Personality Cafe banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There is a common notion that we ENTPs are often playing "Devil's advocate", merely for the pleasure of contemplating a dilemma from several aspects or to push people's buttons. I wonder: how does this come to manifest in your life experiences? I, for one, enjoy dispensing knowledge and opinions around people- shocking or esoteric as they may be, regardless of the crowd:

Architectural ethics debate at my school. Me: "You said Amsterdam is considered an architectural paragon in the eyes of many, and brought it as an example for a world-class city. But… have you considered that most people don't come to Amsterdam for the 17th century canals? Have you assumed that most of its fame is built around the Marijuana subculture?... Oftentimes, it's the context/PR of the city that counts; Going out on a limb here, I'm sure Kiev in the Ukraine could match Amsterdam's architectural beauty any day, if the (m)asses gave it a chance…"

What say you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shea

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,442 Posts
i think 'devil's advocate' largely describes E--P thinking... = thinking in terms of alternative possibilities.

I think the other styles of think tend to evaluate concepts positively:

I--P tries to come up w/ a detailed explanation to support concept
I--J accumulates evidence to support like a lawyer putting together a case to defend a concept
E--J try to get hands on evidence, experiments, demonstrations, surveys etc that support concept

while E--P play devil's advocate trying to argue against a concept, and then go w/ believing whatever holds up the best to scrutiny according to occams' razor

so I don't think devil's advocate is so much just something we do to be annoying, but actually the main way in which E--Ps think.


However, there definitely are times we (or maybe i should talk for myself) do argue just for the sake of arguing and to push people buttons .. i'm always skeptical, don't like to be told what to think, always find it insightful and wise to search for why things might be wrong or misinterpreted, and don't think others should be self righteous and overly certain. Plus it can be fun to debate..

but its def not just or even mostly to get a reaction from others, I do that sort of stuff in my own head by myself where its obv not to get under anyone's skin... and i'd guess often others might think i'm playing devil's advocate, when in reality i'm genuinely trying to make a sincere argument/point... so anyway.. ramble ramble ramble...

... in sum: I feel it's more a matter of just how my brain thinks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
I think yall don't believe half the stuff you argue for or against most of the time. You say things for a reaction and based on their reaction, on the fly, you make your next move. It's a cerebral game of chess. A weird game of chess that no one really wins lmbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,258 Posts
Sometimes I play Devils advocate to figure out how someone thinks. This only works if I'm confident the other person won't hide what they really think/feel.

Some of the most annoying and polarizing people in politics/journalism play Devils advocate. Youtube trolls too, can't forget them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
I play devil's advocate when I think someone hasn't looked at the situation from enough perspectives to make a good decision. I think most people are caught between thinking they can only choose between two choices, but many times in life there are a lot more options than that. I like to lead people to those other options but in a way that they figure it out for themselves. Even if that person still wants to choose between those first two options, at least they did it when they were more informed about it. Black and white thinking can also spark my desire to show all the options in-between those two colors. The "it's all evil" or "it's all good" tend to spark my mind into thinking, "Is it really ALL that?" and I'll try to find scenarios where it isn't. even if I mostly agree that it is bad or good, I may not agree that every time it is or that all of it should be labeled as such.

Other times it might be to improve a person's argument. I can see how it looks like I argue for sport but it bugs the daylights out of me when people present claims that are not backed up by solid evidence. Even if I agree with someone, if their argument is just plain bad it makes me cringe. Or they present solid evidence for a different claim than what they are trying to prove and act like they both go together when they don't. Or if they try to use purely an emotional appeal argument. That's not going to sway most thinkers and I let them know that. I do seem to drive a feeler insane when I tell them that one bad situation that happened forever ago isn't enough for me to judge all people or situations the exact same way. How do we know that wasn't the exception and not the rule?

I will say when I had a debate in class I usually did pick the most controversial topic, or a topic that I didn't agree with. Part of it was the challenge to see if I can convince myself or other people to be more open minded about it, and part of it was to broaden my own perspective. A lot of my opinions are not set in stone. I'm constantly reevaluating new information to see where I'm at. In the end though, I'm only trying to find the truth. Great lies tend to have some element of truth to them and most arguments I have are tentative at best. That doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions or don't have strong evidence to support it, I'm just always open to new evidence or ideas that might come out.

Then lastly, if I play devil's advocate just to troll then it is probably because I think the person is way too invested and emotional about a hypothetical situation. It might be my way of saying, "Hey look! Someone can disagree with you and that situation still didn't happen and the world still hasn't ended!" That usually happens when the slippery slope fallacy comes into play. I haven't done that in years but I was basically telling someone to chill out.

Overall I argue not to drive others insane or even just for pleasure, but to promote being open minded to other perspectives and possibilities. With that said, please don't assume all ENTPs argue for the exact same reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
it bugs the daylights out of me when people present claims that are not backed up by solid evidence. Even if I agree with someone, if their argument is just plain bad it makes me cringe.
I'm curious to know what do you mean by that, since a lot of what we ENXP types come up with is basically not embedded in a stern backbone of solid evidence since we make 'leaps' of thought between moments of Eureka (That's my spin on Ne, and Archimedes was also ENTP). Yet, our T indicates the torrent of thought should follow a string of logic or have some science behind it, i.e. following the laws of physics and perceived worldly dynamics.

What makes me stop listening to someone is whenever a deus-ex-Machina comes to play in their argument (Healing crystals? Scientology? Homeopathy? Religious 'reasoning'? Zodiac signs?) as though it's a valid argument on our planet. Being pissed-off will drain you out. Just avoid the speaker altogether, since you cannot relate to that type of reasoning and most likely they're trying to sell you something nobody needs (Like religion, for instance).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mephi

·
Birdie Borracho
Joined
·
9,380 Posts
I am, although I play more the role of jester sometimes. There are some topics that I care about and people think I'm playing DA. The truth is, I'm right and I can argue it better than them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
I'm curious to know what do you mean by that, since a lot of what we ENXP types come up with is basically not embedded in a stern backbone of solid evidence since we make 'leaps' of thought between moments of Eureka (That's my spin on Ne, and Archimedes was also ENTP). Yet, our T indicates the torrent of thought should follow a string of logic or have some science behind it, i.e. following the laws of physics and perceived worldly dynamics.

What makes me stop listening to someone is whenever a deus-ex-Machina comes to play in their argument (Healing crystals? Scientology? Homeopathy? Religious 'reasoning'? Zodiac signs?) as though it's a valid argument on our planet. Being pissed-off will drain you out. Just avoid the speaker altogether, since you cannot relate to that type of reasoning and most likely they're trying to sell you something nobody needs (Like religion, for instance).
Sorry for the confusion but yes, that's basically what I mean about solid evidence. I should probably use better wording next time seeing as that can mean a lot of things. I didn't mean to say that someone needs a well written infallible thesis. My brain just doesn't like magical mumbo jumbo(deus-ex-Machina), fake news sites, memes, or horribly biased blogs as proof either. Sometimes people use a scientific journal talking about apples and try to conclude that it is talking about zebras because they didn't understand the science(that doesn't bother me) or to be purposely misleading to sell something. I basically meant having reasonably decent sources for an argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,055 Posts
i just get irritated when someone expresses a stupid opinion as fact. yes, sometimes i will argue against what i believe because it helps to fine tune an argument of conviction, but mostly i don't care to. the only time i care is if someone expresses said opinion, because it's generally a case of being given two options, one being logical, one being retarded, and at some point they went for the latter

an example would be when i found myself in an argument with someone at work because i thought he was joking about the world being 5000 years old. he wasn't. thing is i really get on well with the guy in question and i love that he's so emo and friendly and positive, but fml when i realized he wasn't joking and he truly disagreed with my point of view it was sort of mind shattering. not that he disagreed with me, but that in doing so, he explained away fossils as god's practical joke because that seemed more reasonable than simply being the remains of creatures from long ago

i LOVE being proved wrong, though. discussion for me is sort of a search for intellectual masochism. i'm so used to either being right, or convincing someone i'm right, that it's rare to find someone with the balls to actually stand by their opinion and debate it reasonably to the point that i concede defeat. it helps curb my arrogance and appreciate other people
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,420 Posts
I think yall don't believe half the stuff you argue for or against most of the time. You say things for a reaction and based on their reaction, on the fly, you make your next move. It's a cerebral game of chess. A weird game of chess that no one really wins lmbo.
That is probably it. But it normally serves a purpose. For instance, I'm a teacher so in order to get my students interested and ready to argue I generally agree with the part no one agrees with - even if I don't like it myself, but that is a way to 1- let them see there are more options and minds than theirs and 2- to get them to talk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeekChic

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I am the Devil's Advocate, but I do it for good intent :love_heart::love_heart::love_heart:

I explore my ideas through arguing- if people can get me to change my mind then I am closer to the truth so that is a win for me. In my verbal sparring though, I often take no prisoners, which can get me into trouble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
i just get irritated when someone expresses a stupid opinion as fact. yes, sometimes i will argue against what i believe because it helps to fine tune an argument of conviction, but mostly i don't care to. the only time i care is if someone expresses said opinion, because it's generally a case of being given two options, one being logical, one being retarded, and at some point they went for the latter

an example would be when i found myself in an argument with someone at work because i thought he was joking about the world being 5000 years old. he wasn't. thing is i really get on well with the guy in question and i love that he's so emo and friendly and positive, but fml when i realized he wasn't joking and he truly disagreed with my point of view it was sort of mind shattering. not that he disagreed with me, but that in doing so, he explained away fossils as god's practical joke because that seemed more reasonable than simply being the remains of creatures from long ago

i LOVE being proved wrong, though. discussion for me is sort of a search for intellectual masochism. i'm so used to either being right, or convincing someone i'm right, that it's rare to find someone with the balls to actually stand by their opinion and debate it reasonably to the point that i concede defeat. it helps curb my arrogance and appreciate other people
this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I'm curious to know what do you mean by that, since a lot of what we ENXP types come up with is basically not embedded in a stern backbone of solid evidence since we make 'leaps' of thought between moments of Eureka (That's my spin on Ne, and Archimedes was also ENTP). Yet, our T indicates the torrent of thought should follow a string of logic or have some science behind it, i.e. following the laws of physics and perceived worldly dynamics.

What makes me stop listening to someone is whenever a deus-ex-Machina comes to play in their argument (Healing crystals? Scientology? Homeopathy? Religious 'reasoning'? Zodiac signs?) as though it's a valid argument on our planet. Being pissed-off will drain you out. Just avoid the speaker altogether, since you cannot relate to that type of reasoning and most likely they're trying to sell you something nobody needs (Like religion, for instance).
Totally disagree with this. I come up with my ideas like a bolt of lightning in the shower or when I'm walking down the street, but they are FANTASTIC ideas. They immediately appear to me as logical because they ARE logical. They happen because I've been thinking a problem, then I sleep on it, and my unconscious mind comes up with an incredibly creative solution that has drawn on all my experience in life- seeing patterns between things that others don't have the imagination to see as related. But when the solution is analysed it is the perfect solution (until I come up with an even more perfect solution of course).

This is entirely different to some whacko pseudoscientific superstitious claptrap that bears no defensible relationship to actual science and evidence. I am foremost a scientist by training, and I have no time for stupid ideas that are incompatible with science. It is fine to toy with crazy ideas for fun with other xNxPs ("what if the universe were just the plaything of an alien in another universe?") but it is absolutely dangerous to believe ideas that have been shown by evidence to be patently untrue ("Trump is the most popular US President- you're welcome").

Dangerous ideas must be challenged, because ideas are important. It is ideas like racial superiority and misogyny that oppress and harm people. Who is better equipped to challenge these ideas than ENTPs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,940 Posts
I didn't realize how much I did it until I married my ISTJ husband. He kept getting mad at me for "taking their side" when he was upset about something. I wasn't actually taking their side but I was trying to get him to calm down and see clarity of what the other side was thinking so he had perspective. Big mistake with an SJ. They want you to just agree with them and be made about the same thing as them. I find devil's advocate comes out really only when the other person is thinking very black and white. Since I tend to see the gray, I somehow feel like it is my duty to make them at least understand where the other side is coming from. Although, like my husband, those black and white thinkers often don't want to hear it.

I did learn that my husband will listen to the other side but I have to word it so that it doesn't sound like it is my opinion. His Fi makes him react like it is personal insult when it sounds like I agree with the other person. Most debates, I am only like 70%/30% or 60%/40% on a specific side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RexMaximus
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top