[NT] NT Objectivity Scale

[Xander]

That's weird. I missed this post. And yet I immediately wrote about robots straight after.

Strange how robots come up when talking about NTs no? It's such a lovely parallel and yet also so completely wrong for what a robot would be..

Anyway...

Back to the grindstone...

I've said this already, but since you aren't going to read the thread, Mr Pretty Vacant, I'll say it again:
Objective <> correct.

You're right. Objective isn't correct. You mean disassociative, detached, sociopathic.. something like that?

You can be objectively wrong.

If all INTPs agreed on a definition, that would make us all equally brilliant. Some of us are more INTP than others. [/quote]
I can but try to help those mired. I cannot do it for them.

I can however set an ENFJ on you and then take bets.

 

[INTJMom]

...
The way I was looking at it was from the point of view that objective is discovered where as subjective is more extrapolated. Hence objective is more directly linked to the object (okay it should be "the subject of whatever" but that's crossing object and subject over which tends to confuse). If I am considering a rock then I can consider what it means to me but that's making me the focus where as to consider the rock as a rock is more objective as it retains focus upon the rock itself.
...

I already knew that.

 

[Jack Flak]

Wow. Xander, you're operating with a completely different definition of objective here. The reason I put the def. in the OP was so people wouldn't think I referred to Jung-style objectivity.

 

[Salomé]

I can however set an ENFJ on you and then take bets.

DO IT!

 

[Salomé]

Wow. Xander, you're operating with a completely different definition of objective here. The reason I put the def. in the OP was so people wouldn't think I referred to Jung-style objectivity.

YAY! Jack's back. The thread is in safe hands.

 

[INTJMom]

Having an agenda entails the opposite of being objective.

But the agenda was developed apart from reality.
It was an ideal formed in complete objectivity.

 

[Salomé]

But the agenda was developed apart from reality.
It was an ideal formed in complete objectivity.

An agenda isn't an idea. It's a goal.

 

[INTJMom]

Definitely.

For one I'm still arguing the point. If I was an INTJ then you'd just have been declared as wrong several posts back and I'd not have returned except to look at your posts with scorn

So true!

 

[Salomé]

So true!

That's only 'cos we pwn you in debate.

 

[Xander]

For those not paying adequate attention (please don't see me later... I need a rest.. but do detain yourselves)

Definitions of objective used are:

-not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion

Oh you mean like the usual definition of objective where it's not mired in personal feelings and being warped through someone's own psychosis... like INTPs who don't want people to DO something with their concept in case it gets irrevocably altered.

-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

So that would be not being entirely self referential and not thinking that everyone does or should think the same way you do... great. How's that INTP again?

I'm afraid I still see no correlation between understanding that the world doesn't necessarily work the way you think it does and type.

If I were to chose one then out of those four... probably INTJ. Though if you check, with each refinement of definition I've chosen a different type.

 

[INTJMom]

An agenda isn't an idea. It's a goal.

Yes. I realize that.
So the only way a person can be objective is if they don't have a goal?
You mean they just sit there having random thoughts with no purpose?
How do you know when you're done thinking?

How can you know if you're being objective unless you can also determine when you're not being objective?

 

[Xander]

An agenda isn't an idea. It's a goal.

These are quite tightly constrained definitions..

Personally I would say that any concept not put into reality yet is an idea. Including plans, targets and goals.

 

[Salomé]

If I were to chose one then out of those four... probably INTJ. Though if you check, with each refinement of definition I've chosen a different type.

sheesh...these bloody INTJs - never make up their minds about anythin'...

 

[INTJMom]

That's only 'cos we pwn you in debate.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

 

[Xander]

Yes. I realize that.
So the only way a person can be objective is if they don't have a goal?
You mean they just sit there having random thoughts with no purpose?
How do you know when you're done thinking?

The nurse brings your next dose.

How can you know if you're being objective unless you can also determine when you're not being objective?

#1 You get typed as an NT.
#2 You read the profile.
#3 You believe everyword but ignore the bit marked "weaknesses".

 

[Salomé]

These are quite tightly constrained definitions..

Personally I would say that any concept not put into reality yet is an idea. Including plans, targets and goals.

You're just arguing the sake of arguing. I can dig that.

An agenda is not a concept. Buy a dictionary.

 

[Xander]

sheesh...these bloody INTJs - never make up their minds about anythin'...

Never a truer word said in jest.

Odd that it's never really admitted.


(The plot thickens)

 

[Xander]

You're just arguing the sake of arguing. I can dig that.

An agenda is not a concept. Buy a dictionary.

Ooo appealing to a higher authority.... minus ten demerits.


NEXT!

 

[Salomé]

So the only way a person can be objective is if they don't have a goal?

What I mean is that the having of a goal must of necessity distort one's objectivity.

You mean they just sit there having random thoughts with no purpose?

:hi: pleased to meet you.

How do you know when you're done thinking?

my work is never done.

How can you know if you're being objective unless you can also determine when you're not being objective?

You have to be objective about it.

 

[Salomé]

Ooo appealing to a higher authority.... minus ten demerits.


NEXT!

Minus a demerit? That's a plus right? Woot! 10 points for me.