data don't correspond. They try to adjust definitions (like I was doing with objective/subjective) to the outside world. Isn't this Te in service of Ti?

Pure Ti is indeed subjective in Simulated's sense that it's personal and unrelated to outside reality; but it is objective in Eric B's sense: if we agree on the meaning of '1', '2', '+' and '=' (Te lining up definitions); we can't disagree about '1+1=2' " (Ti).

 

[simulatedworld]

You've got a point here... I guess I've been using a different definition of subjective/objective, the same as Eric B.
To me, subjective = according to a "subject" which is "a person" - so they correspond to Fe (according to community) and Fi (according to me).
Objective = according to "objects" which have nothing to do with people.

These are colloquial misuses of the terms subjective and objective. They do not mean emotional/unemotional:

sub⋅jec⋅tive
  /səbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
Use subjective in a Sentence
See images of subjective
Search subjective on the Web
–adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

Ti speaks in language of if, then, true and false. Ti users disagree when their data don't correspond. They try to adjust definitions (like I was doing with objective/subjective) to the outside world. Isn't this Te in service of Ti?

You're not adjusting definitions to the outside world; you're adjusting them to your inner conception of logical consistency. Te deals only with definitions that show empirically demonstrable results; e.g., "When I perform x action, it generates y result."

Pure Ti is indeed subjective in Simulated's sense that it's personal and unrelated to outside reality; but it is objective in Eric B's sense: if we agree on the meaning of '1', '2', '+' and '=' (Te lining up definitions); we can't disagree about '1+1=2' " (Ti).

Eric B's sense of subjective/objective is incorrect, at least according to the dictionary.

Agreeing on the meaning of "1", "2", "+" and "=" predefines the problem in a purely Ti context, so of course the Ti-oriented conclusions you reach using these symbols make sense...from a Ti perspective!

The problem is that we have to use subjective interpretation to actually apply any of these symbols to anything real in the external world, or to anything outside our own minds, which precludes Te's involvement. There's nothing objective about 1+1=2 because "1", "2", "+", and "=" are all arbitrary human interpretations. Sure it's true if we all accept the same definitions for those symbols, but we have to do that arbitrarily--so claiming that 1+1=2 is "objective" is simply self-fulfilling circular logic.

 

[Eric B]

When they say subjective/objective, they really mean personal/impersonal, which is not the same thing.

Eric B's sense of subjective/objective is incorrect, at least according to the dictionary.

And that dictionary definition you gave does touch upon this other meaning of o/s. You just acknowledged "personal" vs "impersonal". Something "personal" is naturally going to have a "subjective" element to it; for the person is a subject, as opposed to some impersonal object.

There are basically two different levels of subjective/objective. They mean slightly different things, (so you're taking one strict meaning) but nevertheless they do parallel with the same underlying meaning.

Agreeing on the meaning of "1", "2", "+" and "=" predefines the problem in a purely Ti context, so of course the Ti-oriented conclusions you reach using these symbols make sense...from a Ti perspective!

The problem is that we have to use subjective interpretation to actually apply any of these symbols to anything real in the external world, or to anything outside our own minds, which precludes Te's involvement. There's nothing objective about 1+1=2 because "1", "2", "+", and "=" are all arbitrary human interpretations. Sure it's true if we all accept the same definitions for those symbols, but we have to do that arbitrarily--so claiming that 1+1=2 is "objective" is simply self-fulfilling circular logic.

Inasmuch as the symbols "1", "2", "+", and "=" are agreed upon, it can be associated with Te, especially if one's focus in math is simply working with the "formulas" using these symbols to create something. Of course, there is a universal component, in what these symbols represent. We could also represent it as • & • → ••.

Still, what we're comparing this to is values and ethics (which are strictly personal), and next to this, math (in either its human or universal form) is focused on impersonal objects.

So again; there are different levels of objective and subjective. Te will be the most objective of the judging functions, Fi will be the most subjective, and Ti and Fe are in between.

O/S can be extended to all the functions as follows:

Objective processing=Perception (P)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)

N likewise uses a personal element in conceptualizing reality, and J is of course our own decision making rather than involuntary taking in of information as it is.

The eight functions are then expressed as:

Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi

I first began putting together this when trying to figure out why S+T always yielded a "directive" type. (N+J is easier to figure, because Ni will be more directive than Ne). It turns out, both S and T deal more with "facts", which is more "objective". Hence, this total "fact" processing will yield more "directive" behavior. The personal factor is taken into consideration the least. And the type most embodying this would be ESTJ, hence their rising to the top of the power structure (even moreso than ENTJ, usually!)

 

[Tamske]

If you insist, I shall explain in the guise of Ugtar.
Se - Ugtar see pretty lights, hear pretty sounds, many pretty lights and sounds.
Si - Ugtar..... ummmm, ermmm.... Ugtar remember one pretty light, prettiest of all. Light gone now.
Ne - Ugtar saw mouse, Ugtar saw rock, so Ugtar had lunch and make tiny finger puppet. Finger puppet Ugtar's friend now.
Ni - Ugtar notice hand sometimes look like turkey, sometimes look like doggy. Ugtar's hand many things.
Fe - Ugtar one time punch lady in face and lady cried. Mad people throw rocks at Ugtar. Ugtar feel bad now. Ugtar no punch ladies any more.
Fi - Ugtar hate asparagus!!!
Te - Pops one time told Ugtar world round like ball. Ugtar trust pops, think world round.
Ti - Ugtar burn things, things turn smoke. Somethings Ugtar no make burn. Ugtar think world made things turns smoke, and things no turn smoke.

I hope you are stupid enough to understand any of that.

The Te one seems more like a Fe one to me. Accept data because it comes from a reliable source? No... Te accepts data when it's useful.

Te - Ugtar saw pops kill big beast with spear. Ugtar want eat big beast. Ugtar take spear.

(Or maybe I'm not stupid enough... )

 

[Magic Poriferan]

The Te one seems more like a Fe one to me. Accept data because it comes from a reliable source? No... Te accepts data when it's useful.

Te - Ugtar saw pops kill big beast with spear. Ugtar want eat big beast. Ugtar take spear.

(Or maybe I'm not stupid enough... )

Yeah, the Ts were the hardest to do. My Te one was an attempt to demonstrate the attachment to externally derived fact, but it's pretty difficult to come up with a way to get Ugtar to talk about Thinking, you know?.

You could say my Ti example even sounds a bit more like Te, really (to an extent) but again, it's hard. The Ti was actually the last point, the part where Ugtar makes his crude abstract divison of the essence of world.

 

[William K]

Yeah, the Ts were the hardest to do. My Te one was an attempt to demonstrate the attachment to externally derived fact, but it's pretty difficult to come up with a way to get Ugtar to talk about Thinking, you know?.

You could say my Ti example even sounds a bit more like Te, really (to an extent) but again, it's hard. The Ti was actually the last point, the part where Ugtar makes his crude abstract divison of the essence of world.

Poor Ugtar.... he was a man ahead of his time

 

[Eric B]

The Te example would be more of an "immature" (tertiary/inferior) use. You basically look up to someone else for objective fact, and agree with them. The "agree" part of it is where the "e" comes in, and yet it is still T, not F (as it's not agreeing on a value).

 

[Poki]

You're right next door to us "You touch/know how" folks. Right on.

He did nail those pretty good in just one word I learn by experience, you learn by force. I see that whip your holding behind your back.

 

[Zarathustra]

... that dictionary definition you gave does touch upon this other meaning of o/s. You just acknowledged "personal" vs "impersonal". Something "personal" is naturally going to have a "subjective" element to it; for the person is a subject, as opposed to some impersonal object.

There are basically two different levels of subjective/objective. They mean slightly different things, (so you're taking one strict meaning) but nevertheless they do parallel with the same underlying meaning.

Inasmuch as the symbols "1", "2", "+", and "=" are agreed upon, it can be associated with Te, especially if one's focus in math is simply working with the "formulas" using these symbols to create something. Of course, there is a universal component, in what these symbols represent. We could also represent it as � & � ? ��.

Still, what we're comparing this to is values and ethics (which are strictly personal), and next to this, math (in either its human or universal form) is focused on impersonal objects.

So again; there are different levels of objective and subjective. Te will be the most objective of the judging functions, Fi will be the most subjective, and Ti and Fe are in between.

O/S can be extended to all the functions as follows:

Objective processing=Perception (P)
Subjective processing=Judgment (J)
Objective data=concreteness (S) or logic (T)
Subjective data=abstractness (N) or value (F)
Objective source=external (E)
Subjective source=internal (I)

N likewise uses a personal element in conceptualizing reality, and J is of course our own decision making rather than involuntary taking in of information as it is.

The eight functions are then expressed as:

Objective processing of Objective data from Objective source (OOO): Se
Objective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (OOS): Si
Objective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (OSO): Ne
Objective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (OSS): Ni
Subjective processing of Objective data from Objective source (SOO): Te
Subjective processing of Objective data from Subjective source (SOS): Ti
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Objective source (SSO): Fe
Subjective processing of Subjective data from Subjective source (SSS): Fi

I first began putting together this when trying to figure out why S+T always yielded a "directive" type. (N+J is easier to figure, because Ni will be more directive than Ne). It turns out, both S and T deal more with "facts", which is more "objective". Hence, this total "fact" processing will yield more "directive" behavior. The personal factor is taken into consideration the least. And the type most embodying this would be ESTJ, hence their rising to the top of the power structure (even moreso than ENTJ, usually!)

Eric, this is exactly what I was talking about. Seems like we're largely on the same page. The one thing I hadn't thought of was the Judging functions being subjective and the Perceiving functions being objective, and I can see where you're coming from, but I'll still have to ponder it a bit more before I can fully accept it (read: Ni model enhancement moves cautiously, and takes its time).

Cool to see that we were picking at the same issue, though.