Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

pff

Objective Thinking Vs. Subjective Thinking

26 posts in this topic

I am curious as to what objective thinkers think about subjective thinkers and vice versa. I would like participants to state which type of thinker they believe that they are and then give their opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the opposite method of thinking, so if you are an objective thinker then you should give your opinion on subjective thinking for example. This isn't a thread about which type of thinking is better but rather to get the perspective of one type thinker from the other.

I think it would also be interesting to state whether or not you would change the way that you currently think, if you are more subjective but have a desire to be more objective for example. Please explain why you wish you could alter your thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would consider objective thinking to be open minded and dispasionate judging content on its individual merits to ultimately reach a conclusion. This type of thinking would be typical when considering detail.

To be subjective is to be open to interpretation a bit wooly, general. So to be a subjective thinker you would think in general terms this would be typical for high level strategic thinking.

Are the above definitions consistent with your definition of of ST & OT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that those definitions are pretty consistent with how I would define each type of thinking.

I'm interested in hearing the strengths and weaknesses of each rather than defining them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm interested in hearing the strengths and weaknesses of each rather than defining them though.

I realise that but there was no point me rambling on about my interpretation if it was not consistent with you view, also the titles ST & OT threw me at first I had to think what you meant.

As an INTJ I can't see how you can operate on one or the other.

Its like comparing feeling vs thinking they are completely different functions.

As a strategist you have to flit between the two to achieve any given outcome.

ST would preceed OT.

First you think about the goal then you think about how to acheive the goal.

There are other types that are pre-disposed to one or the other.

visionaries are subjective thinkers, they think in terms of goals and missions. I.E ENFP

Designers think objectively in assessing the options i.e. INTP

INTJ's on the other hand use both functions sequentionaly as we are strategists.

TO have a strategy you firstly have to goal set, then you have derive a plan we are the gap bridgers able to see the vision and realise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've viewed subjective thought (ST), in the literal grammatical sense of what it is to be subjective: drawing from experiences, emotions, not strictly grounded in known knowledge. I've always addressed ST as the people who say "I feel xyz in abc situation." Or those who draw conclusions from their past experiences or their vicarious learning.

OTOH, I've approached Objective thinking (OT) as that which is grounded in facts, figures, data, &c. I don't view those who use OT as spewing data at all times. For example, a counselor can approach viewing and analyzing a situation based on ST, but if he has not had that experience, then said counselor could use OT to support his analysis/theory. I think OT has more validity than ST; there's less room for error, but it opens the wide doors of being able to offend or not pleasing many people at once.

I'm usually OT, but on occasion I will switch to ST if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subjective

"Wherever your heart is, that is where you'll find your treasure."

Being an INtuitive person, I think Subjective thinking is more appealing to me that the Objective. And it makes me feel more specific to me. However, it is highly probable that the thinking might not be rational, but as long as it keeps me happy and motivated, it works for me.

Objective thinking is more practical, and it is important that we cover both subjective and Objective aspects on any topic. As Subjective thinking will build the skeleton and Objective will fill the details.

I am happy with my Subjective thinking; besides I can always go to my Objective thinker friends for their Objective view. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objective

I try to be truthful and ask questions before resigning myself to accepting that there are grey areas or fundamentally completely incompatible but valid points of view.

I think subjective people ask vague questions. If you keep asking questions that only allows a valid/invalid assessment until you dissect the entire issue into micro black and white analysis, its no longer grey and subjective, but a multitude of black and white assessments. Its not particularly useful in most cases, but at least the right questions were asked to grasp the issue. I tend to view them as impeding reason with their fear of black and white dissections, and view their assessments as incomplete or deliberately emotional.

I don't mind them as people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this definition for subjective thinking is viable.

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

So it can be kind of like a personification i guess.

In my group of gamers, we have three INTJs, an ENFJ, and an ESFJ.

We talk a lot about strategy and theory, trying to improve our game and discern the format more.

The ESFJ contributes what i would say to be, subjective details. Things he notices that can be interesting, but dont really matter to us much in the long run. He doesnt contribute very much, but i think thats more him than his MBTI.

The INTJs are of course, all theorizing together objectively. We gather data, watch and coach each others match's, talk about game theory and meta game, and opponent psychological tactics with consideration to the tier of skill of the opponent(what tricks they fall for, what habits they have). Most of our groups info is generated between these three INTJs.

The ENFJ Has very interesting and definitely NF based contributions. He relies a lot on feeling out the situation, and trusting his instincts. He helps us a lot when considering the psychological and instinctual aspect of other players, and what feelings or instincts we should work on for those situations where thinking just takes up too much time, or woulnt work well due to disorganization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should define them first, because I think objectivity and subjectivity are the same thing. I would probably classify differently the differences in thinking styles you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am mostly balanced between ST and OT I think from my understanding of subjective and objective thinking is that the subjective thinker will easily accept such thing as past experiences and even set traditional but not well defined or understood concepts as good and credible ground to base a conclusion it is never fully grounded on absolute facts just subjective ones for example a simple concept of right and left to subjective thinker is an absolute truths but in the objective sense they are only true when on earth if in space there is no such thing as a right or a left they are only true if the subject YOU think of them as true they are true still just not universal and objective i hope this will make sense i hear Introverted intuitives struggle to express there thoughts well but feel free to gorge out the faults in the explanation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think in order to become more objective, we should realize how subjective our thoughts are. our unconscious assumptions, feelings getting in the way of the truth, generally our own psychology. know yourself, be aware of your intentions.

objective thinker here.

but i am subject to subjectivity all the time, when i can't figure myself out.

when i cant figure out why everyone disagrees

why they dont think like me

then i realize i was wrong all along

i may think my way of thinking is better because i am more inclined that way

being very objective

in that case, it is important to develop the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who prides herself on having a dispassionate and logical approach, I would like to think of myself as an "objective" thinker. Unfortunately, the facts/data points/observations ... that I choose to think about are given weight by me and are therefore subjectively selected and evaluated as to their importance. In other words, false dichotomy. Also there's the issue of changing that which we observe (Observer Effect) thereby making "objective observation" an oxymoron.

These ideas have led me to the unfortunate conclusion that there is no objective or subjective observation.There is only interaction that we may or may not learn from. For practical purposes, scientific research must aim at objective observation as a goal but this result is not possible due to the very nature of "observation", though the attempt remains necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subjective thinkers are losers.

I think by demonstrating excessive personal bias, this affects how one interacts with others ultimately. The thing is, we all hold our own experiences, thoughts, and judgements, but they ultimately are our experiences, thoughts and judgements. They don't mean shit to anybody else, since they cannot experience them. It's like one who believes "I like fried chicken". So what? Another may detest fried food, not like chicken, or not eat meat. That opinion/subjective standpoint thus hold no objective or pervasive meaning.

I think that people who don't project or translate personal biases get farther in life, frankly. at least, they will have more peaceful lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh assuming Te is typically considered objective logic, it's strengths are:Getting things done, appealing to the reason of the majority, directing the majority through effective reasoning,can help with sequential order and establishment of goals

Weaknesses are that sometimes the majority is wrong and overlooks small things in an attempt to establish goal and get things done quickly.

At that point, subjective logic is useful to sew through the larger web of Te and figure out what doesn't make sense and actually works against an effective Te goal. Some objective logic can be flat out wrong and stupid when it's met with scrutiny,look at the legal system if you want a great example, whether marital,correctional or civil.

Subjective logics weakness is that sometimes it doesn't make any sense to anyone but the user, who can't back it up but since it feeds itself he always thinks he is in the right. he can't see anything but his own opinion and despite constant contradictions from objective logic, he is never wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ti = Inward logical judgement "I think" (opinion, subjective)

Te = Outward logical judgement "They think" (fact, objective)

That's the way I've internalized it, I use Ti pretty heavily so I think I have a good grasp on it. People heavy in Te can actually be quite frustrating to me.

Edited by Lanczos
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious as to what objective thinkers think about subjective thinkers and vice versa. I would like participants to state which type of thinker they believe that they are and then give their opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the opposite method of thinking, so if you are an objective thinker then you should give your opinion on subjective thinking for example. This isn't a thread about which type of thinking is better but rather to get the perspective of one type thinker from the other.
I don't know what you mean by subjective thinking and objective thinking. I can't really say which I am, until you explain what you mean by these terms.

However, in one respect, you can say that I'm a subjective thinker, in that I do not assume that when people speak, that they are speaking about a singular context that is agreed upon by everyone, but rather, that each person often uses their own language, and their own meanings, that many people speak subjectively, and that it is necessary to discover what terms, language and context people speak in, before being able to understand them. Accordingly, when I speak, I try to speak in an objective and context-independent manner, so that everyone can understand me equally, no matter what they choose to define their terms, language and context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ti = Inward logical judgement "I think" (opinion, subjective)

Te = Outward logical judgement "They think" (fact, objective)

That's the way I've internalized it, I use Ti pretty heavily so I think I have a good grasp on it. People heavy in Te can actually be quite frustrating to me.

The problem is that we all hold individual conceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mix of both. I know when I need to be subjective or objective, its an intuitive thing for me. I know when I'm taking a detached perspective or a personal one. But even then, its not so clear cut, I just know for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Subjective thinkers are losers.

2. I think[...]

Dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dilemma.

How so? I accept my opinion is as such, but does not translate absolutely. I still contend that a person who express their views wouldn't get on well with others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find most creatures to be of a subjective basis. Am I? Objectively, I can not say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Lanczos pretty much hit the nail on the head. If we're talking about objectivity as it relates to perception in the context of the mbti and its roots in Jungian typology, then being "objective" has very little to do with how dispassionate or detached you are, its a question of whether your judgement is oriented towards the object or the subject.

The general idea is that any time your perception is defined in relation to the principal or idea abstracted from the object of contemplation, rather than the object itself, you are being subjective. In a similar sense, to define your perception in terms of the object itself, rather than an abstract concept or class (of which the object would be a representative instance), is objective.

Basically, any MBTI type who's most dominant judging function is extroverted should in theory be an "objective thinker" regardless of whether or not they are a "feeler". An ENFJ for instance, would be highly objective, where as an INTP would be highly subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious as to what objective thinkers think about subjective thinkers

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that we all hold individual conceptions.

Well everyone uses all of the functions to some degree; what makes a INTP different from an ESFJ is how much Ti is preferred, for example. Even INTJs use Ti... I'm not sure about others, but I know my cognitive function preferences are kind of screwy; according to the tests I've taken I slightly prefer Ti to Ne, and I use Fi way more than Fe. I believe what makes an INTJ different from other types is a stronger preference for Ni-Te than anything else; much in the same way I strongly prefer Ne-Ti to anything else.

I like semicolons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am both an objective thinker, and a subjective thinker, and so is everyone else. If we were not, we would not function in society. as for observation - there is only the attempt to objectivly observe something, but there is seldom or never a success in doing so. we are ultimatly unable to think about a thing without comparing it to something else, and what we are able to compare it to is always subjective. Neither of the two can objectivly be said to be better than the other, because "better" is a subjective observation of value. Value is the effect of utility - hence if something is useful, then it has value. Thus, "better" would suggest "more value" than the opposite - but an objective observer may not favor one thing over the other.

So, objectivly, none of the two is "better." Subjectiivly, we typically find more use through objective observation, but the utilization of that information needs to be subjective to fullfill the premises by which we chose to observe. In effect - again neither may be better as we will have a greater ability to make a subjective determination of the value of an observation, if that observation is objective. Both are needed in order to have a good outcome.

Of course, one could have an objective observation of the subjective ideas of value and its functions, then compare the objective observation of an event or a thing with the objective observation of the subjective values. Still, it would depend on subjectivity to net us a result we desire.

Hence, neither is more valueable than the other, as we depend on both to make it through the day.

And that is a subjective observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now