NT Objectivity Scale

[Jack Flak]

Definitions of objective used are:

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

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

Most Objective: INTP...ENTP...INTJ...ENTJ: Least Objective

I'm confident in this assertion as it pertains to "the typical bearer of type," though I'm sure someone disagrees. As to its importance...Advantage could be gained in dealing with people of these types by way of adjusting initial trust. One who isn't as concerned with self-advancement or control as one is with remaining objective is less likely to deceive.

[Colors]

I'd say on average: Most objective- ENTP ... INTP .... ENTJ ... INTJ - Least objective

Really depends on the individual (and perhaps the situation as well).

[Jack Flak]

I'd say on average: Most objective- ENTP ... INTP .... ENTJ ... INTJ - Least objective
Incorrect.
Really depends on the individual (and perhaps the situation as well).
Goes without saying. So I alluded to it above, but didn't say it.

[Lateralus]

Incorrect.
Elaborate.

[Colors]

Objectivity:

external perceiving > internal perceiving (Ne > Ni - looking at patterns in outside data vs. patterns with inside data)

extraversion > introversion (Someone more in tune with what's actually going on rather than an internal standard/vision.)

[Jack Flak]

Elaborate.
I'm too unconcerned with proving my point to elaborate. And your attempts to control this INTP, Mr. ENTJ, are useless!

[Jack Flak]

Note to Colors: Analyze behavior, speech, etc., not fabricated function orders.

[Lateralus]

I'm too unconcerned with proving my point to elaborate. And your attempts to control this INTP, Mr. ENTJ, are useless!
I expected nothing less. That would require you to actually do something.

[Jack Flak]

I expected nothing less. That would require you to actually do something.
Via your ad hominem attack, you have demonstrated your unobjectivity. Additionally, if your fury were lessened by calm, rational thought, you might have noticed that I was in fact elaborating humorously while claiming I never would.

[ptgatsby]

Note to Colors: Analyze behavior, speech, etc., not fabricated function orders.

Note to self: Don't depend on INTPs to be objective about their objectivity.

That'd require them to actually come up with reasons for putting themselves first.

[Jack Flak]

Note to self: Don't depend on INTPs to be objective about their objectivity.

That'd require them to actually come up with reasons for putting themselves first.
Note to self: INTPs are more objective than ISTPs as well.

[Lateralus]

Note to Colors: Analyze behavior, speech, etc., not fabricated function orders.
Wait, isn't MBTI about information gathering and processing?

[ptgatsby]

Note to self: INTPs are more objective than ISTPs as well.

Heh, still waiting for your justification of beliefs, oh objective one.

[Night]

What does "objective" mean?

Are you referring to an opinion free from extraneous influence?

[Lateralus]

Via your ad hominem attack, you have demonstrated your unobjectivity. Additionally, if your fury were lessened by calm, rational thought, you might have noticed that I was in fact elaborating humorously while claiming I never would.
Stating a fact is now a sign of unobjectivity?

[Jack Flak]

Heh, still waiting for your justification of beliefs, oh objective one.
*sigh* As stated, I am far too objective to feel the need to prove anything.

[ptgatsby]

*sigh* As stated, I am far too objective to feel the need to prove anything.

Or too subjective to see your own subjectivity.

[Jack Flak]

Stating a fact is now a sign of unobjectivity?
It depends on the fact. When I stated the facts contained in my Objectivity Scale, I started to feel slightly unobjective, but still in the green.

Or too subjective to see your own subjectivity.
My subjectivity is like a tiny, tiny mouse, and my objectivity the tiger who hungers for it, though it would make an unworthy meal.

What does "objective" mean?

Are you referring to an opinion free from extraneous influence?
See OP for the definitions. In my words, however: Being objective is making analyses, decisions, speaking and taking action with a big picture view in mind, as opposed to large concern for self interest.

[Night]

I only ask, Jack, because your first bullet point nullifies the sense of objectivity you were seeking.

I presume this was intentional. ;)

[Jennifer]

...My subjectivity is like a tiny, tiny mouse, and my objectivity the tiger who hungers for it, though it would make an unworthy meal.

Still gunning to support that N read, huh? ;)
Nice metaphor, tho. :D

Hmmm. Did you know that NPG likes to kill mice?

[ptgatsby]

My subjectivity is like a tiny, tiny mouse, and my objectivity the tiger who hungers for it, though it would make an unworthy meal.

I kind of see it more like the mouse and the elephant.

Except of course, I know that analogies introduce subjectivity into my thinking, and would never use an analogy like that, even to make a point.

[Jack Flak]

I kind of see it more like the mouse and the elephant.

Except of course, I know that analogies introduce subjectivity into my thinking, and would never use an analogy like that, even to make a point.
Note to self: ISTPs are Sensors. Interesting...

[YourLocalJesus]

*Jedi mind trick* This is not the Jack you are angry with.

[substitute]

LMAO we've already been here... there was a thread very similar a while ago - remember it PT?? I think it started off as something like 'war of objectivity' pitting ENTP's and INTP's against each other, but ended up encompassing all types and getting pretty heated.

I actually think ISTP's are the most objective, IME. Dunno how it works, but they always seem the least likely to get het up or personally involved, they're nearly always pretty even handed if arbitrating. ISTP's FTW.

[ptgatsby]

LMAO we've already been here... there was a thread very similar a while ago - remember it PT?? I think it started off as something like 'war of objectivity' pitting ENTP's and INTP's against each other, but ended up encompassing all types and getting pretty heated.

Oh yah, I remember. I was even going to link it.

Then I remember what happened last time :cry: To be fair, Jack did offer definitions this time :D

[nonsequitur]

Thank God INTJs don't care if they're "objective" or not, only if the situation works to our advantage. :P

[Jack Flak]

I saw the other thread, but this one includes all rationals and is brimming with truth.

nonsequitur: Yes, of course. This is why INTJs are less objective.

I didn't say, or mean to say, it was a scale of quality, only objectivity.

[substitute]

nonsequitur, I was thinking something similar, except that I thought "I don't care that much if it's objective, more about whether it's valid."

Cos like, if one ENTJ makes a subjective observation that he expects INTP's to be lazy, it's easy for the INTP to shrug it off on the basis of its subjectivity; it doesn't however mean it's not valid. If 100 people independently draw the same subjective conclusion, then that conclusion's validity is mounting towards the undeniable. Yet the INTP will still shrug it off because it's subjective.

I think ENTP is more concerned with getting at the truth, whatever it is and however you get at it; it's knowable on sight quite often, whether that be subjective or not. INTP is just obsessed with objectivity and the irony is, it can't really hear much truth past the noise of all the bees in its bonnet.

[Jack Flak]

I think ENTP is more concerned with getting at the truth, whatever it is and however you get at it; it's knowable on sight quite often, whether that be subjective or not. INTP is just obsessed with objectivity and the irony is, it can't really hear much truth past the noise of all the bees in its bonnet.
I appreciate this, because it demonstrates INTP>ENTP with regard to objectivity. If, of course, you are ENTP, which you are.

ENTPs are too concerned with action and world modification to have the objectivity of the INTP.

[digesthisickness]

good god, people. just let him have it.

[Jack Flak]

good god, people. just let him have it.
I already have it, being that I'm incredibly objective, and it doesn't affect my logical process whatsoever if someone agrees or disagrees with it.

By the way, I have been completely forthright in all of the above aside from not mentioning my constant LOL.

[substitute]

it was taken as read Jack, as was mine, considering that the whole time you're just an ENTP in denial yourself :yes:

Oh, and INTP's conviction that objectivity = validity is what makes INTP < ISTP in the objectivity scale :D

[Jack Flak]

it was taken as read Jack, as was mine, considering that the whole time you're just an ENTP in denial yourself :yes:
*marks down "substitute" on teh s-list*

Objectivity=Validity? Who said that? Not me.

[substitute]

*speaks to poking stick: haha, well done, my friend*

Nice edit. But of course you didn't say that. You're not an INTP :harhar:

[ptgatsby]

*speaks to poking stick: haha, well done, my friend*

Bah, my preference is not meant for your poking pleasure. (But, please, if you are going to do it, keep doing it to Jack :D )


Really, I'm still stuck on how creative/imaginative/abstract Ns are (just ask them ;) ) combines with "most objective", even logically. It seems to follow that if you want fact based, unbiased conclusions... you don't go to the poofy thinkers o_O

(All due respect to you poofy thinkers, of course.)

[Metamorphosis]

Definitions of objective used are:

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

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


By this...I would probably say that I'm never objective. To be honest, I find it hard to believe that anyone is even capable of being objective.

When we say that we use logic what we really mean is this:
Step 1: create conclusion based on mystical abstract thinking that we don't understand
Step 2: find logic to support it
Step 3: if unable to find logic return to step 1

[substitute]

Well, quite, PT. You go to the Dickensian Gradgrinds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Times#Thomas_Gradgrind_Senior) :)

[Jack Flak]

Really, I'm still stuck on how creative/imaginative/abstract Ns are (just ask them ;) ) combines with "most objective", even logically. It seems to follow that if you want fact based, unbiased conclusions... you don't go to the poofy thinkers o_O
True. Don't come to me for primarily fact based conclusions. I draw my data from the Ether and pound it in to shape with the mighty sledgehammer of Thinking.

[ptgatsby]

True. Don't come to me for primarily fact based conclusions. I draw my data from the Ether and pound it in to shape with the mighty sledgehammer of Thinking.

Yah, that's what I figured.

So, the real question is - who is the least floofy of all NTs.

And man, is that going to keep me up at night :eek:

[Jack Flak]

So, the real question is - who is the least floofy of all NTs.
That could be a fun thread on its own accord, couldn't it. I recommend starting it.

[Night]

Yah, that's what I figured.

So, the real question is - who is the least floofy of all NTs.

And man, is that going to keep me up at night :eek:

;)

Does sound like a thread that might ruffle some feathers...

[substitute]

Nah, it's obvious. Least floofy would be ENTJ. In fact, the scale in the OP in reverse.

[Jack Flak]

Nah, it's obvious. Least floofy would be ENTJ. In fact, the scale in the OP in reverse.
Perhaps a short thread, because I agree.

[BryNTP]

Nah, it's obvious. Least floofy would be ENTJ. In fact, the scale in the OP in reverse.

Cool. I have always wanted to be floofy. Wait, what does floofy mean?

[Metamorphosis]

Perhaps a short thread

Maybe not. Everyone would have to hassle you on the definition of floofy first. :D

[colmena]

He was a chef, but how would you kill and cook your gay lover?

Mr Gay UK chef 'cooked lover' - MSN Odd News | MSN UK News - news & weather (http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=9978971&ocid=today)

[ptgatsby]

Maybe not. Everyone would have to hassle you on the definition of floofy first. :D

Oh, well... that's easy. Floofy = degree of N-ness.

The more N you are, the less objective you are, of course.

:D :D

:smile:

[substitute]

Cool. I have always wanted to be floofy. Wait, what does floofy mean?

I'm not sure. I was guessing it using my intuition. Let's see if it turns out to have drawn a valid conclusion... :laugh:

Ah PT, you're a card. On a roll today, I see. *slap* :cheese:

[ptgatsby]

Ah PT, you're a card. On a roll today, I see. *slap* :cheese:

Yah, I'm feeling rather playful, actually. :wubbie:

But don't take that to mean I'm not serious. :threaten: Dead serious.:azdaja:

[substitute]

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? :rolleyes:

[Jack Flak]

Oh, well... that's easy. Floofy = degree of N-ness.

The more N you are, the less objective you are, of course.

:D :D

:smile:
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.

[substitute]

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.

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*

[Jack Flak]

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*
Naturally. PT is simply incorrect.

[ptgatsby]

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 :D)

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? :rolleyes:

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. :hug:

[Jack Flak]

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 :D)
Did you say test? No, that won't work. Part of the whole N thing, for me at least, is truly knowing something without being able to explain it. I know what objectivity is. If you don't, oh well, sorry, can't help you, kid! ;)

[substitute]

Well, I've got a brand new bag, man. I'm no longer a worshipper in the cult of objectivity.

I've actually found that subjectivity is where it's at. No, don't come after me with anti-F pitchforks yet - let me explain!

See, if I can listen to and really understand someone else's subjective perceptions and opinions, then I'll have a more objective idea of who they are, what they're all about, and what their actions and words are aimed at achieving. This is a more accurate way of predicting behaviour than using my own objective observations of their behaviour and comparing them to what i consider 'facts'. If I can understand general trends of subjective workings in various strata of society, I can more accurately understand and predict how those things will interact with each other.

I can also control them more easily. As long as I'm aware of my own subjective workings, and not in denial of them; I can control those better too, that way.

[Jack Flak]

Well, I've got a brand new bag, man. I'm no longer a worshipper in the cult of objectivity.

I've actually found that subjectivity is where it's at. No, don't come after me with anti-F pitchforks yet - let me explain!
Pff, typical ENTP bull. lol j/k.

[substitute]

Pff, typical ENTP bull. lol j/k.

Well, you'd know :alttongue:

[ygolo]

Definitions of objective used are:

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

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



I'll summarize that definition as lack of bias.

What is the proposed measuring mechanism of bias?

(Number of things said that are provably true)/(Number of things said)
(Number of things believed that are provably true)/(Number of things belived)
(Number of things entertained that are provably true)/(Number of things entertained)
something else.


EDIT: I can be humorous, I swear.

[ptgatsby]

I'll summarize that definition as lack of bias.

What is the proposed measuring mechanism of bias?

(Number of things entertained that are provably true)/(Number of things entertained)


Oh Oh! Can we use this one? Please? :cheese:

[substitute]

Good God no, I'd be fucked!

Number of things entertained? Per second? Me? Fuck!!

Thing is, I don't even think they're true...

Actually that should be another thing to put into it then - not just number of things entertained that are probably true vs number of things entertained, but also number of things subject believes to be true should enter the equation somewhere.

Cos like I say, I entertain shit all the time, some true, some total crap, some debatable. I have to say I've a pretty realistic estimation though of which is which. I mean geez, just cos someone's got an imagination, that doesn't mean they're deluded! Some people just like to play with ideas :cry:

[ptgatsby]

Good God no, I'd be fucked!

Number of things entertained? Per second? Me? Fuck!!


That's not a very objective method of deciding which measurement to use :devil:

Good god this topic is fun. :wubbie:

[substitute]

Yeah I already said subjectivity's my bag nowadays. But I mean, I'm objective about it. ENTP's are awesome like that. :smoke:

[Uytuun]

Heh.

[LunarMoon]

The dominant Thinking types are the most objective, and since Extroverts are directly interested in influencing the world around them, in which case their perceptions of the world must be somewhat correct for that to happen, the order would be:

ENTJ > INTP > ENTP > INTJ

or

Concerned with objective external measurements (Meters, Ounces) > Concerned with Internal Logic of a System > Concerned with theoretical possibilities of a situation > Concerned with future possibilities of a situation


I actually think ISTP's are the most objective, IME. Dunno how it works, but they always seem the least likely to get het up or personally involved, they're nearly always pretty even handed if arbitrating. ISTP's FTW.

I'd almost say that the Intuitive Function lowers one's objectivity. Sensors are concerned with what's obviously and objectively real while Intuitives acknowledge tentative or realistically shaky subjects such as mere possibilities.

[Jack Flak]

The prime problem with that assessment is that it's wrong.

ENTJs aren't objective. They're very active in making things the way they think they should be, and seem to always take personal motivation into account when speaking or acting.

[entropie]

The prime problem with that assessment is that it's wrong.

ENTJs aren't objective. They're very active in making things the way they think they should be, and seem to always take personal motivation into account when speaking or acting.

and some of them smell badly, I have that ENTJ guy in university, who is really full of himself. But he smells like dead kitten :D

[ZiL]

and some of them smell badly, I have that ENTJ guy in university, who is really full of himself. But he smells like dead kitten :D

HAHA I have he same exact problem - a hyperactive, overbearing, confident ENTJ who could use a dose or five of deoderant. See, I'm very objective. He's my friend, and yet I can still observe and proclaim the truth...about his funk.

[Trinity]

Agree with OP but who cares, I just wanna be floofy, sounds more fun than objective anyway.

[Terian]

I agree with the OP. Saying objectivity is a function of T is too broad. Objectivity, in its purest form, is a function of Introverted Thinking, hence TiNe and NeTi are the two most objective rationals, in that order.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Definitions of objective used are:

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

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

Most Objective: INTP...ENTP...INTJ...ENTJ: Least Objective

I'm confident in this assertion as it pertains to "the typical bearer of type," though I'm sure someone disagrees. As to its importance...Advantage could be gained in dealing with people of these types by way of adjusting initial trust. One who isn't as concerned with self-advancement or control as one is with remaining objective is less likely to deceive.


LOL this post is funny. :D How long are you going to pull our leg until you tell us that this is a joke? ;)

[Xander]

I think I'd classify objectivity as out of the scale of MBTI. As it's only about processes and not how they are applied I'd be concerned about labelling any type as objective especially as it would be used to serve those who claim superior function from their type alone.

As an example, an INTP beliving themselves to be objective may take a stance which is radically different from others. Now this in and of itself is not a reason to evaluate objectivity. However their assertion becomes that they have come to this decision in an objective manner and are unsurprised that other's don't get it because they aren't as objective in terms of MBTI. This most often leads to the person defending their decision with gusto. Gusto = inclusion of emotion and tends to lead to subjective reasoning or subjective motivation (not that I can think of objective motivation).... in fact that's a good point, a truely objective person would not do anything. It requires subjectivity to declare things as important unless we are seprating the contructed environment within which the objective solution is designed.

I would say that it is my considered opinion that objectivity does not exist except within tightly defined and subjective parameters. Perhaps NTs are the best at defining these parameters and of the NTs INTPs have the greatest tendancy to define. So yeah, under those subjective parameters INTPs are the best at it... ENTPs, I'd imagine, would be the worst due to the tendancy to break their own parameters as needed (they are more flexible than a well oiled and superheated slinky)..

Ergo INTP, ENTJ, INTJ, ENTP.

[Jack Flak]

It's no joke. And I disagree with Xander here, in more ways than one. It's not related to type, yet you include your own scale? You've lost me!

[bluemonday]

It's no joke. And I disagree with Xander here, in more ways than one. It's not related to type, yet you include your own scale? You've lost me!

+1
Objectivity has a number of different meanings which are often confused.

In this context, it isn't about preoccupation with object vs subject, which are Extravert/Introvert libido issues. It is about impersonality. Therefore, dominant Ts /inferior Fs are going to win on this front.

That gives us INTPs and ISTPs. Of these two, the ISTP preoccupation with the concrete precludes true objectivity.

INTP wins. :D

[Xander]

It's no joke. And I disagree with Xander here, in more ways than one. It's not related to type, yet you include your own scale? You've lost me!
The point was that objectivity cannot be determined upon an objective scale and therefore I used a specific subjective scale to build my conclusion.
+1
Objectivity has a number of different meanings which are often confused.

In this context, it isn't about preoccupation with object vs subject, which are Extravert/Introvert libido issues. It is about impersonality. Therefore, dominant Ts /inferior Fs are going to win on this front.

That gives us INTPs and ISTPs. Of these two, the ISTP preoccupation with the concrete precludes true objectivity.

INTP wins. :D
There's a flaw in that thinking. Ts tend to be less well developed at dealing with emotion and can let it creep in the backdoor undermining their objectivity. Also as Ss are concerned more with fact than with pattern it could be said that they are also more likely to be objective.

Like I said it's not type related. The most objective person would be someone who is able to see the most points of view and though ENTP is the most likely candidate they often let competition get in the way. I would conclude that the most likely "type" to be objective would be someone who had pretty much NO preference for one way of thinking over another. An XXXX. Good luck in finding one of those!

[ptgatsby]

That gives us INTPs and ISTPs. Of these two, the ISTP preoccupation with the concrete precludes true objectivity.


:huh: That's one of the more confusing things I've read today!

[Jack Flak]

To be sure, my scale wasn't based on theory, least of all function theory, but observation of people with the four types.

[Jack Flak]

:huh: That's one of the more confusing things I've read today!
It is true, on its own terms. Lack of concern for reality itself is a plus for objectivity.

[bluemonday]

There's a flaw in that thinking. Ts tend to be less well developed at dealing with emotion and can let it creep in the backdoor

Don't agree. This only applies in personal matters - at which we tend to suck. If you are talking pure theoretical objective thought, we are unsurpassed.

[bluemonday]

:huh: That's one of the more confusing things I've read today!

That's because you can't be objective about it ;)

[Maverick]

If we consider that in principle:

a) Dominant thinkers repress their feeling function stronger than dominant intuitives.

b) Extraverts are concerned with the outer (objective) world and introverts are concerned with the inner (subjective) world.

Theoretically, it would be the ENTJ that is the most objective, having as dominant function Extraverted Thinking.

However, in order to properly answer this question we should measure people's personality type along with their objectivity and determine if there is a relationship between the two.

[Jack Flak]

If we consider that:

a) Dominant thinkers repress their feeling function stronger than dominant intuitives.

b) Extraverts are concerned with the outer (objective) world and introverts are concerned with the inner (subjective) world.

I would say ENTJ.
You're the 2nd ENTJ in this thread to come up with a function theory as to why ENTJs are the most objective. In practice, it is obvious they are not very objective on average. This demonstrates the malleability and uselessness of function theory, and recursively the unobjectivity of ENTJs.

Would you feel better if I started a thread naming all the things ENTJs do better than INTPs? Because these things exist.

[Xander]

Don't agree. This only applies in personal matters - at which we tend to suck. If you are talking pure theoretical objective thought, we are unsurpassed.
Purely theoretical stuff IS what matters though. Just try to refute an INTPs thinking after they've carefully constructed it...

The best one is to ignore their thoughts and carry on anyway... this usually shows a little more emotion :devil:


Oh and as for ENTJs, if they aren't objective then neither are INTPs. The two are too close to be separated without extremely fine distinctions. Sure they act differently but the actual format of the thinking which takes place is frighteningly similar.

I would imagine that the most objective group would be a group of NTs but then you'd have to remove their humanity, which kinda removes the point.

I offer up INTPc itself as proof of the sheer lack of objectivity which can pervade a group of NTs.

Oh and wouldn't you say that there's a strong link between intelligence and capacity for objectivity? Can intelligence be linked to type? I doubt any strong correlation can be established.

As a parting thought, try talking to an ENFP as they go through a thought process objectively. They are quite capable, depending upon the individual, they just choose to ignore it at points and pay more attention to what they feel.

[ptgatsby]

It is true, on its own terms. Lack of concern for reality itself is a plus for objectivity.

I would seem like it would be counterproductive to... you know... fact based reasoning...

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

[Maverick]

You're the 2nd ENTJ in this thread to come up with a function theory as to why ENTJs are the most objective. In practice, it is obvious they are not very objective on average. This demonstrates the malleability and uselessness of function theory, and recursively the unobjectivity of ENTJs.

Would you feel better if I started a thread naming all the things ENTJs do better than INTPs? Because these things exist.

"In practice [...]" is not evidence for your statement.

Your last sentence is irrelevant to the content of my post and is of a subjective and relational nature.

You have shown twice in the same post that your thinking is subjective.

[Jack Flak]

Xander: Conviction can result from objectivity as easily as with subjectivity. It is the method for achieving such conviction which is a matter of discussion.

[Jack Flak]

"In practice [...]" is not evidence for your statement.

Your last sentence is irrelevant to the content of my post and is of a subjective and relational nature.

You have shown twice in the same post that your thinking is subjective.
I wasn't providing evidence, and I knew that. If you view the thread, you'll see I've made very little effort to provide evidence of any kind. I am sharing my observations, and you can take them or leave them.

My last sentence was an objective attempt to cater to your subjectivity.

[Xander]

Xander: Conviction can result from objectivity as easily as with subjectivity. It is the method for achieving such conviction which is a matter of discussion.
Semantics will now ensue :newwink:

Conviction is emotional. Conclusion is objective.

If INTPs are the most objective of types then why can they not achieve the simplest of things without recourse to redundant thinking and posturing. It has been my experience that an INTP will try to reinvent the wheel before he or she will accept that it is a valid solution. Such is based in subjectivity as is the whole problem with authority. INTPs like to validate data for themselves but in doing so they are inferring themselves as an authority, which is entirely subjective.

Note I do not argue that under certain parameters which you have stated or inferred that INTPs are very objective. What I do question is the foundation for these parameters.

[bluemonday]

If we consider that in principle:

b) Extraverts are concerned with the outer (objective) world and introverts are concerned with the inner (subjective) world.


You are doing this:

+1
Objectivity has a number of different meanings which are often confused.

In this context, it isn't about preoccupation with object vs subject, which are Extravert/Introvert libido issues. It is about impersonality.

Don't.

[bluemonday]

If INTPs are the most objective of types then why can they not achieve the simplest of things without recourse to redundant thinking and posturing. It has been my experience that an INTP will try to reinvent the wheel before he or she will accept that it is a valid solution.

Thinking is NEVER redundant.
Posturing is optional.

I see this as an attempt to be truly objective - i.e. thinking your way all around an issue, coming at it from different sides (forgive the redundancy). The problem is that some problems can't be solved in this way, and that's when our noodles get caboodled.

[Jack Flak]

Semantics will now ensue :newwink:

Conviction is emotional. Conclusion is objective.

If INTPs are the most objective of types then why can they not achieve the simplest of things without recourse to redundant thinking and posturing. It has been my experience that an INTP will try to reinvent the wheel before he or she will accept that it is a valid solution. Such is based in subjectivity as is the whole problem with authority. INTPs like to validate data for themselves but in doing so they are inferring themselves as an authority, which is entirely subjective.

Note I do not argue that under certain parameters which you have stated or inferred that INTPs are very objective. What I do question is the foundation for these parameters.
To say anyone is 100% objective is false. The question is degree, and the answer is in the OP.

While trimming my nails, I've come up with a tentative representation of the thought process behind my conclusion.

Type/Area of Most Experience On Average

INTP/Analysis
ENTP/Object Manipulation
INTJ/Self Advancement
ENTJ/Human Manipulation

[bluemonday]

To say anyone is 100% objective is false. The question is degree, and the answer is in the OP.

While trimming my nails, I've come up with a tentative representation of the thought process behind my conclusion.

Type/Area of Most Experience On Average

INTP/Analysis
ENTP/Object Manipulation
INTJ/Self Advancement
ENTJ/Human Manipulation

Ooooh! Jack's losing his objectivity. ;)

[Jack Flak]

Ooooh! Jack's losing his objectivity. ;)
I never had any to begin with. I was merely discussing the archetypical members of type, which I am not one of...But wait, this makes me extremely objective...It's a logical nightmare. :D

[Jack Flak]

ENTJ: System Manipulation (Goals, Policies, Rules, Criteria, etc.)
I would agree to that except how would you then define the ENTP activity, because it could be called the same (System Manip.).

[bluemonday]

...It's a logical nightmare. :D
welcome to my world ;)

[INTJMom]

...
Type/Area of Most Experience On Average

INTJ/Self Advancement

Since I am an INTJ, I would like to understand what you mean by "Self Advancement".
Would you - or someone - please explain it to me?
I couldn't make out the meaning just from the context.
(The reason I ask is because it sounds like "self-promotion" which INTJs are stereotypically bad at.)

[Jack Flak]

It means such as choosing a career or area of interest and concerning oneself with excellence in it, and specifically being better than others.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the perfect example. In the film Pumping Iron, in 1977, while he was generally considered the best bodybuilder of all time, he discussed possibly getting majorly into the movie business in Hollywood, then someday moving on to politics. He did exactly that.

[Lateralus]

It is about personality.
If it's all about personality, or lack thereof, then INTPs win going away. ;)

[bluemonday]

If it's all about personality, or lack thereof, then INTPs win going away. ;)

Touche!

[INTJMom]

It means such as choosing a career or area of interest and concerning oneself with excellence in it, and specifically being better than others.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the perfect example. In the film Pumping Iron, in 1977, while he was generally considered the best bodybuilder of all time, he discussed possibly getting majorly into the movie business in Hollywood, then someday moving on to politics. He did exactly that.
Ok. I guess I can agree with that since I am loath to do something if I'm going to be incompetent at it.

[bluemonday]

Purely theoretical stuff IS what matters though. Just try to refute an INTPs thinking after they've carefully constructed it...
I don't have an emotional relationship with the products of my mind. Once birthed they exist on their own and can defend themselves. I don't think this attitude is untypical. In fact, this is what often produces conflict - if you operate in this way you may assume that other people do, when in fact, they treat their pet theories like...well...pets. I.e. emotional investment, which clouds clarity and produces conflict rather than debate.

Oh and wouldn't you say that there's a strong link between intelligence and capacity for objectivity? Can intelligence be linked to type? I doubt any strong correlation can be established.
No, I don't think there is a strong link between intelligence and objectivity. Not at all.

As a parting thought, try talking to an ENFP as they go through a thought process objectively. They are quite capable, depending upon the individual, they just choose to ignore it at points and pay more attention to what they feel.

Now, you're just playing Devil's Advocate - you objective INTP you!

[ptgatsby]

Ok. I guess I can agree with that since I am loath to do something if I'm going to be incompetent at it.

:) Then it's a good thing that you are so objective about your own skills.

Unlike some IxTPs I know :cheese:

[INTJMom]

:) Then it's a good thing that you are so objective about your own skills.

Unlike some IxTPs I know :cheese:
I'm not sure if it's because I'm an INTJ or because I'm an enne 4,
but I am painfully aware of my inadequacies.

[LunarMoon]

The prime problem with that assessment is that it's wrong.

ENTJs aren't objective. They're very active in making things the way they think they should be, and seem to always take personal motivation into account when speaking or acting.

The objectivity of an action can be judged by those who take place not only in the external world but in the mind as well. As far as the performing of actions in the external world ENTJs (and ENTPs for that matter) do tend to perform actions in order to feed an underlying motivation, however, the facts and figures by which they interpret the course of these actions are done so in a very objective, and logical way. Such is the manner of Dominant Thinking. An ENTJ is not likely to vote for a presidential candidate "just because it feels right" but instead based on a list of figures obtained about that candidate. An ENTP will, on the other hand, perform an action just because it's fun. An INTJ, another Dominant Intuitive, will often form opinions largely based off of an intuitive insight rather than a strictly logical work-through.

[Jack Flak]

You're arguing against something I'm not arguing for.

[LunarMoon]

You're arguing against something I'm not arguing for.

:confused:

[Jack Flak]

It's the underlying motivation you speak of which is more subjective in the average ENTJ.

[lowtech redneck]

Note to self: Don't depend on INTPs to be objective about their objectivity.

That'd require them to actually come up with reasons for putting themselves first.

You realize, of course, that Bluewing is probably going to view that as a personal challenge? This could be interesting...and loooong.

[lowtech redneck]

I'm not sure if it's because I'm an INTJ or because I'm an enne 4,
but I am painfully aware of my inadequacies.

Being aware of your inadequacies is not the same as being objective about them...you might be underestimating or overestimating them due to the impact of personal feelings. For instance, INTPs are (supposedly) highly self-critical, which might lead one to over-estimate their own inadequacies.

[Frank]

ISTP is the most objective type in my subjective opinion. :huh: Oh my god a non N as the most objective........blasphemy!!!

[Jack Flak]

ISTP is the most objective type in my subjective opinion. :huh: Oh my god a non N as the most objective........blasphemy!!!
Maybe if the subjectivity of S could be sidelined occasionally, several ISTPs here would have noticed the relative objectivity of anyone but NTs wasn't the topic of discussion. ;)

I used NTs only because I felt like I could see the patterns clearly. I don't have a complete 16-type view on the matter.

[INTJMom]

Being aware of your inadequacies is not the same as being objective about them...you might be underestimating or overestimating them due to the impact of personal feelings. For instance, INTPs are (supposedly) highly self-critical, which might lead one to over-estimate their own inadequacies.
I did not address the subject of objectivity.
I have no knowledge or opinion on the subject.

[ptgatsby]

You realize, of course, that Bluewing is probably going to view that as a personal challenge? This could be interesting...and loooong.

Sure, but I'm not concerned about their subjective opinion on their own objectivity. Given the definition and the framework of MBTI, it's not hard to create a construct that supports it.

The whole point of this, however, is that none of it is objective in the first place. Only those that are talking about how to test it are objective. And that doesn't seem to be type based at all.

[Jack Flak]

The whole point of this, however, is that none of it is objective in the first place. Only those that are talking about how to test it are objective. And that doesn't seem to be type based at all.
That's just the S method, requiring that it be testable. It can be observed if you're equipped for it.

[bluemonday]

That's just the S method, requiring that it be testable. It can be observed if you're equipped for it.

Jack 1, S 0.

Ss can't be objective about theories which can't be verified by facts.
They think them irrelevant. That's not an objective position.

[ptgatsby]

That's just the S method, requiring that it be testable. It can be observed if you're equipped for it.

Right, exactly... Not reaching a conclusion until it is supported by facts, as in, tested in an objective way, as in empirical evidence, as in without bias.

That's the point!

Jack 1, S 0.

Ss can't be objective about theories which can't be verified by facts.
They think them irrelevant. That's not an objective position.

Say what?

The definition in the OP is literally the opposite;

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

The whole point is that theories that aren't supported are inherently a subjective opinion. It must be validated in order for it to become objective, through facts.

[bluemonday]

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

[Jack Flak]

The definition in the OP is literally the opposite;

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
Conditions are observable, and aren't necessarily provable, if you want to get technical, as I can see you do.

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.

[bluemonday]

Trying to prove S more objective than N, an irrelevant notion anyway as far as the OP is concerned....

:huh:

Have you read the OP recently?

[Jack Flak]

:huh:

Have you read the OP recently?
Wha? It's about NTs, not Ss.

[bluemonday]

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.)

[bluemonday]

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.

[bluemonday]

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.

[bluemonday]

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?

[bluemonday]

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!? :P

[Xander]

What do you mean I don't have it already!? :P
Psst.... you'd be the irreverant one.. K?
:newwink:

[Eldanen]

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

Then your post was a misnomer because you said the last group, as I identified as ENTP, were those :P (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 :P (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.
:rolleyes:

[bluemonday]

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.
:rolleyes:

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

[The_Liquid_Laser]

This thread is one big illustration of why INTP's are not objective. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time. Ultimately I think pt is right when he said (somewhere in this thread) that there can be obective people of any type (and of course subjective people of any type as well).

[Eldanen]

This thread is one big illustration of why INTP's are not objective. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time. Ultimately I think pt is right when he said (somewhere in this thread) that there can be obective people of any type (and of course subjective people of any type as well).

You stole my idea! Or maybe we just had the same idea.

[Xander]

This thread is one big illustration of why INTP's are not objective. It's both hilarious and sad at the same time. Ultimately I think pt is right when he said (somewhere in this thread) that there can be obective people of any type (and of course subjective people of any type as well).
I'm not sure what's the funniest though, the idea or the not noticing of the whole irony.

[wildcat]

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?
Objective is not in relation to the object.

[bluemonday]

I'm not sure what's the funniest though, the idea or the not noticing of the whole irony.

Rather than giggling away, it might be more constructive to explain what you mean....for the ironically-challenged amongst us.

[Xander]

Objective is not in relation to the object.
:huh: Please expand... need detail.

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.

That's not very well explained.. I'm tired.

[Xander]

Rather than giggling away, it might be more constructive to explain what you mean....for the ironically-challenged amongst us.
It's not supposed to be a competetive statement you know..

Like INTPc it's amusing to read a lot of stuff written by objective robots (not that this is what's going on here, merely an extreme case to show the contrast) when what you're reading has such emotion laced within it.

Also part of this thread is devoted to defining the nuances of what is this "objective" and also defining other items as well. Surely if all the INTPs were objective then agreement could be reached very quickly as to what things were to be labelled as. The fact that there is disagreement kinda shows that either it's not yet been found (a favourite stand of any decent INTP) or that it's mired in subjectivity.

Perhaps I'm being too perfectionistic about this? It's common.

[bluemonday]

That's not very well explained.. I'm tired.
Too tired to read the thread?

We are equating objectivity with impersonality here (not with OBJECTS).

Perhaps we should change the thread title to the "NT impersonality scale".

NTs are often described as robots. Doesn't get much more impersonal than that.

Proposed revision:

Most Robotic: ROBOT...INTP...ENTP...INTJ...ENTJ: Least Robotic

[wildcat]

:huh: Please expand... need detail.

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.

That's not very well explained.. I'm tired.
Your rock is object to the subject.

The rock as such is beyond perception.

[Xander]

Too tired to read the thread?

We are equating objectivity with impersonality here (not with OBJECTS).

Perhaps we should change the thread title to the "NT impersonality scale".

NTs are often described as robots. Doesn't get much more impersonal than that.

Proposed revision:

Most Robotic: ROBOT...INTP...ENTP...INTJ...ENTJ: Least Robotic
I saw that in the beginning but decided not to smart ass Jack and try to "correct" his definition. However perhaps an INTP 5 is very detached... but not particularly objective. The most objective in such a way I'd guess as being an ENTJ. They are the ones who are most likely to decide what an entire organisation SHOULD be doing according to their grand scheme and then reorganise people as they see fit. Sure you may not see the detachment first up but it's evident in the process which happens before they get embroiled in the whole hammering square peg into round hole process.

[Xander]

Your rock is object to the subject.

The rock as such is beyond perception.
That was my initial thought. I'm trying to become more moderate in my thinking as I progress.

[bluemonday]

I saw that in the beginning but decided not to smart ass Jack and try to "correct" his definition. However perhaps an INTP 5 is very detached... but not particularly objective. The most objective in such a way I'd guess as being an ENTJ. They are the ones who are most likely to decide what an entire organisation SHOULD be doing according to their grand scheme and then reorganise people as they see fit. Sure you may not see the detachment first up but it's evident in the process which happens before they get embroiled in the whole hammering square peg into round hole process.

Having an agenda entails the opposite of being objective.

[wildcat]

That was my initial thought. I'm trying to become more moderate in my thinking as I progress.
Good lad.
Moderation is distance. Distance is perception.

[Xander]

Having an agenda entails the opposite of being objective.
Not necessarily. Having an agenda means you're trying to DO something with all that perception. That's nothing wrong... well unless you're a classic INTP 5... then it's just pure eeeeevil.

Good lad.
Moderation is distance. Distance is perception.
Arf.

:D

Do you find you get dizzy doing that? I mean all that zooming up to try and see the detail and then zooming back out again... I'm more surprised I cans till tie my shoe laces each day!!

[bluemonday]

Not necessarily. Having an agenda means you're trying to DO something with all that perception.

Objectivity isn't the same as perception. It's a mode of perceiving.

As soon as you have solidified your position, formulated an agenda and started trying to DO something about it, you've lost your objectivity. You've moved from perceiving to judging.

[Xander]

Objectivity isn't the same as perception. It's a mode of perceiving.

As soon as you have solidified your position, formulated an agenda and started trying to DO something about it, you've lost your objectivity. You've moved from perceiving to judging.
The only manner in which a person can observe and not classify nor quantify is if they are in a coma, or they're actually a CCTV camera. Everything else involves judgement.

Besides, objectivity (if that is correct by your description) is useless and illogical. What is the point of seeing in perfect clarity if it requires you to be brain dead in the first place?

[bluemonday]

The only manner in which a person can observe and not classify nor quantify is if they are in a coma, or they're actually a CCTV camera. Everything else involves judgement.

Besides, objectivity (if that is correct by your description) is useless and illogical. What is the point of seeing in perfect clarity if it requires you to be brain dead in the first place?

I can't believe an INTP would ask these questions in earnest.
Are you sure you're not an INTJ?

[Xander]

I can't believe an INTP would ask these questions in earnest.
Are you sure you're not an INTJ?
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 :newwink:

Though really, do you actually think that as soon as any kind of narrowing of the field is done then objectivity is lost? Man I thought I was a purist. Oh and in which case then aren't you not an INTP, speaking objectively? Surely you do things which are un INTPly and therefore you're aren't an INTP at all.

Have you read Popper? (Or taken too many :rofl1: )

So if you're only being objective if you don't decide anything about something then you've no idea what it is and can't actually call it an objective look less you become subjective.

I'm sorry but how is this NOT madness?

[bluemonday]

I'm sorry but how is this NOT madness?
:thelook:

[bluemonday]

Like INTPc it's amusing to read a lot of stuff written by objective robots (not that this is what's going on here, merely an extreme case to show the contrast) when what you're reading has such emotion laced within it.

Also part of this thread is devoted to defining the nuances of what is this "objective" and also defining other items as well. Surely if all the INTPs were objective then agreement could be reached very quickly as to what things were to be labelled as. The fact that there is disagreement kinda shows that either it's not yet been found (a favourite stand of any decent INTP) or that it's mired in subjectivity.

Perhaps I'm being too perfectionistic about this? It's common.

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

Anyway...
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 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. :newwink:

[Xander]

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

:devil:
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. :newwink:[/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. :devil:

[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. :cheese:

[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.

[bluemonday]

I can however set an ENFJ on you and then take bets. :devil:
DO IT!

[bluemonday]

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.

[bluemonday]

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 :newwink:
http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/ddhockey/smilies/thspitcoffee.gif
So true!

[bluemonday]

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg311/ddhockey/smilies/thspitcoffee.gif
So true!

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

[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.

[bluemonday]

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.:harhar:
Blah! Blah! Blah! :blush:

[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".

:D

[bluemonday]

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!


:devil:

[bluemonday]

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.

[bluemonday]

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


NEXT!


:devil:

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

[INTJMom]

You INTPs are deceived. :devil:

[Xander]

You INTPs are deceived. :devil:
Debased akshually. I looked it up.

[Xander]

Minus a demerit? That's a plus right? Woot! 10 points for me.
Still locked in that "plus is positive" illusion eh?

[bluemonday]

Well I'm glad we got that one sorted out, without resorting to stereotyping, name-calling, logical fallacies, hair-splitting, personal invective and the rest.

I can say with true objectivity - it's great to be an INTP :smile:

[Xander]

Well I'm glad we got that one sorted out, without resorting to stereotyping, name-calling, logical fallacies, hair-splitting, personal invective and the rest.

I can say with true objectivity - it's great to be an INTP :smile:
Err... juss one more thing ma'am...


how would you know?



:devil:

[bluemonday]

Err... juss one more thing ma'am...
how would you know?
:devil:

say it ain't so.

[Jack Flak]

So, Xander, you would tell me that the average INTJ is less concerned with bettering his status in the world than detached analysis, and vice versa for the INTP?

Add: These objectives (lol) compete, as should be obvious, and the former wins out much more in the mind of the INTJ than the INTP, in my observations.

[Xander]

So, Xander, you would tell me that the average INTJ is less concerned with bettering his status in the world than detached analysis, and vice versa for the INTP?

Add: These objectives (lol) compete, as should be obvious, and the former wins out much more in the mind of the INTJ than the INTP, in my observations.
It has been my experience that an INTJ will be fully aware of what SHOULD be but also acutely aware of what IS. They do think about the former but they act upon the latter. To do otherwise would be impractical and ... well P ish.

Anyhow INTPs seem locked in their own struggle to be "right" most of the time and hence are about as lacking for a motivation behind their "objectivity" as an ENFP male teen volunteering to judge a lapdancing contest!!

It is, as with most things, a question more of perspective and subjective definitions than truth.

[Xander]

To my mind this is the best definition of objective I've seen yet
"objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created."

Based upon that alone I'd guess that those more externally focused would be more objective than those internally focused.

Also there is the question of which is better, is it better to wrap yourself in your own mind picking up subjectivity in definitions and other idiosyncrasies or is it better to wade into the full gamut of what other's think about it and hope to come out the other end with a balanced view of things?

[bluemonday]

To my mind this is the best definition of objective I've seen yet
"objective truths are those which are discovered rather than created."

Based upon that alone I'd guess that those more externally focused would be more objective than those internally focused.

Also there is the question of which is better, is it better to wrap yourself in your own mind picking up subjectivity in definitions and other idiosyncrasies or is it better to wade into the full gamut of what other's think about it and hope to come out the other end with a balanced view of things?

That quote is meaningless.
One can't create objective truth, one can only discover it.
But one doesn't discover it by wading into the fray, one discovers it by calm, disinterested, usually solitary, reflection. If you examine the lives of most of the great discoverers of truth, you will find that they didn't go in much for wading.

[Xander]

That quote is meaningless.
One can't create objective truth, one can only discover it.
That's what it says!!
But one doesn't discover it by wading into the fray, one discovers it by calm, disinterested, usually solitary, reflection. If you examine the lives of most of the great discoverers of truth, you will find that they didn't go in much for wading.
Exactly why you err. All you discover is the reflection of that truth as locked within your mind. Without probing it's connections and seeing how far it's ripples travel you fail to see the wider picture and hence only end up with the dictionary definitions which without the thesaurus oft leave a person for want of a word.

[bluemonday]

That's what it says!!

Exactly why you err. All you discover is the reflection of that truth as locked within your mind. Without probing it's connections and seeing how far it's ripples travel you fail to see the wider picture and hence only end up with the dictionary definitions which without the thesaurus oft leave a person for want of a word.

TBF, you could read it either way.

Why I err? Why I er.....I'm no Einstein (in case you hadn't noticed). ;)
I'm not saying it stays locked in the mind, unexplored, unchallenged, unverified. I'm just saying it's born there (or first revealed there), not in the fray.

[booyalab]

Definitions of objective used are:

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

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

Most Objective: INTP...ENTP...INTJ...ENTJ: Least Objective

I'm confident in this assertion as it pertains to "the typical bearer of type," though I'm sure someone disagrees. As to its importance...Advantage could be gained in dealing with people of these types by way of adjusting initial trust. One who isn't as concerned with self-advancement or control as one is with remaining objective is less likely to deceive.


I haven't known the typical INTP to ever deal with facts without interpreting them subjectively. The interpretation may not have anything to do with emotions, but that doesn't make it objective by default. INTPs are much less likely than, say, ENTJs to change their preconceived view if the facts contradict it. They're only objective if they haven't made up their mind yet.

[bluemonday]

I haven't known the typical INTP to ever deal with facts without interpreting them subjectively. The interpretation may not have anything to do with emotions, but that doesn't make it objective by default.

All interpretation is subjective.

[booyalab]

All interpretation is subjective.

Agree to disagree. :rolli:

[booyalab]

Anyway, the simplistic way I'd define objectivity is through a balance of logical and factual. INTPs may be the most logical, but they're not the most factual.

[INTJMom]

Anyway, the simplistic way I'd define objectivity is through a balance of logical and factual. INTPs may be the most logical, but they're not the most factual.
So, to answer the OP, in which order would you rank NT objectivity?

[Jack Flak]

The argument has degenerated into disagreements over the timeline of decision making instead of the mindset notion I advanced some time ago. Do what you will, but you're hardly arguing against my position anymore.

From me, in the first stage of the debate:

See OP for the definitions. In my words, however: Being objective is making analyses, decisions, speaking and taking action with a big picture view in mind, as opposed to large concern for self interest.

[bluemonday]

Anyway, the simplistic way I'd define objectivity is through a balance of logical and factual. INTPs may be the most logical, but they're not the most factual.

That's not a definition I recognise. If we can't even agree on what we are disagreeing about, what hope is there? We have to stick with a common definition, namely, that in the OP. That defines the scope of this discussion.

[booyalab]

So, to answer the OP, in which order would you rank NT objectivity?

Most Objective: booyalab...INTJMom...CaptainChick...Jack Flack: Least Objective

[INTJMom]

The argument has degenerated into disagreements over the timeline of decision making instead of the mindset notion I advanced some time ago. Do what you will, but you're hardly arguing against my position anymore.

From me, in the first stage of the debate:

See OP for the definitions. In my words, however: Being objective is making analyses, decisions, speaking and taking action with a big picture view in mind, as opposed to large concern for self interest.
With those parameters in mind, I would say the Es would be most objective followed by the Is.
I think the I tends to limit one's horizons.
But I could be wrong.

[booyalab]

That's not a definition I recognise

You don't recognize "logical and factual" as essentially the same as "not influenced by personal feelings" and "based on fact"?

what hope is there? tell me about it.

[Jack Flak]

But I could be wrong.
I agree.

It's not a question of theory. Theory can be molded six ways from Sunday to suit mood. It should be a matter of observation of people of type.

[bluemonday]

You don't recognize "logical and factual" as essentially saying the same thing as without prejudice and based on fact?

tell me about it.

Objectivity has nothing to do with facts. We had this discussion some pages back. It may be related to logic, it may not.

Shall I give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about?

I'm arguing here about something about which I care not one wit.
I'm occupying one position, but I could just as easily occupy another.
I am disinterested, whilst still being interested.
I'm interested in reaching a conclusion, a truth, but am prepared to accept that that outcome is neither possible nor desirable.
Perversely, if I really had a fixed opinion on all of this, I probably wouldn't bother to share it.

[Xander]

Analyze behavior, speech, etc., not fabricated function orders.
Noting this earlier post and in an attempt to find some grounds upon which something meaningful can be constructed, would an objective person as defined by your parameters be one who does not reach a conclusion pre-emptively but does formulate a theory against which further evidence is evaluated?

I must admit I'm struggling with the whole time thing as I rarely find that I have all the information at the outset of thinking and therefore usually give responses with clauses that allow for further information to be included (which often frustrates those of a more certain mindset such as my INTJ friend).

As a theory I would think that what your parameters are actually achieving is describing the INTP mindset in further detail which is a tad unfair as with such parameters it would be unlikely that any other type would come before an INTP though that would also place ENTP as second being the most mentally flexible of the four.

This leads me to think that what you are looking at, function wise (I'm using functions only to progress past the borders of individual types into the wider pattern), is Ti>Te and Ne>Ti which kind of directs me to think that what your definition of objective is holds more relation to the interplay of those two preferences than it does to any broader definition of objective such as those which have been being introduced progressively throughout this thread.

Am I getting warm?

[Xander]

Objectivity has nothing to do with facts. We had this discussion some pages back. It may be related to logic, it may not.

Shall I give you a concrete example of what I'm talking about?

I'm arguing here about something about which I care not one wit.
I'm occupying one position, but I could just as easily occupy another.
I am disinterested, whilst still being interested.
I'm interested in reaching a conclusion, a truth, but am prepared to accept that that outcome is neither possible nor desirable.
Perversely, if I really had a fixed opinion on all of this, I probably wouldn't bother to share it.
Your level of interest only gives guidance upon whether or not you are actually getting more toward a subjective manner of thinking it is not a good gauge in and of itself. Disinterest could equally colour your thinking as interest, especially if your mind wanders.

That actually promotes me to think more that Jack's definitions do lead to INTPs being first mostly due to the inbuilt ability to focus way beyond what most people can summon. However I would think that within terms of focus an INTJ could give an INTP a run for their money as long as it was based around something of practical use.

This leads me further down this path Jack set in that if objective is meaning more thought for thoughts own sake rather than for any actual solution then yes perhaps INTP is top of the list. Not that I'd call that objective.

[bluemonday]

^ I'd reply, but I'm too disinterested to give a suitably subjective answer. ;)

[Jack Flak]

Noting this earlier post and in an attempt to find some grounds upon which something meaningful can be constructed, would an objective person as defined by your parameters be one who does not reach a conclusion pre-emptively but does formulate a theory against which further evidence is evaluated?
I've been analyzing type differences for many an hour, and once focussing on the difference in objectivity as defined, the conclusion was instantaneous. I thought I would share it, but I can't imagine anything which could change my mind, and certainly haven't seen anything like that here.

I must admit I'm struggling with the whole time thing as I rarely find that I have all the information at the outset of thinking and therefore usually give responses with clauses that allow for further information to be included (which often frustrates those of a more certain mindset such as my INTJ friend).
This is probably why we, as INTPs, almost always include qualifiers when stating assertions. If I don't include a qualifier, it means I'm certain, and can't easily be dissuaded. Certainty is always fallible though, in anyone.

As a theory I would think that what your parameters are actually achieving is describing the INTP mindset in further detail which is a tad unfair as with such parameters it would be unlikely that any other type would come before an INTP though that would also place ENTP as second being the most mentally flexible of the four.
I don't believe that's what I'm doing. It's analysis et reportage.

This leads me to think that what you are looking at, function wise (I'm using functions only to progress past the borders of individual types into the wider pattern), is Ti>Te and Ne>Ti which kind of directs me to think that what your definition of objective is holds more relation to the interplay of those two preferences than it does to any broader definition of objective such as those which have been being introduced progressively throughout this thread.

Am I getting warm?

I hadn't considered functions, because I have problems with functions. If I were to use them to argue right now, I would have free rein to argue whatever I want, as has been demonstrated by others. I could say "Fi is the antithesis to objectivity. INTP & ENTP have little use of Fi, and are therefore more objective than INTJ or ENTJ. Ti is by its very nature detached from emotion and neutral about all data presented to it, therefore the Ti dominants are most objective, thus placing INTP slightly ahead of ENTP. ENTJs, with their dominant Te, will be too concerned with their surroundings to possess the same capacity for detachment as the INTJ, and are therefore slightly less objective than INTJs. The final order is as follows, from most to least objective: INTP, ENTP, INTJ, ENTJ."