[INTP] Losing objectivity once you're emotionally invested.

[Rasofy]

Person before having dated anyone:
There's good data showing that YYYY, ZZZZ, and KKKK are the best matches for me.

Person while dating an ZZZZ:
ZZZZs seem to be the best match for me. They complete me in so many ways. Our differences are quite complementary and I learn a lot with him/her.

Person after break up with a ZZZZ:
ZZZZs have some potential, but I think the best matches for our type would be YYYY and KKKK.

What happened there?
What can we do to avoid that process and become pinnacles of objectivity?
Wait, do we really want that?

I mostly wanted to hear some random thoughts about it.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I talked about this phenomenon in this thread (although in a very broad and general sense, but the idea is the same) some time ago.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...mall-picture-philosophy-about-philosophy.html

I think it's our nature to seek specialization in order to increase effeciency and gain better results. But at the same time, we lose out on perspective.

I think it's mainly an issue for INTP's though. As we really want to stay focusing on the biggest picture we can imagine.

 

[murkrow]

If you're trying to objectively determine which type you should be after then you're fucking up hard. (not that 90% of us haven't done it, it's probably one of the most motivating ideas in typology)

The only way to become more objective is to immerse yourself in the objects. The more times you try and fail and then honestly consider what you did, the better you will be at recognizing your own irrational behaviour.

 

[raindancing]

[MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] do you mean only INTPs do this, or only INTPs care about doing this?

I don't know about other INFPs, but it really bothers me when I find my perceptions skewed by bias. I put a lot of time into analyzing my assumptions, trying to determine their validity.

Isn't marketing attempting to do this? Emotionally invest you in some way, so you don't look at the product objectively.

[MENTION=13260]Rasofy[/MENTION], your question 'do you want it?' made me think of this:


We appear to be faced with a general difficulty about psychophysical reduction. In other areas the process of reduction is a move in the direction of greater objectivity, toward a more, accurate view of the real nature of things. This is accomplished by reducing our dependence on individual or species-specific points of view toward the object of investigation. We describe it not in terms of the impressions it makes on our senses, but in terms of its more general effects and of properties detectable by means other than the human senses. The less it depends on a specifically human viewpoint, the more objective is our description. It is possible to follow this path because although the concepts and ideas we employ in thinking about the external world are initially applied from a point of view that involves our perceptual apparatus, they are used by us to refer to things beyond themselves—toward which we have the phenomenal point of view. Therefore we can abandon it in favor of another, and still be thinking about the same things.

Experience itself however, does not seem to fit the pattern. The idea of moving from appearance to reality seems to make no sense here. What is the analogue in this case to pursuing a more objective understanding of the same phenomena by abandoning the initial subjective viewpoint toward them in favour of another that is more objective but concerns the same thing? Certainly it appears unlikely that we will get closer to the real nature of human experience by leaving behind the particularity of our human point of view and striving for a description in terms accessible to beings that could not imagine what it was like to be us. If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to greater objectivity—that is, less attachment to a specific viewpoint—does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us farther away from it.

- Thmas Nagel - What’s it like to be a bat

 

[Fluffywolf]

[MENTION=6643]Fluffywolf[/MENTION] do you mean only INTPs do this, or only INTPs care about doing this?

Well, neither of those two statements. I meant that INTP's in particular (but not neccesarily exclusively) want to refrain from doing this. Because the notion of eliminating options based on subjective grounds doesn't sit well with us. Even if it could more effeciently lead us where we want to go to.

 

[The Great One]

The first time I fell in love, logic and reason went down the drain. I feel like the first girl is the special one, and one falls in love very hard with the first one. However, it gets a little easier for with each new relationship. Well, that is until you fall strongly in love again, and then logic goes down the tubes again. You know what I'm saying?

 

[Thalassa]

Does the opposite happen to F types? I've had people tell me I'm being cold and insensitive when I'm being objective, which is a riot to me, because I tend to be emotionally sensitive.

Oh but you mean in romantic relationships. Those aren't supposed to be entirely objective (but it's probably a good idea if you learn a balance, though, and don't just date people because they're hot).

 

[Rasofy]

I think it's our nature to seek specialization in order to increase effeciency and gain better results. But at the same time, we lose out on perspective.

Yes, that happens.

If you're trying to objectively determine which type you should be after then you're fucking up hard. (not that 90% of us haven't done it, it's probably one of the most motivating ideas in typology)

No, the analogy was instrumental.

The only way to become more objective is to immerse yourself in the objects. The more times you try and fail and then honestly consider what you did, the better you will be at recognizing your own irrational behaviour.

Intellectual honesty is very important.

We appear to be faced with a general difficulty about psychophysical reduction. In other areas the process of reduction is a move in the direction of greater objectivity, toward a more, accurate view of the real nature of things. This is accomplished by reducing our dependence on individual or species-specific points of view toward the object of investigation. We describe it not in terms of the impressions it makes on our senses, but in terms of its more general effects and of properties detectable by means other than the human senses. The less it depends on a specifically human viewpoint, the more objective is our description. It is possible to follow this path because although the concepts and ideas we employ in thinking about the external world are initially applied from a point of view that involves our perceptual apparatus, they are used by us to refer to things beyond themselves—toward which we have the phenomenal point of view. Therefore we can abandon it in favor of another, and still be thinking about the same things.

Experience itself however, does not seem to fit the pattern. The idea of moving from appearance to reality seems to make no sense here. What is the analogue in this case to pursuing a more objective understanding of the same phenomena by abandoning the initial subjective viewpoint toward them in favour of another that is more objective but concerns the same thing? Certainly it appears unlikely that we will get closer to the real nature of human experience by leaving behind the particularity of our human point of view and striving for a description in terms accessible to beings that could not imagine what it was like to be us. If the subjective character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of view, then any shift to greater objectivity—that is, less attachment to a specific viewpoint—does not take us nearer to the real nature of the phenomenon: it takes us farther away from it.

- Thmas Nagel - What’s it like to be a bat

Great stuff.

 

[raindancing]

Well, neither of those two statements. I meant that INTP's in particular (but not neccesarily exclusively) want to refrain from doing this. Because the notion of eliminating options based on subjective grounds doesn't sit well with us. Even if it could more effeciently lead us where we want to go to.

Ah ok

You're saying that for an INTP, you would dismiss a perception because it's subjective? Would you take the time to understand it first?
I guess for me, I want to understand my subjective perceptions, but I don't necessary dismiss them.

Something I've noticed in my INTP is that occasionally he won't realize some opinion he is espousing is based on very subjective grounds (and he doesn't take it too kindly if pull it apart to reveal the assumptions he is resting on.) I'm just thinking off the top of my head, so this probably isn't all accurate, but it seems like this often happens when it's a thing he has some emotional reaction to, except he doesn't realize he's being colored by emotions.
He doesn't analyze his emotions like I do, generally isn't even aware the subject is making him feel anything. And if he doesn't realize he's feeling something, how is he going to be aware that his feelings are influencing him?

Often I can tell how he's feeling, when he doesn't. Then I can help him pull them out and recognize them. It's very strange

Another thing, sometimes he will flatly refuse to admit that an opinion is based on subjective grounds. This is when things can get a little tense between us. But if admitting it's subjective means he would feel obliged to discard it, I can see why he would be like that.

It's always strange, because he is normally so clear in his reasoning, but when emotion comes into it everything becomes muddied. Which I suppose would be a reason for him to, consciously or not, avoid emotion.

 

[Fluffywolf]

generally isn't even aware the subject is making him feel anything. And if he doesn't realize he's feeling something, how is he going to be aware that his feelings are influencing him?

Hmm, I am all to familiar with these emotions, and trust me they are definately felt. But it's more like we can't incoorperate these feelings into our reasoning. Because Ti doesn't do shortcuts, even if our feelings point the same way our reasoning does, we still need that reasoning to be in place. Ti wants to have a rational reason (or as rational as possible) for us to undertake certain action. Emotions, although definately felt, are not something we can 'blindly trust' in when we're talking about subjects close to our interests.

The only moment I have where I can truely let my emotions flow without Ti scrutinization is when being physically intimate.

As for not admitting an opinion is based on subjective grounds, I think it's more that he doesn't want to 'submit' to a subjective opinion, right? When we lack the ability to have an opinion in that field based on solely objective grounds, yet our environment asks us to still have an opinion about it, things can get a bit tricky for us. We don't feel we have the right information yet to give a good opinion, and that can really tense us up.

I've learned to just go with it with an open mind. I can conform to a subjective idea if I have no better alternative at that moment, but I won't feel like that's truth or fact, and will allow myself to revise my opinion whenever I find something to add to the story.

 

[raindancing]

Hmm, I am all to familiar with these emotions, and trust me they are definately felt. But it's more like we can't incoorperate these feelings into our reasoning. Because Ti doesn't do shortcuts, even if our feelings point the same way our reasoning does, we still need that reasoning to be in place. Ti wants to have a rational reason (or as rational as possible) for us to undertake certain action. Emotions, although definately felt, are not something we can 'blindly trust' in when we're talking about subjects close to our interests.

Thanks for that explanation. The bolded part was particularly interesting. I knew this in a sense, but seeing it in words helps clarify it in my mind.

The only moment I have where I can truely let my emotions flow without Ti scrutinization is when being physically intimate.

It was interesting in the thread about love languages, so many INTPs had physical intimacy as one of their top two.

My INTP is like this, it's amazing the deep passion that can become evident with physical expression. Incredibly overwhelming

As for not admitting an opinion is based on subjective grounds, I think it's more that he doesn't want to 'submit' to a subjective opinion, right? When we lack the ability to have an opinion in that field based on solely objective grounds, yet our environment asks us to still have an opinion about it, things can get a bit tricky for us. We don't feel we have the right information yet to give a good opinion, and that can really tense us up.

I've learned to just go with it with an open mind. I can conform to a subjective idea if I have no better alternative at that moment, but I won't feel like that's truth or fact, and will allow myself to revise my opinion whenever I find something to add to the story.

I was referring more to situation's where he thinks he's being objective, and doesn't realize that the conclusion he's reached is being influenced by some emotional pull or bias he isn't conscious of.

As for situations that you described, where he's expected to have an opinion but he doesn't feel he has enough information, then he is as you describe: open minded, choosing the best with what info he has, but holding it lightly. This is his most common mind set.

I only brought up the other stuff because it sort of went with the thread (and I find it interesting )

 

[Lark]

I think there's factors greater than typology at play in romantic liasons and more than that in objectivity too.

 

[skylights]

I suspect this is in part a natural reaction of the mind to protect us and keep us happy. To some degree we subconsciously choose a certain take on reality because it makes life better. But ultimately, since it's really just another way of framing the same thing (I liken it to using a better browser, even though you're seeing the same internets), you're just better off updating your frames to fit each situation, so to speak. I figure it's part and parcel to experiential learning. As nice as it would be for us Ns to be able to grasp it theoretically beforehand, I honestly think there are some things that just must be experienced to understand.