[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

[Night]

What's Night, then - chopped liver?!

(I must say, if my ESFJ mother conversed like this, we'd get on a hell of a lot better...)

Hehe...I think I might be the INTJ she's referring to.

 

[substitute]

Hehe...I think I might be the INTJ she's referring to.

I gotta admit I've been suspicious... but I resisted the call to question BlueWing's type... so...

 

[Night]

I gotta admit I've been suspicious... but I resisted the call to question BlueWing's type... so...

If I'm not mistaken, he has a profile on INTPc as well.

His appreciation for MBTI details seems aromatic of a well-rounded S. I would imagine he's probably a bumpy mix of Is/nTP traits.

 

[substitute]

So, *ahem* back to the topic... (you have no idea how hard that is for an ENTP to say!)...

We've got the differences between logic/objectivity and rationalism to explain/agree on. And also to clarify whether we're talking about the internal aspects of NT ideals, or from an external viewpoint, or both.

Oh, and whether, as the title of the thread suggests, we're just comparing ENTP and INTP, or actually trying to establish which type is the most naturally objective.

(look at that Te go! lol)

 

[Night]

We've got the differences between logic/objectivity and rationalism to explain/agree on. And also to clarify whether we're talking about the internal aspects of NT ideals, or from an external viewpoint, or both.

Oh, and whether, as the title of the thread suggests, we're just comparing ENTP and INTP, or actually trying to establish which type is the most naturally objective.

Although it might run contrary to expectations of the OP, I vote we enlarge the system to incorporate as many Types as possible. Doing so would naturally increase the gravity of our expenditure by allowing for a truly "objective" reticule to shape our judgments.

Logically, it seems dismissive to view certain Types as inferior on the basis of predominant trait expression. Yet, a reliable counterweight could allow for a continuum of (possibly) digressive artifacts that might actually prove to stymie - rather than promote - the creative process.

Curious.

Thoughts?

 

[substitute]

Well you see, I was thinking that if we were just talking about the NT ideal of rationalism as meaning the whole objectivity/logic guided thought process, then considering other types and how they view the ideal of objectivity is a bit like taking into account that an atheist doesn't believe in God when you're trying to figure out whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation is the more theoligically valid doctrine. It just sorta comes from left field a bit. That's what I meant about the internal affair.

I didn't mean to suggest that I view other types or their ideals or definitions of objectivity as inferior. Just different and possibly not relevant in the present discussion if it was remaining 'internal'.

What about if we first establish what the internal position is, and then branch it out to see how it relates to and/or is validated/challenged by the views of other types? Sorta like building a vehicle before you test drive it, kinda thing?

 

[Night]

Well you see, I was thinking that if we were just talking about the NT ideal of rationalism as meaning the whole objectivity/logic guided thought process, then considering other types and how they view the ideal of objectivity is a bit like taking into account that an atheist doesn't believe in God when you're trying to figure out whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation is the more theoligically valid doctrine. It just sorta comes from left field a bit. That's what I meant about the internal affair.

I didn't mean to suggest that I view other types or their ideals or definitions of objectivity as inferior. Just different and possibly not relevant in the present discussion if it was remaining 'internal'. ?

You didn't. My words were unclear - I apologize.

Well you see, I was thinking that if we were just What about if we first establish what the internal position is, and then branch it out to see how it relates to and/or is validated/challenged by the views of other types? Sorta like building a vehicle before you test drive it, kinda thing?

I like this idea. Very sensible.

Would you care to begin?

 

[substitute]

Well, we already seem to have a working model of rationalism...

But there are two possible kinds of objectivity as I see it: perceptional and judgemental objectivity. Perceptional objectivity being a way of seeing things that takes minimal account of personal feelings, opinions, expectations and experiences. Like suspension of disbelief when reading a fictional work, you could say that objectivity is suspension of judgement or suspension of prejudice, to look at something with an attitude of it being unique, avoiding the pitfalls of attributing qualities to it that don't exist simply because one's mind sees resemblances in it to other things, which might only be deceptive.

Judgemental objectivity (a phrase I just invented, heh) would be basing a decision on only the facts gained by objective perception, only those things which are directly pertinent to the situation, and not on any prior personal agenda or preference.

We need some analogies I think. Say, a soccer referee - supposed to be objective (= unbiased?). Imagine two players get into a scuffle but it all happened so fast that nobody caught what was said or who started it. Say one of the players has a reputation for aggression and starting fights - would an objective perception be to simply use all the available evidence to piece together a reconstruction of what happened, and then make an objective judgement based solely on that, disregarding this player's reputation and the ref's prior experience?

So, with that in mind, what are we doing? Deciding which is the most objective (by that definition) out of the XNTP's? Would it help to figure out who'd be the best ref in that game?

Ugh, trying to be intellectual when I've got kids arguing about Pokemon all around me! LOL

 

[Night]

Well, we already seem to have a working model of rationalism...

But there are two possible kinds of objectivity as I see it: perceptional and judgemental objectivity. Perceptional objectivity being a way of seeing things that takes minimal account of personal feelings, opinions, expectations and experiences. Like suspension of disbelief when reading a fictional work, you could say that objectivity is suspension of judgement or suspension of prejudice, to look at something with an attitude of it being unique, avoiding the pitfalls of attributing qualities to it that don't exist simply because one's mind sees resemblances in it to other things, which might only be deceptive.

Judgemental objectivity (a phrase I just invented, heh) would be basing a decision on only the facts gained by objective perception, only those things which are directly pertinent to the situation, and not on any prior personal agenda or preference.

I like both definitions. One seems to hint at a personality endemically open to possibilities, while the other appears to seek closure.

We need some analogies I think. Say, a soccer referee - supposed to be objective (= unbiased?). Imagine two players get into a scuffle but it all happened so fast that nobody caught what was said or who started it. Say one of the players has a reputation for aggression and starting fights - would an objective perception be to simply use all the available evidence to piece together a reconstruction of what happened, and then make an objective judgement based solely on that, disregarding this player's reputation and the ref's prior experience?

So, with that in mind, what are we doing? Deciding which is the most objective (by that definition) out of the XNTP's? Would it help to figure out who'd be the best ref in that game?

Your example is evocative.

These principal strategies seem to permit a fundamental difference in how behavior is computed and qualified.

In terms of an "objective" referee (one would discount (as best he can) his bevy of personal biases/prejudices and instead choose to account on the basis of immediate - empirical - evidence) seems to qualify his logical acuity around his capacity to efficiently observe; compare; catalogue and respond to stimuli in his environment. His would probably be a mindset concise to your Judgmental Objectivity.

Oppositional (and equally as "credible", for the purposes of our examination) to the Judgmental profile is the referee who considers previous knowledge and is able to intuitively extrapolate (accuracy notwithstanding) centered on a fluid evaluation of crystallized knowledge and instinctual acumen to arrive at a best-fitting "jacket" of information.

In terms of objectivity, maybe we should begin by inserting (traditional) MBTI evals on the basis of your (fantastic, I might add) assignments.

Ugh, trying to be intellectual when I've got kids arguing about Pokemon all around me! LOL

Me too. I'm teaching!

 

[Randomnity]

I hate to interrupt all you Ns frantically trying to figure out which one of you claims the prize, but why is N assumed to be more objective than S?

I would think that Se, as a function which sees things "are they are" would inherently be more objective than Ne, as a function which see things more "as they could be" or "how I think they are".

As far as experience rather than theory: I have found the ISTPs I've known to be (slightly) more objective in their choices than the ENTP and INTP I know, and about the same as the INTJs. I can accept that this is a personal rather than type effect though, if given a reasonable argument.

Can someone explain this to me?

 

[substitute]

I like both definitions. One seems to hint at a personality endemically open to possibilities, while the other appears to seek closure.

...which seems to speak of a P/J difference rather than E/I. It's saying that P's and J's can be just as objective, but in different ways. Doesn't shed any light on the E/I thing though. But it could... possibly... if we're talking about extraverted and introverted functions as opposed to types.

In terms of an "objective" referee (one would discount (as best he can) his bevy of personal biases/prejudices and instead choose to account on the basis of immediate - empirical - evidence) seems to qualify his logical acuity around his capacity to efficiently observe; compare; catalogue and respond to stimuli in his environment. His would probably be a mindset concise to your Judgmental Objectivity.

Oppositional (and equally as "credible", for the purposes of our examination) to the Judgmental profile is the referee who considers previous knowledge and is able to intuitively extrapolate (accuracy notwithstanding) centered on a fluid evaluation of crystallized knowledge and instinctual acumen to arrive at a best-fitting "jacket" of information.

The objective judgement could be just as prone to inaccuracy - if the ref couldn't see any evidence that the player with the bad rep started the fight, then his judgement would be that he didn't - but in all reality, he could've done and 'probably' did. His judgement, though objective, might still be unfair.

In terms of objectivity, maybe we should begin by inserting (traditional) MBTI evals on the basis of your (fantastic, I might add) assignments.

Go on then

By the way, is that fantastic as in 'based on fantasy' or as in 'brilliant'?

 

[ptgatsby]

<sniff> This ISTP feels left out. Ah well, artisan's never get any credit anyway.

 

[Night]

I hate to interrupt all you Ns frantically trying to figure out which one of you claims the prize, but why is N assumed to be more objective than S?

I would think that Se, as a function which sees things "are they are" would inherently be more objective than Ne, as a function which see things more "as they could be" or "how I think they are".

As far as experience rather than theory: I have found the ISTPs I've known to be (slightly) more objective in their choices than the ENTP and INTP I know, and about the same as the INTJs. I can accept that this is a personal rather than type effect though, if given a reasonable argument.

Can someone explain this to me?

As you wish...

Although it might run contrary to expectations of the OP, I vote we enlarge the system to incorporate as many Types as possible. Doing so would naturally increase the gravity of our expenditure by allowing for a truly "objective" reticule to shape our judgments.

Logically, it seems dismissive to view certain Types as inferior on the basis of predominant trait expression. Yet, a reliable counterweight could allow for a continuum of (possibly) digressive artifacts that might actually prove to stymie - rather than promote - the creative process.

<sniff> This ISTP feels left out. Ah well, artisan's never get any credit anyway.

See above.

Random didn't fully read the available posts before rendering judgment...

By the way, is that fantastic as in 'based on fantasy' or as in 'brilliant'?

Why don't we (appropriately) begin with ISTP?

Thoughts? (PT, I'm looking your way...!)

 

[substitute]

Well yeah, I wasn't assuming objectivity to be an N thing, though I admit probably to begin with (until just slightly before Proteanmix's post) I was erroneously holding it as a T thing, before I started to consider the place of my own tertiary Fe. The OP seemed to assume it to be an NTP thing, the only question being I or E.

Going by the definitions of objectivity I've proposed above, I don't see how any one particular type has a great advantage... potentially... I want to see what others think. This is a process for me as much as for the thread itself

I hate to interrupt all you Ns frantically trying to figure out which one of you claims the prize, but why is N assumed to be more objective than S?

Well you see....

 

[Randomnity]

See above.

Random didn't fully read the available posts before rendering judgment...

Uh, actually I did. I saw your suggestion to consider other types, which I agree with. I also saw it dismissed on the grounds that we're only talking about NT rationalism, which is somehow different from another type's rationalism.

What I was pointing out was the implication that NTs would automatically be superior in "the NT ideal of objectivity/logic guided thought". Just because NTs are called the rationals, it doesn't automatically follow that they are better than an ST at logic and reasoning. They may well be, but I would like to see a reasoned argument for this rather than assumptions.

I saw that over >50 responses, you were the only one who even brought up the possibility of other types being as objective, and this thought was seemingly immediately dismissed as irrelevant because types would supposedly have different definitions of "objective". If I was wrong about it being dismissed, I apologize, but that is how it seemed to me.

I was looking for a logical argument for ignoring Ss, not an insinuation that I can't read.

 

[Night]

Not interested in juggling semantics with you. I apologize if you felt offended.


Do you have anything to contribute relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

[substitute]

Uh, actually I did. I saw your suggestion to consider other types, which I agree with. I also saw it dismissed on the grounds that we're only talking about NT rationalism, which is somehow different from another type's rationalism.

I don't think it was saying NT rationalism was 'somehow different' or superior to other type's. But just trying to keep vaguely close to the OP, we were talking about whether NT rationalism was actually different (not saying that it was but trying to discover if it was, see the distinction?), and if so, in what way? The method we were beginning to use to answer these questions was to first figure out what NT rationalism is, then compare it to other types. And again, paying lip service to the OP, then 'deciding' which is the 'most objective'

Does that clear it up a bit? I know with me no 'elitism' was meant at all, so I apologize if I've given offence.

 

[Randomnity]

Do you have anything to contribute relevant to the discussion at hand?

I would think that Se, as a function which sees things "are they are" would inherently be more objective than Ne, as a function which see things more "as they could be" or "how I think they are".

As far as experience rather than theory: I have found the ISTPs I've known to be (slightly) more objective in their choices than the ENTP and INTP I know, and about the same as the INTJs.

Maybe you should try reading posts. Nothing I said was irrelevant to the discussion. The OP concerned which type was most objective, and I gave my response to the OP, as everyone else did.

I don't think it was saying NT rationalism was 'somehow different' or superior to other type's. But just trying to keep vaguely close to the OP, we were talking about whether NT rationalism was actually different (not saying that it was but trying to discover if it was, see the distinction?), and if so, in what way? The method we were beginning to use to answer these questions was to first figure out what NT rationalism is, then compare it to other types. And again, paying lip service to the OP, then 'deciding' which is the 'most objective'

Does that clear it up a bit? I know with me no 'elitism' was meant at all, so I apologize if I've given offence.

I wasn't offended. I was pointing out what I saw to be an assumption that perhaps people (the OP as well as replies) hadn't realized they were making. I was also genuinely interested in an argument for NTs being potentially better at objectivity than STs. Thanks for your clarification though, it seems I had slightly misunderstood you.

 

[ptgatsby]

Thoughts? (PT, I'm looking your way...!)

Eh, nothing I will post, since it deals with MBTI theory...

Course, you can read that as a comment that I think Ns are distinctly less objective than Ss, and I would go as far as to say that S types are nearly, by definition (the categories measured in Step II), more objective. But then, I'm not sure how many Ss would argue that INTPs > INTJs because of functional order, so I can't really say.

 

[substitute]

I would think that Se, as a function which sees things "are they are" would inherently be more objective than Ne, as a function which see things more "as they could be" or "how I think they are".

Okay, I can work with that. But what about Se perhaps only seeing things 'as they appear'? It's no empty cliche about things not always being what they seem. Se could be just as much at risk of 'as I think they are' as Ne.

As far as experience rather than theory: I have found the ISTPs I've known to be (slightly) more objective in their choices than the ENTP and INTP I know, and about the same as the INTJs. I can accept that this is a personal rather than type effect though, if given a reasonable argument.

Can someone explain this to me?

I can see what you're saying. However, I don't think what you're seeing there is a difference in decision making processes - more in the perception part. The ISTP I call one of my best pals sometimes makes 'objective' decisions, based on Se, which are incorrect because they fail to take into account lots of intuitive information; I do the same in reverse sometimes.

For example, when he's been conversing with my N-predominant colleagues and he's been convinced that somebody was wrong with something they said, but only because he didn't pick up on all the stuff that was to be intuitively 'taken as read' (which everyone else did take as read, without needing any prior introduction). It's very difficult to point out this information to him that he missed, without him getting defensive and saying that we think he's stupid.

I do find in my experience that many SP's do have this sorta paranoia about people thinking they're stupid, which I think acts in much the same way as the INTP's 'inner purpose' (that BlueWing mentioned) and the ENTP's image consciousness - IOW, all these things cloud objectivity.