[ENTP] ENTPs against arguing?? - Page 3

ENTPs against arguing??

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
Thank Tree27Thanks

This is a discussion on ENTPs against arguing?? within the ENTP Forum- The Visionaries forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by PowerShell I occasionally will get into a debate, but too often people will just share click bait ...

  1. #21
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by PowerShell View Post
    I occasionally will get into a debate, but too often people will just share click bait articles that supposedly "prove" their point and put the oneous on you to read that article and then come to the same conclusion. This is what debating has got.

    With the rash of mass shootings, I shared this yesterday (before the whole Dayton, OH shooting):



    I have a down the middle stance on guns as you can see. I've rationally thought about it and I often get beat up by both sides. This was a much deeper perspective than sharing a mean or click bait article. I haven't really got any takers in over 12 hours. A few comments but mainly people who align with me politically or are more liberal than me so they tend to take the time to read things. As far as the conservative people I thought who would bite, I guess this isn't simplified to memes, tweets, and shared articles with no context.

    To me this is a bit of an experiment and my hypothesis is proving correct on the lack of deepness of thought when it comes to actually debating. It's a sad reflection on society, but proves the point of not wasting my energy on most "debates" because the true debates that dig deeper, nobody wants to waste their time. Time is just wasted on flinging poo back and forth at each other and it isn't productive at all.
    I wouldn't be offended if someone doesn't bite if that is what you posted. Your ideas are middle road and well thought out. People feel the need to debate when a statement is said-usually inflammatory-without explaining their argument. My friend who posted a two sentence comment saying we need to ban guns now got a lot of responses on both sides. It's because gun control and these mass shootings is a complex issues that is not as simple as banning guns. People get fired up when the argument is not clear. Something like you wrote would be read and either "liked" or another emoji and probably not expanded on much. BTW, I am in complete agreement with your argument, though I would add that there is tons of underlying social issues that need to be resolved to really make a difference. I would agree with the "guns don't kill, people do" idea the conservative put out there, in theory. However, the conservatives won't make any gun laws that would actually reduce the number of weapons in the hands of people who should not have them AND they won't pass laws that help with the "people killing" part like universal healthcare so that mental health and drug addiction are fully covered at no cost or that don't discourage or I would say even enjoy fanning the flames (and lies) of making brown people scary and taking away their jobs/bringing in violence or drugs. The Dayton mass shooting was an example of the former and the El Paso shooting was an example of the later. The fact that both gunmen had easy access to weapons firing multiple rounds at a time just added to it.

    Also, I live in the Chicagoland area and you are 100% right in that having Indiana so close is a big contributor. Most of the biggest gang areas of the city are closer to Indiana than downtown Chicago. They have gun shows in the Indiana cities along the border and the background checks/gun laws for guns shows and private sales in Indiana is VERY lax. I believe I read a statistic from the Chicago police department that more than 40-50% of the guns found in gang possession came from Indiana. We 100% need federal laws for any gun laws to be effective. As far as gang violence goes, people in desperate situations turn to desperate measures. It's a cycle that started with racism and isolation and lack of good education/jobs and turned it into war zone. Those areas of Chicago are almost islands of isolation with limited bus routes/CTA, barely any businesses, grocery stores, restaurants, etc. However, it is almost exactly the same in a way of how these small rust belt/Appalachian areas have become towns of opioid addicted people. The isolation, poor education, and lack of good employment (I would add, not just blue-collar work but work that would keep the educated middle class there too) have made them an island of desperation not dissimilar to the people of the south side of Chicago. How to fix that is really a complex situation (I think even more than gun control issues).

    BTW, first and foremost on most political issues, lobbying needs to be curtailed. I was listening to a Fresh Air podcast (NPR) about a guy who started research during the 1980s the climate change issues and had followed it through to now (he wrote a book about what was going on in the 1990s). The amount of (well documented) lobbying and payoff in the late 1980s/1990s by big oil companies was immense to try and change an entire political party to become climate change/environmental impact deniers. Even more interesting is that they paid off a few supposed scientists to publicly cast doubt on the human impact of climate change and journalist ran with it to help make the general public become skeptical of science. The NRA and well as Unions have done similar things.

    Seriously, the world is going to hell in a handbasket and I am not sure what will right the train.
    PowerShell thanked this post.

  2. #22
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by Geonerd
    I wouldn't be offended if someone doesn't bite if that is what you posted. Your ideas are middle road and well thought out. People feel the need to debate when a statement is said-usually inflammatory-without explaining their argument. My friend who posted a two sentence comment saying we need to ban guns now got a lot of responses on both sides. It's because gun control and these mass shootings is a complex issues that is not as simple as banning guns.
    You're absolutely right. I didn't plan to take offense to this. It was merely a social experiment. I got a few responses, but it's clear our attention spans are so short. If I would have said 1-2 sentences, people would have flipped out and I'd have 100 comments in the morning with 3-4 people going back and forth at each other. This has happened.

    I actually made it much briefer than it needs to be. I mainly focused just on guns themselves and really at a bird's eye level, but there's other things like universal health care that need to be addressed also. I knew it was going to be long enough that it would intimidate most people to think up some sort of respond greater than a parroted soundbite, especially when half my points agree with either side.

    It seems we don't really value deeply thinking about things anymore. There's a couple meetups I go to that still do so I get my fix there, but Facebook is definitely not the place for a deep conversation.

  3. #23

    Quote Originally Posted by Geonerd View Post
    Jeez, ain't this the truth. I have been accused by the many SJs in my life that I'm debating something (especially not agreeing with them) when I am doing one of the above. So many people want to present their idea and have the other person just say "You are exactly right" and move on. Even if you agree 90% with their idea but have something to add it's considered by them to be not agreeing with them. I love when someone has a good counter idea to mine. It usually develops my idea even more.
    Right! Some people act like anything other than 100% agreement is an attack. I get wanting to be right -- being right is great! I don't get feeling attacked by others adding to your idea though, that's one of the most rewarding things I can imagine. I adore when people improve on my ideas or add their own twist to them -- so it trips me up hard when other people don't feel the same way.

    Kinda have to wonder if that's where some of the stereotyping comes from. People see ENTPs enjoying a pleasant exchange of ideas and think to themselves, "wow, if anyone said that about my ideas, I would feel so attacked and hurt. This is an argument. ENTPs just love arguments and conflict."

    Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with enjoying conflict. There's definitely a strength in not shying away from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by nujabes View Post
    sounds like male vs female socialization imo. girls are discouraged from creating conflict and contradiction whereas it is encouraged in boys.
    This has got to be a huge factor. Society tends to be so much more willing to hear men standing up and stating their opinions freely -- while women get stereotyped as nagging, annoying, or worse and often have to come up with "nicer" ways to word things to avoid backlash. Not to mention the impact of just being socialized to pay extra attention to other people's feelings! A lot of the descriptions of the ENTP personality imply that we all run roughshod over other people's feelings for fun -- and while it's true that people can get offended by having their ideas challenged, this description really doesn't seem to take these other factors into account and it leads to a pretty incomplete picture IMO, one that can seem to resemble exaggerated internet trolls more than actual people.
    VoicesOfSpring thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24
    ENTP

    I relate to the OP as I have to SJ parents and they have very rigid views, and my ESTJ father especially enjoys making sure his views are known far and wide.

    Personally I don't argue points very often because I do not care what the other person thinks. They can think what they like, it has no bearing on me being assured of my standpoint. Furthermore I like other people being wrong, because then it means I'm ahead of them in some way, if I correct them, then I am no longer ahead of them, I have brought them level with me and I lose my advantage. And even if I did care to change the opinions of others, I so rarely see a debate result in one person convincing the other that it seems a complete waste of energy, causing friction when I much prefer harmony and an easy life.

  6. #25

    I definitely enjoy debating. If by debating, you mean exchanging ideas, with each person having a totally or even slightly different viewpoint.
    And it's definitely something I'd start just for the fun of it, if I think the other people involved would enjoy it too.
    I think it would ultimately depend on who it was I was trying to 'argue' with. I've got friends that I know will get proper offended at even the slightest suggestion of going against social norms, and friends who would happily discuss genocide (as a joke)

    So yeah, it depends on the person/group.

    But I definitely don't enjoy arguing. When everyone is really emotionally attached to their ideas, and it disintegrates into name-calling and personal attacks.
    No one's really going to change their minds when they're feeling attacked, so it just seems kinda pointless.

  7. #26

    I stop as soon as a debate becomes an argument. In a debate, defending and attacking positions are done in a playful manner. In an argument, the ego or emotion has taken over a person. Any further discussion is harmful, so just let the other person think that they won and shut up.
    Crowbo thanked this post.

  8. #27

    I love having civil debates that can get heated and competitive but people still keep their cool and learn a lot with no hard feelings. I hate it when debates devolve into petty arguments filled with egos and agendas that are volatile and filled with personal attacks.
    SirCanSir thanked this post.

  9. #28

    What. This is a possibility?

    Sure. It happens, but only in best quality company. Then the contra arguing starts. And boy wont that be just insanely chill.

  10. #29
    Unknown

    So I'm trying to stay away from arguing but almost got in the middle of that Odessa mass shooting. We'll see who bites:

    "We literally missed this by several hours. We're currently in Roswell, NM and we drove through this area several hours prior to the shooting. If we would have slept in a little bit and say I decided to impulsively stop somewhere, we could have been in the line of fire.

    We had originally wanted to go to El Paso. Then the shooting happened there. I didn't feel it was respectful for me to gawk around and blog when El Paso is actively in mourning.


    My weekend plans changed because of a shooting and I almost got caught in the cross-fire of another shooting. This is starting to hit too close to home and I'm really starting to wonder when I won't be so lucky and will get shot with as much traveling as I do.


    Don't you think now is the time we actually start getting some reasonable gun control in place?"



    Yeah this time it was a possible close call if we would have say slept in and maybe detoured and got lunch in Odessa. My other argument faded fast and most people just agreed with me. We'll see how this ones goes.

  11. #30
    Unknown

    Quote Originally Posted by bunnyearslawyer View Post
    Usually the stigma for ENTPs is the need for debate and needless arguing. And I've seen this is a lot of ENTPs to various degrees. However I tend to veer on the lower spectrum of the debate thing. I just want everyone to try to understand everyone else's opinion without it getting super emotional. I know I'm not the only ENTP who's not a big fan of argument but I just wanna here your opinions.
    It's actually quite amazing to watch people in all walks of life, at a beer party, in a boardroom, in the bedroom, etc; miscommunicating. I find that my ENTP-ness causes me to be able to bridge that gap and cut through the BS. BUT, and this but is monstrous, THEY usually think that I am arguing at them. My ENTP ness also makes me hard corner T and very J in my P-ness. So the SF types out there, and there are so damn many of them, just often enough think of me as an ass. And in MOST situations the J types do not let a casual communication go by without inflicting their F > J over that issue. So, their being J then only makes it worse because the only part of their J they are using is the You spoke up -> I PUNISH you part. I swear its enough to make this Bruce banner stop trying to help, lest they all get the Hulk as a result of their inability to accept help that is actually help as help.

    Quote Originally Posted by bunnyearslawyer View Post
    I was raised under two conservative SJ parents who know how to make arguments out of everything.
    Mine were as well, but, my father was borderline N and he was also enneatype 5 so super reserved. He never spoke up until my mom acted all incensed at my 'arguments' and it was only to threaten or squelch me. His threats were lame so it rarely worked. My mom was dangerous. And her manipulative 2 type opinions were all over ever decision we made.

    Quote Originally Posted by bunnyearslawyer View Post
    As an inborn contrarian, I've noticed that many things simply aren't worth arguing over.
    Clearly you have lost your mind and your ENTP-ness.

    Quote Originally Posted by bunnyearslawyer View Post
    While I can be excellent at arguing (given that I know what I'm talking about), I prefer not to give my energy to constant debate. Instead, I prefer to see the other person's viewpoint--unless their viewpoint is too ridiculous or I've seen it proven to be wrong. And even then, I drop the subject when it gets too heated.
    I don't mind seeing the other person's point of view, as long as I am not SUFFERING it. What I find is that usually in these cases the miscommunication or lack of understanding in the situation means I (and everyone else) is SUFFERING the foolishness or incompetence, or even immorality of others. For me there is almost no heat too hot in that sense. My ONLY exceptions to this are environments where the mood is aimed at chilling intentionally. In those cases I don't so much argue as ask the other person to chill out or just leave that general area if the others are into the row.

    The only time I get tired of arguing is when I am physically sick or depressed or too stressed and even then I am likely to give it a go.


     
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTP] Do most ENTPs argue against their MBTI result?
    By Falling Foxes in forum ENTP Forum- The Visionaries
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 02:42 PM
  2. SOPA/PIPA Against it or ultra against it?
    By TJSeabury in forum Member Polls
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-10-2013, 04:42 PM
  3. [ENTP] Arguing (yes everyone loves arguing)
    By Julian Bocking in forum ENTP Forum- The Visionaries
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-10-2012, 08:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0