Ah. This is where it all started to go downhill in the other thread. Cos see, PT argues that the way N's see is inherently subjective; that Se 'seeing' is the only method of perception that's validly objective. And you can imagine how N's took to that.
*hides under table*
I was overstating the whole thing because of the attitude in the thread.
The reality is that "objective" fact based decision making is learnt. NTs will worship objectivity, yes, but that's entirely different than actually
being objective.
No one is objective because of personality type. It's simply not a factor. Some correlation, perhaps, but weak - very weak - at best. One learns to be guided by certain principles, or not... learns to identify when concepts are thought first, then justified (INTPs are prone to using this as their "i'm objective" defense). Others learn to block out contrary data (TJs, I'm looking at you), or reframe it (NPs I'm looking at you.) Others will actively disregard new information (Ss, I'm looking at you) or close minds to alternative explanations (SJs, I'm looking at you).
Actually, floofiness and objectivity aren't mutually exclusive. Objectivity is relatively irrelevant in isolating sensing and intuition. We see differently, but may handle what we see with equal deference.
Naturally. PT is simply incorrect.
Well, I defined it that way, so meh to you. Floofy = N. And Floofy = not objective. Therefore, N = not objective.
Hah! (In all seriousness, I still haven't heard, from anyone, how to determine and test what makes one objective
)
Sorry, I didn't quite catch that. The jarring, screeching noise of your N-grinding axe distracted me
Tsk. Nothing worse than a convert, is there?
Pshh, nothing to do with it. The axe is just for taking certain types down a notch.
A notch, a head, a foot. Whatever measurement is needed.
Dead serious.
