How would a debate between ENFJ's go?

SilentScream · Nov 12, 2011

Not to be confused with conflict.

I'm curious about debating on a topic where both ENFJ's are actually on opposite ends.

I have an ENFJ friend IRL who's a highly religious person --- and I'm not -- she tries to shove religion down my throat and even though I have all the knowledge and my own views about it and can debate for hours, I have absolutely no desire to impose my views on her. I let her feel like she "wins" the debate every time.

Recently though she posted something enigmatic on my wall after a picture I posted [of a Muslim taking a pic of 5 Burka clad women] -- and she seemed upset by the fact that I found the picture funny. I responded just as enigmatically -- and we haven't spoken since.

I know we'll probably speak eventually --- but it is a bit of a concern --- the more important thing for me is not to lose the friendship rather than to impose my views.

-----

So -- here are the questions:

What would be the debating dynamic be like?

Both are listeners --- both are capable of seeing the impact of their words and moods on the other person --- neither want to emotionally harm the other person -- or can get a sense of what the other person is feeling.

How does the debate play out?

StrangeAttraction · Nov 12, 2011

Would either ever be totally truthful in the debate as to how they feel? Because they do try to keep harmony and not hurt other people's feelings. And in that, you must hide some of what you feel so you don't hurt the other hence there would be something left out of the debate. I think if you put some ground rules for the debate down, that may help...but they do not do well with set rules, do they?? I'm not sure how the debate plays out but I can only imagine it would be incomplete.

My brother-in-law and I debate religion all the time, or I should say God. He is atheist and I am Catholic. We love to cram our beliefs down each other's throats and watch in delight as the other sits and rolls their eyes or roars with dis-belief. He, though, is and ENTP and probably the only one I would take such crap from.

Sorry I don't have a better answer.

shampoo · Nov 12, 2011

I'd say the'd both try to get their thoughts fully conveyed to the other person....no lingering opinions....everything must be said. And I think somewhere more than winning the debate it's making your views fully understood....being misunderstood is not good. umm..when it comes to another ENFJ...well their usually highly intellectual beings

seriously...so that is one action pack debate you've got there! And specially if their thoughts are opposing....they both strongly strongly believe in what they are saying...and usually the'd put their life into getting the person aware of their views and the other is doing the same thing....but eventually one would have to sacrifice the tittle like you...but then you believe what you did and she does what she did....there has to be a sooper strong resultant force on one part to win an ENFJ-ENFJ debate....but they both respect the others opinions, and are aware of the consequences. So both on their part would get the best possible, persuasing, respectful and emotinally balanced ways to convey what's going on in the brains....it's like two giants instead of fighting...they hold hands nicely and pull hard

Sorry for the blabbering....but all in all ENFJs rock

StrangeAttraction · Nov 12, 2011

Thanks, Jawz for my very first 'thank'!!

Vivid Melody · Nov 12, 2011

Well I would say it really depends on the ENFJ's. Maybe enneagram types come into play here too. I think shampoo pretty much covered it all though. It's more about a desire to be understood. I don't know. I mean I know how my ENFJ husband is. He'll state his perspective only so many times if a person is resistant to his perspective he'll leave it at that because he's not interested in arguing. Usually he's already considered the other person's side of the argument before anyway. He's not going to give in to someone else's view if he doesn't believe it but he's also not going to get into a heated argument about it. Usually he just removes himself from the room/conversation if that's the case because they're not interested in trying to even understand his perspective and only interested in defending theirs. Other times after the discussion has taken place, he'll always review his perspective in his head to determine whether he was fair or not and if he finds himself to have been unfair he will apologize. I would think two ENFJ's would be the most peaceful debaters (maybe it seems that way on paper) but it really depends on the ENFJ's like I said. I think an ENFJ and an a perceiver type debating is probably more peaceful actually. But that's also a generalization.

I hope things work out with your friend

SilentScream · Nov 12, 2011

StrangeAttraction said:
Thanks, Jawz for my very first 'thank'!!

Hey .. you're welcome

And there's your second as well ....

I actually really enjoyed your response. I was waiting for more people to give their input so I could respond to them at one time

dulcinea · Nov 15, 2011

I'm curious as to what exactly do you mean by letting her feel that she "wins" the debate, because I'm wondering if by doing so, you may have given her the impression that her beliefs would be something you could adopt. I'm speaking from the point of view of a religious minded person myself. While I don't push my religion on other people, I do talk about it a lot to people that have gotten to know me better, because it's a big part of my life, so if someone gave in to any religious "debate" or exchange of any ideas with me, I might think that they might actually adopt some of my values, so if I showed them anything that had some significance in my religion and the other person thought it was comical, I would be really disappointed, and it would possibly take me by surprise, so that would have some bearing on how I view the person. I would probably wonder if they were faking whatever interest they took in my beliefs just to please me.

If you feel like the only way you can get on with her peacefully is by letting her feel like she's won a debate, rather than agreeing to disagree, then she probably has an opposite view to you in regard the priority friendship takes in relation to imposing personal values. The latter might take on more importance to her as it does to you, perhaps. From what I've seen from famous examples and such is, that while friendship and keeping the peace is often important to ENFJ's, ENFJ's are also capable of having very deeply held values that are close to the heart that they will never back down on.

SilentScream · Nov 15, 2011

dulcinea said:
ENFJ's are also capable of having very deeply held values that are close to the heart that they will never back down on.

The way I see it is that I will indicate my true opinion of religion in a very subtle way over time. My view of religion itself is vast enough that it cannot be "argued" - so therefore I agree with everything not from the perspective of agreeing to show appeasement, but agreement because I agree with the fact that she has a right to her beliefs. It's just that her beliefs are a "part" of mine therefore I debate on the more crucial aspects to give her more perspective, but back down on the lesser important aspects to let her feel that she's also right.

Human tactics involve separation of ones own feelings from ones deeply held beliefs and putting oneself in the shoes of the recipient. Seeing their perspective before they share it and therefore designing a strategy to make statements that would both be authentic as well as broad enough to allow the other person to not feel challenged.

No one can challenge my views if I really wanted to do battle. But most of the time I'm just bored and tired to do so ... so I let the other person rant on going "Ok.", "You're right but ...", "Think about it this way..", "Maybe you're not exactly right, but I can see where you're coming from."

When I really want to challenge, then I quote, re-quote, interpret, re-interpret and challenge openly. It's just that an open challenge leads no one anywhere and it all ends poorly for the most part.

Internally, I cannot be wavered --- nor do I lie to keep the peace. I deflect and avoid. Attack and retreat. She feels unchallenged and I remain open to new perspective. Slowly, she's beginning to realize that I cannot be moved from my position. But at least we never had a fight in the process either.

PS. We did discuss the whole religious thing for 2 hours the other day ... and it went the exact way as I've described above

We kept the peace and agreed to disagree on a few points while still holding on to both our own views as well as have no impact on the friendship in the end

Lost in Oblivion · Nov 16, 2011

I haven't seen an ENFJ-ENFJ debate but here's what I would assume would happen, based on my own knowledge/experience.

It could be either really easy-going or just really bad. Either opinions would, like you said, get shoved down each other's throats, or be appropriately listened to. The latter is probably more likely.

The debate would probably be very strong yet relatively conflict-free. I once debated with my ENFJ friend about religion (trend here I suppose), and what I basically picked up is that they're not willing to argue about it. Since they have a Judging function as dominant, it is what it is, there's pretty much no changing that, especially since it is a Feeling function. Both sides present their argument and don't really go much further than that, it's more or less just a way to take in others' opinions (to strengthen your own).

Should conflict arise, the first person to consider harmony over their morals backs out. I once argued said ENFJ friend about her perspective of love - which was "making the other person happy even if it makes you unhappy," and I found that total BS and challenged her about it. She tried to present her point, but I was doing a real callous Ni-Ti smackdown, and she eventually just said, "I can't talk about this anymore."

As for your situation, I wouldn't "let" her win the arguments. If she's shoving it down your throat you tell her to stop. Probably the nicest way to go about it is to just say something like, "You have your views, and you have mine. We might not agree on them, but it's best we just leave it at that." Again there could be conflict still, considering the morals might not always match up, but at least you won't be forcing your opinions on each other.

dulcinea · Nov 16, 2011

Jawz said:
The way I see it is that I will indicate my true opinion of religion in a very subtle way over time. My view of religion itself is vast enough that it cannot be "argued" - so therefore I agree with everything not from the perspective of agreeing to show appeasement, but agreement because I agree with the fact that she has a right to her beliefs. It's just that her beliefs are a "part" of mine therefore I debate on the more crucial aspects to give her more perspective, but back down on the lesser important aspects to let her feel that she's also right.

Human tactics involve separation of ones own feelings from ones deeply held beliefs and putting oneself in the shoes of the recipient. Seeing their perspective before they share it and therefore designing a strategy to make statements that would both be authentic as well as broad enough to allow the other person to not feel challenged.

No one can challenge my views if I really wanted to do battle. But most of the time I'm just bored and tired to do so ... so I let the other person rant on going "Ok.", "You're right but ...", "Think about it this way..", "Maybe you're not exactly right, but I can see where you're coming from."

When I really want to challenge, then I quote, re-quote, interpret, re-interpret and challenge openly. It's just that an open challenge leads no one anywhere and it all ends poorly for the most part.

Internally, I cannot be wavered --- nor do I lie to keep the peace. I deflect and avoid. Attack and retreat. She feels unchallenged and I remain open to new perspective. Slowly, she's beginning to realize that I cannot be moved from my position. But at least we never had a fight in the process either.

PS. We did discuss the whole religious thing for 2 hours the other day ... and it went the exact way as I've described above We kept the peace and agreed to disagree on a few points while still holding on to both our own views as well as have no impact on the friendship in the end

Okay. That makes sense. I'm sorry, sometimes I need things explained more way than once before I get a genuine feel of what's going on in a situation. Thanks for the explanation.

JC22 · Nov 16, 2011

I'm not sure how it would go. But in my case, whenever I am discussing something important with others and I feel that it is getting too emotional for either one/both/all of us, I will usually start heading for the diplomatic approach, without retracting my beliefs. "Lets agree to disagree......for now."

How would a debate between ENFJ's go?

SilentScream

StrangeAttraction

shampoo

StrangeAttraction

Vivid Melody

SilentScream

dulcinea

SilentScream

Lost in Oblivion

dulcinea

JC22

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities