are 'T's objective?

[bvanevery]

Or likely to be more objective? Given that one can only approach objectivity and can't actually reach it. In my local Skeptics group in Asheville, the idea of "real reality" has been tossed around lately. As opposed to the models we all carry around in our heads of what reality is. A recent presenter (a presenter is merely one of our peers who takes on the burden), offered the idea that we only know about 5% of what "real reality" is. I'm not sure how he arrived at that number. It is an issue I will bring up again with him.

Anyways, I often suspect I'm encountering "T vs. F" conflict when I encounter someone who is not being objective. Such as in a political debate. However, I'm also aware that a "T vs. T" conflict looks very much like a "T vs. F" conflict, when the principles of the T's have been violated and they don't agree on principles. T's can react rather strongly to stuff outside their principles.

FWIW I primarily see the value of the MBTI in diagnosing conflicts between people. When people have dominant modalities of behavior that are opposite on the MBTI axes,

Also FWIW I've never cared for the complications of the Ti Fe dominant inferior etc. gobbledygook. Seems like a way of gratuitously complicating a 4-axis system. I'm not entirely convinced that the MBTI has dependent axes, in the mathematical sense. They have seemed to be reasonably orthogonal in my experience, for diagnosing conflicts between people.

That said, it has taken me a long time to determine the nature of my conflict with various debating adversaries. I usually come to understand someone's MBTI through an adversarial process, which in and of itself is a bias. It takes a number of incidents of locking horns with somebody, before I feel safe in saying, "Hey, this is classic P vs. J conflict!" or some such. At which point I'm willing to make pronouncements like so-and-so's self-declared type isn't actually what they claim. Actual behaviors under stress of debate, are facts on the ground for me. As much as my sociocultural anthropology side might want to respect self-declarations, there has to be evidence of their own self-understanding of their claimed type. If they don't actually fit the type they claim, I'm inclined to call them on it. 'Cuz I'm 'T'.

I think the MBTI offeres hypothetical test questions, if you want to diagnose whether someone is T or F, P or J, for instance. I find it a little more difficult to diagnose S vs. N and I've been tripped up by that at times. It's pretty easy if the S is not very bright, and what I'd call a "sensualist". But if the S is actually smart, not so easy to tell why they're S or N.

I vs. E hasn't been a big source of schism at least on the internet.

 

[Grayman]

What does it mean to you personally to be objective?

 

[Hadoblado]

I assume 95% is a lower bound, or a ballpark number to illustrate his position. It'd be very difficult to accurately estimate the amount you don't know in an area if you only knew 5% of it.

I don't think Ts are objective. Mental representations multiply sensory bias by any number of internal implicit and explicit biases. As robot-like as some INTPs like to wish they were, they still have a limbic system, and it's not as if you just have large structures in your brain that are active without purpose, or constantly inactive. The way we process information over-represents specific information: faces for example are pretty homogeneous, but we're extremely specialised in knowing the difference between them. Our mental representation of the salience of facial features is one of utter disproportion.

 

[Tannhauser]

I think it is mostly a question of cognitive bias. If anything, objectivity should be the ability to scale one's ignorance with one's level of conviction. Has that anything to do with mbti variables? Without anything to suggest it empirically, I would certainly assume that it has not.

 

[Haim]

Only if he knows he is not objective, otherwise it is like "objective" news.

 

[Black Rose]

are 'T's objective?

Ti is subjective

 

[Grayman]

Ti is subjective

What if im in a dream? Is my view of that reality subjective or objective?

 

[Black Rose]

What if im in a dream? Is my view of that reality subjective or objective?

It depends, last night I realized I was dreaming and that everything was me. I used my will power to propel myself in any direction I wanted to. If you think your dreams exist separate from you then they are no different from when you are awake. Even when I am awake I understand I am creating everything I see. Nothing is separate from me. Its is all subjective to me. To others there is a separation. They don't realize it is all in their own mind. Everything is inside me awake or asleep. To others everything is outside of them. Even their dreams.

 

[Yellow]

"are 'T's objective?"

Fuck no.

I think they can delve closer to objectivity than F's, but only when they're open minded and cautious of cognitive distortion.

 

[RaBind]

Preferring certain patterns of thought over others is one way thinkers can be subjective. In the end people's raw experience of life probably influences them the most.

Other then that I think feelers, more easily, feel the feelings of other feelers while thinkers think the thoughts of other thinkers. The measure for openness from big5 might actually correlate better with the capability for understanding? understanding being a of symptom of objectivity.

This might be interesting, seems ENFPs correlate most strongly with openness
http://personalityjunkie.com/09/openness-myers-briggsmbti-intuition-big-five-iq-correlations/

For me personally I've sort of already decided that experiential reality and objectivity is what I care about.

The idea and existence of "real reality" is probably undeniable, when you think about how our biological sensors are largely incompetent, when dealing with anything that wasn't instrumental to our survival, and even stuff that was. There's also the fact that some aspects of reality are going to physically impossible to sense through biology.

As I said though I've stopped dwelling on this line of thought, it's got a nihilistic and existential tint to it and I find that it's never really, possibly can never be, pragmatic. I'm still a seeker of truth (or whatever intp discription) but really only the truth that can influence our "subjective objective reality".

Truths that don't have any influence, and so are ultimately noticeable, I think become as irrelevant and indistinguishable as random noise, they lose all meaning.

 

[bvanevery]

What does it mean to you personally to be objective?

I thought I'd wait a few days before answering this, to see what others would volunteer.

Whenever someone makes a claim to me about something, I recognize it as a claim, not automatically a fact. I usually calculate several diferent possible interpretations of the claim and the data associated with it. I consider how reliable I think the person is when making the claim, and also that just because I've found them unreliable in the past, they could be right this time. I seek out multiple, diverse sources of information to try to validate claims.

I never participate in "echo chambers" where people say "yeah yeah! yeah yeah! X is so true!" I'm almost completely immune to groupthink and peer pressure, having lived as an outsider / outcast from social groups most of my life. I do not easily trust people, and that tendency carries over to information.

I look for markers of other people's ability to make sustainable claims, such as professional enagement in a field of study, and the judgment and consent of their professional peers that they're on the ball. This is part of why I bring up "peer reviewed academic literature" a lot. It's not perfect and can be abused, but it's a good way to screen out the first round of yahoos who simply say whatever they believe.

One of the most important tests I think one can apply, is I do not believe something because I want to beleive it. I think many people are desire-driven in the claims they make. This is really easy to see with religious people; I myself am atheist. In fact I see desire-driven belief as a weakness in a person's character, almost to the point of a moral failing. Except that it's often harmless. When it's not though...

I am extremely wary of people who demonstrate emotionalism as to why they believe things. Examples: people that hate "the government they live under", people that hate "bankers". Operative word here is hate. Emotionalism is a strong cognitive bias. When emotionalists have strong views, such as conspiracy theories, I think they are often compensating for some other emotional trauma occuring in their life. In some cases, I've seen this readily demonstrated by friends of mine over the course of years, and I have no uncertainty about it. In other cases, it's just people I've met online and don't know very well, so I only have suspicions about "what's really making them tick."

I believe there are limits to what we can know and be certain of. There are hard limits, such as the information does not or cannot exist, and soft limits, such as we don't have enough time to do all the fact checking 'homework' in the real world to arrive at an ironclad conclusion. I recognize the necessary provisionality of claims and the amount of time and work it can take to arrive at certitude.

Having said all of that, I'm not averse to finally passing judgment on a claim. Some claims, I have spent a large part of my life assessing, and I don't feel much need to revisit them. I "put the legwork in" already and I don't think it's incumbent upon anyone to question "real reality" infinitely. We talk, function, and survive because our biological manifestations in this universe work for those things, and that has consequences.

 

[Hadoblado]

When emotionalists have strong views, such as conspiracy theories, I think they are often compensating for some other emotional trauma occuring in their life

I think that's a bit presumptuous. I hate the banking system, democracy, and government in general, but personally I've benefited from their existence. I hate casinos too, even though I've been almost entirely unaffected them. Emotional conditioning isn't always implicit, and in this day and age with so much information going 'round, it's much easier to acquire specific emotional modes second-hand.

Solid post, a well considered position (hurhur *echo* hurhurhue but really though ). Very agree.

 

[Sinny91]

I thought I'd wait a few days before answering this, to see what others would volunteer.

Whenever someone makes a claim to me about something, I recognize it as a claim, not automatically a fact. I usually calculate several diferent possible interpretations of the claim and the data associated with it. I consider how reliable I think the person is when making the claim, and also that just because I've found them unreliable in the past, they could be right this time. I seek out multiple, diverse sources of information to try to validate claims.

I never participate in "echo chambers" where people say "yeah yeah! yeah yeah! X is so true!" I'm almost completely immune to groupthink and peer pressure, having lived as an outsider / outcast from social groups most of my life. I do not easily trust people, and that tendency carries over to information.

I look for markers of other people's ability to make sustainable claims, such as professional enagement in a field of study, and the judgment and consent of their professional peers that they're on the ball. This is part of why I bring up "peer reviewed academic literature" a lot. It's not perfect and can be abused, but it's a good way to screen out the first round of yahoos who simply say whatever they believe.

Aren't you just a walking bag of bu.. contradictions?

Considering you don't do "group think", what's the deal with you being part of your own local debunking group? You can rage against the conspiracy theorists , but you're playing the same game just on the other side of the playing field.. wasting your time and effort "debunking" "conspiracy theories" , which have been peddled by fringe branches of the state anyway, in order to discourage people from enquiring about the true conspiracies being hidden behind the the veil of "National Security".

You throw the baby out with the bath water, you're as useful as a limp biscuit.

One of the most important tests I think one can apply, is I do not believe something because I want to beleive it. I think many people are desire-driven in the claims they make. This is really easy to see with religious people; I myself am atheist. In fact I see desire-driven belief as a weakness in a person's character, almost to the point of a moral failing. Except that it's often harmless. When it's not though...

I am extremely wary of people who demonstrate emotionalism as to why they believe things. Examples: people that hate "the government they live under", people that hate "bankers". Operative word here is hate. Emotionalism is a strong cognitive bias. When emotionalists have strong views, such as conspiracy theories, I think they are often compensating for some other emotional trauma occuring in their life. In some cases, I've seen this readily demonstrated by friends of mine over the course of years, and I have no uncertainty about it. In other cases, it's just people I've met online and don't know very well, so I only have suspicions about "what's really making them tick."

I believe there are limits to what we can know and be certain of. There are hard limits, such as the information does not or cannot exist, and soft limits, such as we don't have enough time to do all the fact checking 'homework' in the real world to arrive at an ironclad conclusion. I recognize the necessary provisionality of claims and the amount of time and work it can take to arrive at certitude.

Having said all of that, I'm not averse to finally passing judgment on a claim. Some claims, I have spent a large part of my life assessing, and I don't feel much need to revisit them. I "put the legwork in" already and I don't think it's incumbent upon anyone to question "real reality" infinitely. We talk, function, and survive because our biological manifestations in this universe work for those things, and that has consequences.

 

[Grayman]

@Bvanery

You cannot escape cognitive bias even science has been known to fall prey to various types of it.

Where I stop listening to a person is when they start to tie in every idea, thought, situation into a single source. Religious people can explain everything in terms of the bible and spend copious times building explanations for everything in order to make it all sound reasonable The more they look at things the more their mind creates patterns to support their idea that there is a god and their god is the right god.
While a conspiracy theory can certainty be true it is when the conspiracy starts to evade every thought the person has and every opinion. Again the persons mind creates patterns to that source the conspiracy theory as the only reality and truth to explain everything they see or hear.
It is equivalent of a when a person sees racism and experiences it several times and then eventually they think that racism drives everything people do and so everything that happens is explained by racism and because they can explain it with racism they believe that it is racism and since they can keep explaining it with racism they start believe it more that racism drives everything everyone does because that is true from what they experience, or more so thought they experienced, and so they see more racism because that is how people think.
You would think science would be immune to it and would reign supreme in defeating cognitive bias but no history shows that science is not immune. It has had problems and still has problems dealing with confirmation bias.

We all need a foundation for our beliefs but the more we build on that foundation the less we are willing to acknowledge that the very foundation that supports all our assumptions is wrong.

Perhaps you can have no foundation of belief so that you might consider the viability of all foundations but then I must say that such a thing feels like insanity.

 

[Architect]

Yes by definition

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

In comparison to F dominants T's are clearly more objective and anecdotally I see this in my interactions. Now are they objective on an absolute basis? Unlikely, INTP's at least can be 'structurally biased', either due to past information or decisions (Si I believe) or erroneous or incomplete information (Ne).

 

[bvanevery]

Considering you don't do "group think", what's the deal with you being part of your own local debunking group?

You don't know our group.

You can rage against the conspiracy theorists

I haven't heard 'rage' expressed in the group for quite awhile. I wouldn't say it's never happened.

Sociocultural anthropologists generally don't rage about stuff either.

I have definitely seen some rage expressed in various online Skeptical communities. I am not actively a part of any such communities. I found a local Skeptical group and wasn't particularly a 'good' skeptic in any broad organizational movement sense. Although I did wonder what it would mean to be a 'good' skeptic as part of an organized movement, I actually spent most of my time applying my previous life experience ad hoc, to whatever subjects were discussed in the local group. Especially with my sociocultural anthropology focus. Since I had spent a non-trivial portion of my life studying human belief systems, I felt authorized to do so, without needing approval from any organized Skeptical community about "the right way" to do it.

Over time the leadership of the local group has changed. It is now dominated by people who are far more likely to see and apply things "my way". Applying whatever life expertise they've acquired in their various professions, courses of study, or avocations. We have some psychiatric people, we have a Buddhist ex-cop, a philosophy major who likes to put everything into "proof abstractions"... I think it's a good mix.

Lately I've thought about making forays into online Skeptical communities again though, to see if I can identify a good one. Last time I did an exercise like that, it was with Atheist communities. Those can really suck. Hearing someone nattering on about Determinism can completely drive one up the wall. Atheism definitely doesn't make one a good person or particularly pleasant to talk to.

Seeking out anthropological communities, as it is my undergrad background, is another option. I worry that it might be a bit dry, but who knows?

 

[bvanevery]

Where I stop listening to a person is when they start to tie in every idea, thought, situation into a single source. [...]
While a conspiracy theory can certainty be true it is when the conspiracy starts to [per]vade every thought the person has and every opinion. [correction mine]

I agree. Single source explanations are a good indicatator that a person doesn't understand or cogitate in terms of systemic phenomena. Particularly the seeming near-randomness of many factors coming into play simultaneously. History tends to actually be "one damn thing after another." But conspiracy theorists tend to describe overwhelming ordering and precision of phenomena, a command and control of 'evil elites' that would be the envy of an artificially intelligent robot empire. I'm not sure even precision machines could be so precise, and so clever at covering their tracks, in the real world.

Single source explanations are far more likely to be grounded in emotional obsession. The 'X' is the big bogeyman, and the lens through which other phenomena are seen.

c.f. fear-based reasoning

You would think science would be immune to it and would reign supreme in defeating cognitive bias but no history shows that science is not immune. It has had problems and still has problems dealing with confirmation bias.

Thomas S. Kuhn was one person who brought this to attention in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. To gloss: science is practiced by people. It is not immune to cultural factors. We covered this book in my History of Anthropology course, along with lots of other things about the changing fads of our own discipline. We took historical awareness and self-reflexiveness pretty seriously. You can never get away from biases, but sociocultural anthropology is unusual in incorporating the existence of the observer's own bias into the field of study. At least in the more modern period. Back in the day, white Western imperialists simply made grand pronouncements about how indigenous people thought and behaved, without listening overly much to what indigenous people themselves said about how they thought and behaved.

 

[Hadoblado]

Aren't you just a walking bag of bu.. contradictions?

Considering you don't do "group think", what's the deal with you being part of your own local debunking group? You can rage against the conspiracy theorists , but you're playing the same game just on the other side of the playing field.. wasting your time and effort "debunking" "conspiracy theories" , which have been peddled by fringe branches of the state anyway, in order to discourage people from enquiring about the true conspiracies being hidden behind the the veil of "National Security".

You throw the baby out with the bath water, you're as useful as a limp bizkit.

Don't you think that's a little aggressive/defensive?

Just because they're a skepticism group doesn't say anything about them. They may for instance, all disagree with each other. If that were the case then that would mean he's not necessarily contradicting heself.

 

[bvanevery]

Just because they're a skepticism group doesn't say anything about them. They may for instance, all disagree with each other. If that were the case then that would mean he's not necessarily contradicting heself.

We definitely have our disagreements. Definitely political, sometimes methodological. For instance I often can't stand the "too abstract" philosophy major derived reasoning of one colleague of mine. He'll make a chain of inferences A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K... and he loves to do that, thinks that's the best way to approach anything! I say, if you actually worked with concrete real world cases, you'd do A-B-C and you'd be done already. Very irritating if he applies the abstractions about subject areas he knows little about, like gun control.

However we have no conspiracy theorists among us. We have 1 Buddhist and 1 Christian, to my knowledge. We didn't used to have anyone religious, because the former leader thought you had to be an atheist to be a Skeptic. Current leadership, and general group opinion, doesn't think that way. We wouldn't want to alienate someone with some religious views; they can implode their own views as time goes on, if they care to.

The Asheville Skeptics are not guilty of groupthink in any way. Some of us in a different but overlapping group, Recovering From Religion, are going over the BITE model of cult mind control. We don't do any of that stuff. I only found 1 item in the entire inventory that we could conceivably stretch / contort to anything we do, and it really was too much of a stretch in the end analysis.