[NT] NT Objectivity Scale

[Salomé]

Wha? It's about NTs, not Ss.

Oh, ok. I thought you were saying NTs were the most objective group and then listed the order of types within that group.

I see that's not what you were doing now.

However, it would still be valid,if you were.

 

[ptgatsby]

You heard.
Are you telling me theoretical physicists lack objectivity?
For the third time. Objectivity is not about objects or real world entities.

Yes, theoretical physics lacks objectivity up until the point it is validated. That's because physics is a model of the real world and must represent an objective outcome. Simply dreaming up a TOE is meaningless unless it represents reality.

It would make more sense if you said mathematics alone, since that wouldn't be as easy to argue. Physics is still a science. All science requires a testable hypothesis, and thus requires a method to test the theory. You can have math. I'll take all of the sciences. That's a fair trade to me.

But tell you what. You can have the title - it's not like it changes reality anyway. All you have to is remove "perceived" from the definition. And narrow "fact" down to only the one definition you want. And then ignore that any internal thought would be biased if it didn't reflect external reality.

Conditions are observable, and aren't necessarily provable, if you want to get technical, as I can see you do.

I must be missing your point. Conditions that can be seen without bias require controlled circumstances, anyway. They would be data, not fact, sure, but doesn't change the underlying point. To conclude on weaker circumstances would be biased. It simply replaces "fact" with "observation". The ability to see the world the way it is is more of an NP thing than SP thing, then...? Sure, why not. I'll chalk it up to the depth of insight.

Trying to prove S more objective than N, an irrelevant notion anyway as far as the OP is concerned, smacks of personal agenda, which is, of course, quite subjective. I've already said I disagree with the notion, as some others have, but that's neither here nor there.

Hmmm... the only threads I have seen about objectivity have come from INTPs, not surprisingly always picking themselves. I don't care quite so much, actually.... Agenda, heh? Sure, I suppose. I do find it amusing. But point taken, I'll let you guys debate it away without interference.

(Unless substitute posts. It's not over man.)

 

[Salomé]

Yes, theoretical physics lacks objectivity up until the point it is validated.

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.
and
Rubbish.

You can be objectively wrong, you know.

 

[Jack Flak]

Yes, theoretical physics lacks objectivity up until the point it is validated. That's because physics is a model of the real world and must represent an objective outcome. Simply dreaming up a TOE is meaningless unless it represents reality.

Incorrect. Objectivity can be maintained from the point of no knowledge all the way through to complete understanding. It can be, and is, a mindset to go about collecting data, not the amount of data itself.

To conclude on weaker circumstances would be biased. It simply replaces "fact" with "observation". The ability to see the world the way it is is more of an NP thing than SP thing, then...? Sure, why not. I'll chalk it up to the depth of insight.

I don't know; That's not relevant.

Hmmm... the only threads I have seen about objectivity have come from INTPs, not surprisingly always picking themselves.

Is it not acceptable for people to notice traits within themselves and others? I mentioned agenda simply because you brought your opinions of ISTP objectivity into a conversation intended to be about NT objectivity.

 

[ptgatsby]

Incorrect. Objectivity can be maintained from the point of no knowledge all the way through to complete understanding. It can be, and is, a mindset to go about collecting data, not the amount of data itself.

From no knowledge, to going out and collecting data. I totally agree.

Is it not acceptable for people to notice traits within themselves and others?

Good question. I would say it is.

 

[Salomé]

From no knowledge, to going out and collecting data. I totally agree.

What happens if it's unfeasible to collect data?

Does an argument suddenly switch from being subjective (i.e. based on personal values) to objective because it is newly supported by data?

That's ridiculous.

 

[ptgatsby]

Does an argument suddenly switch from being subjective (i.e. based on personal values) to objective because it is newly supported by data?

Hmmm... you are asking if a subjective opinion on something becomes objective once it is supported? Yes. By virtue of being supported by something observable, it becomes objective, in the literal "it is not a subjective opinion, you can see it/do it yourself".

The whole point is that holding opinions that are not validated makes one subjective. Yes, some of them may be correct, but objectivity doesn't speak to truth, it speaks as a lack of personal bias. Having something outside that others can see validates your perceptions and makes the concept objective - supported by a non-subjective thing.

 

[Salomé]

Hmmm... you are asking if a subjective opinion on something becomes objective once it is supported? Yes. By virtue of being supported by something observable, it becomes objective, in the literal "it is not a subjective opinion, you can see it/do it yourself".

The whole point is that holding opinions that are not validated makes one subjective. Yes, some of them may be correct, but objectivity doesn't speak to truth, it speaks as a lack of personal bias. Having something outside that others can see validates your perceptions and makes the concept objective - supported by a non-subjective thing.

I see what you are saying, but you are wrong.

If someone lacks objectivity, they will mold the facts to suit their argument. Facts are meaningless without the objective mindset.

Lies..damned lies...statistics.....?

 

[Jack Flak]

If someone lacks objectivity, they will mold the facts to suit their argument. Facts are meaningless without the objective mindset.

Yes, listen to this if possible. This is what I was getting at, in other words.

Those who are more objective will speak and act in a way not in line with self-interest (or a specific goal) more than those with a subjective mindset.

 

[Xander]

Errmmm can I just say OH MY WORD... this is getting WAY too silly now.

Objective is in relation to the object no? Well then you'd be better off first looking at those who deal with the object than the self no? So that's INTJ or ENTJ... shocking...

Btw if testing is irrelevant then details are irrelevant... as is this discussion and many others. Kinda removes the point of interaction if you ask me.

Anyhow the most objective person is one who recognises their own inability to be objctive. That is more likely to be INTPs admitedly but the whole obsession with some fine distinction way past when it is of any use kinda of makes them a little too driven to be all that objective.

To make it about the ball you have to be able to put the damn thing down once in a while so you can see it.

Anyhow... may I ask why this even came up? Is it for predictive purposes or merely a mine's bigger than yours?

 

[Salomé]

Objective is in relation to the object no?

No. Read teh thread.

 

[Xander]

No. Read teh thread.

I'm afraid that all I can see is that objectivity is being used as a title. Like the Queen it holds no true value but it is percieved to be a powerful position.

 

[Eldanen]

Most objective: INTJ ENTJ INTP ENTP :Least Objective

IME, Ti people get so caught up in nitpicking logic that they don't get the point.

But honestly, trying to scale types for objectivity doesn't work. Everyone has their sweet spot for that.

 

[Xander]

Most objective: INTJ ENTJ INTP ENTP :Least Objective

IME, Ti people get so caught up in nitpicking logic that they don't get the point.

But honestly, trying to scale types for objectivity doesn't work. Everyone has their sweet spot for that.

This is what I don't understand.. some get lost in details determined to define the universe, some are irreverant to the point of irrelevance, other's are too busy doing it "right" and the last group just can't see it because they think they already have it.

None are quintessentially objective in nature but all have the capability to be objective.

 

[Eldanen]

This is what I don't understand.. some get lost in details determined to define the universe, some are irreverant to the point of irrelevance, other's are too busy doing it "right" and the last group just can't see it because they think they already have it.

None are quintessentially objective in nature but all have the capability to be objective.

What do you mean I don't have it already!?

 

[Xander]

What do you mean I don't have it already!?

Psst.... you'd be the irreverant one.. K?

 

[Eldanen]

Psst.... you'd be the irreverant one.. K?

Then your post was a misnomer because you said the last group, as I identified as ENTP, were those (you quoted my post, not the op). FIX YOUR ORDER!

 

[Xander]

Then your post was a misnomer because you said the last group, as I identified as ENTP, were those (you quoted my post, not the op). FIX YOUR ORDER!

Literal much. I was postulating on some random grouping in the ether not necessarily any specific grouping which may have been mentioned thus far.

 

[Salomé]

Hey! Cool your jewels, peeps.
This was an exercise in trying to determine which attributes and by association, which type, was most likely to be gifted in the area of objectivity. No one is placing any implicit value on being objective - there are as many pitfalls as advantages, maybe more. I don't see the problem in this kind of exercise, it's just another way of exploring type.
And I think the case rested.

 

[Eldanen]

Literal much. I was postulating on some random grouping in the ether not necessarily any specific grouping which may have been mentioned thus far.

*jumps on top of your shoulders and bites your head*