[NT] INTP vs ENTP. War of objectivity!

[Magic Poriferan]

Am I the only one noticing the way opinions are breaking down party lines?
INTP says INTPs are most objective.
ENTP says ENTPS are most objective.
ENTJ says ENTJs are most objective.

At least none of the INTJs have vouched for themselves yet.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

People can be really confused over something rather easily. Let me try one more time to cut the Gordian knot here.

INTP's have the strongest Ti, and hence the strongest connection to pure "logic," as I defined it earlier, because logic is based on seeing and applying very specific patterns in a particular way rather than anything tangible.

ENTP's have the strongest Ne, and are best at perceiving patterns for their own sake, without predetermined bias towards previously accepted rules. This makes them more objective and rational than INTP's, but not more logical.

ST's are the most objective types, because they come to conclusions about actual observations without making inferences. Among them, ISTP's would be the most logical (dominant Ti, and second only to INTP's), ESTP's the most objective (dominant Se). ExTJ's would be the most rational (dominant Te).

INTJ's are second to ENTP's in objectivity and rationality (dominant Ni), but it's close. Their strengths by comparison are their insight and decisiveness.

What do you understand for 'objective and rational' to be?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The most objective type is ENTJ. Extraverted Thinking is directed towards the external world and Intuition enables abstraction and distance from it.

What do you understand for objectivity to be?

 

[Nocapszy]

Why should perception be part of the objectivity definition? Unless you're talking about making objective external decisions. Not just thinking clearly. Then I'd agree. But we still have not settled on what we understand for objectivity to be.

That's a foolish question. I could turn that right around and ask why it shouldn't. I won't because it's as they say on the streets, 'retarded'.

Why does it have to be a part of the definition? Because in order to TRULY be objective, you have to know all the facts.

 

[Nocapszy]

Am I the only one noticing the way opinions are breaking down party lines?
INTP says INTPs are most objective.
ENTP says ENTPS are most objective.
ENTJ says ENTJs are most objective.

At least none of the INTJs have vouched for themselves yet.

In the first place, I'm not by any means saying ENTP is more objective. I'm saying it has just as much potential to an INTP to be objective.

That's because the party is only represented by our modest Night. Ironic though, I think, that one of the few ones who is trying to be objective by not commenting on his type's behalf is one who's not even in question.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

That's a foolish question. I could turn that right around and ask why it shouldn't. I won't because it's as they say on the streets, 'retarded'.

Why does it have to be a part of the definition? Because in order to TRULY be objective, you have to know all the facts.

Whats objectivity? I dont even know what you're talking about.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

In the first place, I'm not by any means saying ENTP is more objective. I'm saying it has just as much potential to an INTP to be objective.

That's because the party is only represented by our modest Night. Ironic though, I think, that one of the few ones who is trying to be objective by not commenting on his type's behalf is one who's not even in question.

I dont think it is at all clear what you're saying. You keep vascillating from standpoint to standpoint. And even those ideas that you've embraced at one point were far from clearly established.

 

[Nocapszy]

People can be really confused over something rather easily. Let me try one more time to cut the Gordian knot here.

INTP's have the strongest Ti, and hence the strongest connection to pure "logic," as I defined it earlier, because logic is based on seeing and applying very specific patterns in a particular way rather than anything tangible.

ENTP's have the strongest Ne, and are best at perceiving patterns for their own sake, without predetermined bias towards previously accepted rules. This makes them more objective and rational than INTP's, but not more logical.

Thank you. Good to see that someone else sees that taking in information doesn't taint objectivity and somehow make it personal. I don't think that makes us more objective necessarily. The fact that we take in more information only matters as long as we use our Ti to break it down and systemize it.

ST's are the most objective types, because they come to conclusions about actual observations without making inferences. Among them, ISTP's would be the most logical (dominant Ti, and second only to INTP's), ESTP's the most objective (dominant Se). ExTJ's would be the most rational (dominant Te).

Disagree. Making inferences doesn't by any means count as a point towards bias. It only serves to give an idea as to what should be searched for. It helps for future perceiving.

 

[Athenian200]

What do you understand for 'objective and rational' to be?

Objective -- To look at/see something as it actually is, without bias or interpretation. Note that this is technically impossible, because reality for people is filtered first through their limited senses, their mental system for representing that information, and often even through their memories and experience before it becomes conscious. The question is what is closest to this, because nothing actually is such.

Rational -- To base one's decisions on what would be considered by most people to be acceptable criteria for a long-term decision, especially one that affects/involves more than one person. A society or business might be good example.

Disagree. Making inferences doesn't by any means count as a point towards bias. It only serves to give an idea as to what should be searched for. It helps for future perceiving.

But the inferences are based on one's ideas and knowledge, rather than having been actually observed. There's a slight tendency to fit things into a pattern, even if they don't necessarily have to fit. S's have the disadvantage of not always seeing connections that are obvious, because they tend to have to see the entire pattern before they can process it as such, rather than as isolated individual perceptions.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Thank you. Good to see that someone else sees that taking in information doesn't taint objectivity and somehow make it personal. I don't think that makes us more objective necessarily. The fact that we take in more information only matters as long as we use our Ti to break it down and systemize it..

Well. Perceptions are unconscious. Only become conscious when you apply Ti.

Thus, if your Ti does not work properly, you wont make good sense of them. INTPs' Ti is more likely to work properly. Therefore the few unconscious perceptions they had will be more easily made sense of.

 

[Nocapszy]

I dont think it is at all clear what you're saying. You keep vascillating from standpoint to standpoint. And even those ideas that you've embraced at one point were far from clearly established.

A post like this is exactly why I say the INTP isn't any more objective than the ENTP. At first, you were satisfied with your definition of objectivity and were comfortable making such a bombastic claim as "INTPs are most...(I don't remember it verbatim, but the post is there) as the second post in this thread.

As time went on, and you began to take in more information, you began to question your own claim. Shouldn't this speak to the notion that you only THIKN you're most objective?

I think you're speaking more in terms of an objective way of dealing with information, but then, the ENTP and INTP have a common technique for dealing with the information, which is Ti.

By your logic, (saying that the only thing that counts is the judgement function) I could say that INTP and ISTP are exactly the same in objectivity.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Objective -- To look at/see something as it actually is, without bias or interpretation. Note that this is technically impossible, because reality for people is filtered first through their limited senses, their mental system for representing that information, and often even through their memories and experience before it becomes conscious. The question is what is closest to this, because nothing actually is such.

Rational -- To base one's decisions on what would be considered by most people to be acceptable criteria for a long-term decision, especially one that affects/involves more than one person. A society or business might be good example.

So, objectivity-accepting the world for what it is.

Thus NFs are most objective about the human element

NTs are most objective about whatever requires impersonal analysis.

Rational -- To base one's decisions on what would be considered by most people to be acceptable criteria for a long-term decision, especially one that affects/involves more than one person. A society or business might be good example.

Can it not have merit without others acknowleding that it does?

 

[Nocapszy]

Well. Perceptions are unconscious. Only become conscious when you apply Ti.

Thus, if your Ti does not work properly, you wont make good sense of them. INTPs' Ti is more likely to work properly. Therefore the few unconscious perceptions they had will be more easily made sense of.

Is this a joke? It has to be. Otherwise your Ti isn't working properly.

Clarification: Who's to say that the unconscious isn't involved in being objective? After all, it all boils down to neural activity. Just because the information doesn't come from the part of the brain that generates consciousness doesn't mean that it's any more biased.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

A post like this is exactly why I say the INTP isn't any more objective than the ENTP. At first, you were satisfied with your definition of objectivity and were comfortable making such a bombastic claim as "INTPs are most...(I don't remember it verbatim, but the post is there) as the second post in this thread.

Yes, I still maintain that objectivity is the same thing as Thinking.

As time went on, and you began to take in more information, you began to question your own claim. Shouldn't this speak to the notion that you only THIKN you're most objective?.

I dont understand the remark.

By your logic, (saying that the only thing that counts is the judgement function) I could say that INTP and ISTP are exactly the same in objectivity.

Yes ITPs are about as objective. INTP edges slightly ahead because Ne flourishes Ti. Whilst with Ti and Se they operate, as seperate entities.

 

[ptgatsby]

These are the kinds of things that N run in their mind without touching a calculator or running a spreadsheet.

Right. I'll be an S. Why do you believe this? Why do you believe N = statistics? Or N = Math? Or any variation on that theme? Is this an impression, or did you look at the type breakdown for mathematics? Did you adjust for university type distributions? IQ?

I don't see many Ns doing a statistical analysis before they say something like "that's what Ns do" or similar.

Demanding an example is also very much an S thing - even when inappropriate. Not all concepts are well illustrated by individual examples. How should I prove the average of a set of numbers with a singular example?

You can easily show how to derive an average with an example to show that the formula (the "theory") is applicable. I asked for an example in which intuition was being applied. If the theory is accurate, you can easily find an example to demonstrate it. It's not like I'm asking for E8 TOE here, or something that is completely impossible to show.

The same reasoning applies to more complex judgements than calculating an average. Who's popular? What's beautiful? Is movie X a crime drama or psychological thriller? Does someone look old?

Every example is why "objective" needs to be tangible. Every single one of them is not objective, it is subjective to the beholder. Yet you can turn most of them into an objective statement. You seem to say that Ns do that (statistics, etc) and yet also make the most leaps...

Popular as objective = measure something. Fans, surveys, concerts, sales... "Jane Doe is the most popular artist because she sold the most albums".

Saying "I think she is popular" based upon a lot of small pieces of data is subjective. That doesn't make it false, less accurate or anything else. It is simple more subjective.

Making a judgement on these kind of issues requires us to compare a lot of information. It's time-consuming to scrutinize 100 movies to make a detailed comparison on the features of drama and thriller movies. Even then, the result can be disputed. "What is drama? What is considered exciting? Who has decided on these definitions? I refuse to believe that thrillers exist."

Exactly. We use heuristics in order to process massive amounts of information to come to a subjective quick conclusion. We cannot gather objective data in real time to make real decisions. We shortcut. The rule of thumb, the short cuts, the fuzzy thinking... that is the subjective interpretation. We fill in the blanks.

Your view on if it is a drama is subjective based upon rules you have set to parse through information. You don't attempt to define drama, then create a checklist to check if it is. You shortcut it based on past experiences.

Just as beauty is relative to what you have seen. Simple example - in our media world, we are blasted with more pictures of tail end beautiful women. Your heuristic scan will therefore not place the respective beaty, based on average population, in the correct place - because you are not being objective. Your trained perspective is subjective and manipulated by your own view. It does not represent the real population distribution (even of people you have encountered).

S will have to contend to the fact that many well-established concepts exist only for groups of items, which requires some pattern recognition, or intuition. We wouldn't be able to use many common sense, every day concepts without using some N. Have you given a thought about why machine learning is so difficult?

This isn't an argument over what is better or more accurate. It is a comment over what is objective. We cannot be objective because we are human. We use rules of thumb, biases, short cuts... because we cannot contend with the amount of data we receive.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Is this a joke? It has to be. Otherwise your Ti isn't working properly.

Clarification: Who's to say that the unconscious isn't involved in being objective? After all, it all boils down to neural activity. Just because the information doesn't come from the part of the brain that generates consciousness doesn't mean that it's any more biased.

You still dont get it. Intuition and sensing are unconscious. They are just vague perceptions. When I say fhdoifdsohifdsohisfdohisfd. Your intuition merely collects a perception. Yet, it is not until you apply your Judgment you manage to understand what I just said.

 

[Nocapszy]

Yes ITPs are about as objective. INTP edges slightly ahead because Ne flourishes Ti.

Ok. You don't have to believe me, but I actually began typing something predicting this would be your response. For the sake of leading you into your own logical trap, I ended my response where it was.

You realize that you're literally saying that the perception makes a difference, do you not?

Whilst with Ti and Se they operate, as seperate entities.

No they don't. Think of a guitar player ISTP. They use Ti to define the seemingly insignificant bits of sensory data so that the finger work is just right. While in this example they're not defining truth about philosophical or conceptual data, they're still using "objectivity" (your non incisive synonym) to define the most efficient, and cleanest method with the least mistakes.

 

[Nocapszy]

You still dont get it. Intuition and sensing are unconscious. They are just vague perceptions. When I say fhdoifdsohifdsohisfdohisfd. Your intuition merely collects a perception. Yet, it is not until you apply your Judgment you manage to understand what I just said.

No, I do get it. I'm telling you you're wrong. The unconsciousness of perception is irrelevant. It's not as if thinking deletes some bias that perception gathers.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Ok. You don't have to believe me, but I actually began typing something predicting this would be your response. For the sake of leading you into your own logical trap, I ended my response where it was.

You realize that you're literally saying that the perception makes a difference, do you not? .

What have you done to refute that?

No they don't. Think of a guitar player ISTP. They use Ti to define the seemingly insignificant bits of sensory data so that the finger work is just right. While in this example they're not defining truth about philosophical or conceptual data, they're still using "objectivity" (your non incisive synonym) to define the most efficient, and cleanest method with the least mistakes.

Dont think of this as a dichotomy. That is one is totally interchangeable, the other not at all. But only as that Ti and Ne are more easily interchangeable than Ti and Se.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

No, I do get it. I'm telling you you're wrong. The unconsciousness of perception is irrelevant. It's not as if thinking deletes some bias that perception gathers.

You still dont understand. If I asked you what your intuitions are like, you'd have no way of knowing. Whatever you'd pass off as your answer would be the product of your Ti.