Personality Cafe banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I suppose I could look this up somewhere on a psychology website somewhere but I am interested in personal experiences or different perspectives on this. As an INTP, I know how I form opinions and beliefs. I will give an example, there is some new theory out there, someone tells me about it. I listen, if they give me the reason behind such theory or opinion, I judge if it sounds rational. Later, I will think about it and either research it more, or dismiss it because I either dont care, or there is no benefit in further analyzing it. I may find other information which supports that claim, theory or opinion. At that point I may form a belief about whatever topic that was. Now I know that it highly individual, but I am curious how others think. I am trying to figure out how to be more persuasive or at least have someone consider what I would have to say. I try to appeal to logic and explain things in a very logical way and when the other person completely dismisses what I have to say, I just get annoyed. This happens most of the time. They dont even think about my logic, they just think of their preconceived beliefs. What made them form that belief in the first place? How can one appeal to non-logical people? Maybe I just lack charisma. Maybe it the tone in my voice. Maybe its the words I use. I have no idea. I am just curious on other type's experience or how they would form beliefs or opinions.
 

·
Registered
INFP 4w5 sp
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
It's very complicated with many factors but sort of summarized, here's my thoughts

1. What family/culture teaches you as a child forms certain beliefs, biases, or tendencies in your thoughts. It's not simply taking it like a sponge, but the information and perspectives provided to you particularly when you are small and don't really have an idea that there ARE other possibilities, has a big influence on how you think and feel about things, and where you start your philosophical journies from.

2. How things make you feel, whether they evoke positive emotions or negative ones will influence what you are quick or slow to accept, what you pursue further and what you don't. Sometimes something might sound reasonable, but it leaves you feeling unsettled. Other times something may sound ridiculous, but it just feels right.

3. What makes sense to you when you think it through in relation to your understanding of related things. Analyzing how something makes you feel and why can help determine how much weight to give that feeling's input on a matter. Thinking and feeling go hand in hand, they work together to come to a conclusion.

4. What fits with other beliefs and opinions and what doesn't. If something doesn't mesh with a more strongly held belief you are unlikely to overhaul what is already set in place to accept this other thing, though in some cases of course that will happen. When reasoning though each new idea you're naturally going to be checking whether it's consistent and agreeable with the other opinions it's going to be hanging out with in your mind.

5. Considering what implications a particular belief may have on your life and relationships can also be a factor in how 'sound' something sounds, and whether you seek confirmation of something that you think might be right, or whether you seek other possibilities that are more in line with where you want to be or go. Because the information available to you makes a big difference in your analysis, your choices about what information to seek out and where to find it - which may be partly by chance - will be a considerable factor. You can choose to go down one road or another and whichever one you choose you may come to different conclusions of which you feel is best, or would have felt was best if you'd taken the other path.
 

·
Registered
I Thimk INTP
Joined
·
14,143 Posts
What @Aelthwyn said. Abstracting, I'd say we form those beliefs by how important we find our past experiences. That means two dimensions: selected inputs and the value of each.

I suppose I could look this up somewhere on a psychology website somewhere but I am interested in personal experiences or different perspectives on this.
Here is a personal experience of mine: I claimed on some thread here I was a political moderate and a fanatical one. Now that is a choice because I'll guess most people take sides in spite of themselves. There is no pre-determined reason for this attitude. My personal life has brought me to this because of experiences:
1. Dad was different from mom.
2. One was much older.
3. Cultural differences between males and females.
4. Witnessing too many people with differing opinions.
5. Anger at being treated unfairly ... or fate treating me unfairly...
6. Anger at other people taking sides while they control me where I can't help but seeing the other side.
6. More I've forgotten.

As an INTP, I know how I form opinions and beliefs. I will give an example, there is some new theory out there, someone tells me about it. I listen, if they give me the reason behind such theory or opinion, I judge if it sounds rational. Later, I will think about it and either research it more, or dismiss it because I either dont care, or there is no benefit in further analyzing it. I may find other information which supports that claim, theory or opinion. At that point I may form a belief about whatever topic that was.
That sounds like the method. I'll go with that except I assign an intuitive probability to each step with a final working view to be updated on application.


Now I know that it highly individual, but I am curious how others think. I am trying to figure out how to be more persuasive or at least have someone consider what I would have to say. I try to appeal to logic and explain things in a very logical way and when the other person completely dismisses what I have to say, I just get annoyed. This happens most of the time. They dont even think about my logic, they just think of their preconceived beliefs. What made them form that belief in the first place? How can one appeal to non-logical people? Maybe I just lack charisma. Maybe it the tone in my voice. Maybe its the words I use. I have no idea. I am just curious on other type's experience or how they would form beliefs or opinions.
Lots of things could be going on here. The other person may not be listening, or more interested in mouthing off expressing their view. Just in case they are listening what you call logical may have flaws. (What can you say to me I won't question?). But the most important thing (or so I claim) is the emotional investment a person has in their belief. How can you be persuasive unless you uncover what is behind their opinion? Not everyone is an INTP ... as if INTPs are naturally objectively inclined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aelthwyn

·
Registered
ESTP - SEE Fi
Joined
·
4,688 Posts
Beliefs are constructed with values and how you think it would impact your and others life. They don't have to be logical / emotional

Opinions are the lowest form of projection. It's processing "information" via theory-conjecture-assumption, without having any experience in the matter. Just gunning in the dark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Responding to bigapplepi. I understand not everyone is INTP and that is why i posted the question. So then how do I or anyone appeal to another person's emotions in a positive way? My intent is never to piss someone off, but merely share relevant information most of the time and it is usually takens as "well thars what you think" or "thats your opinion, not mine". I usually dont listen to or ague with straight opinions because there is no fact or logic behind it. But maybe my question should have been how does pne change anothers opinion? By appealing to emotion but how?
The problem is that most of the time only fact, past experience, or logic can change my opinion. But that does not seem to be the case with many other people from my observation.
A good example is anti-vaxxers. No amount of fact or logic will change their opinion. What is their opinion based upon? I dont know. It escapes me. Emotions?
 

·
Registered
I Thimk INTP
Joined
·
14,143 Posts
Responding to bigapplepi. I understand not everyone is INTP and that is why i posted the question.
Sure.



So then how do I or anyone appeal to another person's emotions in a positive way?
By recognizing what those emotions are all about. Often they are a mystery and the person themselves doesn't even know.


My intent is never to piss someone off, but merely share relevant information most of the time and it is usually takens as "well thars what you think" or "thats your opinion, not mine".
You just said you have an intent. Not what, but why? BTW all these are super questions. I'm fond of seeing if I can answer. Why? I'm not ready to explain myself, not that I won't or can't.



I usually dont listen to or ague with straight opinions because there is no fact or logic behind it. But maybe my question should have been how does one change anothers opinion? By appealing to emotion but how?
I'll ask again. Why not leave their opinion as is? There is a reason behind it even if it is "emotional" or out of ignorance. When I'm on a political thread, I don't want to change their opinion. I'd prefer to expand it and let them progress if they want.

One is allowed to continue logic and reason. The emotion is only an attachment. Don't go after an emotion directly without the right reason. Maybe your example will clarify if I look at it



The problem is that most of the time only fact, past experience, or logic can change my opinion. But that does not seem to be the case with many other people from my observation.
Right.


A good example is anti-vaxxers. No amount of fact or logic will change their opinion. What is their opinion based upon? I dont know. It escapes me. Emotions?
Now we have an excellent example. To answer we have to know something about anti-vaxxers and go after that. I'm not an expert either, but we can try. Avoid throwing facts at them unless you can sneak them in. Instead ask, when did you start believing that? Who told you? What did they say you didn't know before? (Don't forget they may be surrounded by a group of like believers and don't want to abandon their group of friends and acquaintances.) If you know logic, see if you can break into their logic without offending them.

Note that you can't apply your own logic by talking about contagion, etc. because their reason of not wanting their body tampered with is (so far) a legitimate reason of their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sygma

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Can I get a response from someone who is not NT? Because it sounds like the people who responded were way too logical!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,105 Posts
There is no such thing as "non-logical" people; people simply have different priorities, and it's perfectly sensible for them to pursue their priorities rather than yours. Sometimes those priorities dictate that they ignore an issue (even an important one) or think a certain way even if their way of thinking isn't accurate or useful.

Sometimes they are just tired of other people trying to tell them what to think or tired of idiots giving dumb opinions and are therefore quick to dismiss anything anyone says without listening or considering.

The way to reach people is to know their motivations surrounding the issue and to reach common ground.

Personally I have not been one who forms many beliefs; when I was young I just didn't care to do so and as an older adult I've decided that beliefs ought to be avoided because to believe is to pretend to know (and pretending to know is pointless for me). Often my judging thought process is provisional: if X is true, and Y is probably true, then Z should happen, and I will admit that I don't know for sure about X and Y.

Other than my personal preferences, I don't have a lot of opinions about things except for things that cause some type of harm to living creatures. And I suppose the reason is that...well, what else is there to life besides trying to live and enjoy life unharmed-uninjured, well-fed, without arbitrary hindrances to the pursuit of one's (benign) interests?

I also find it important to differentiate between opinions and reactions. Although something may anger or upset me, I will not say that it is wrong or shouldn't happen unless I can come up with a way that it causes more serious harm; I will just say that I dislike it or wish it didn't happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,147 Posts
One must find a motive for a person to be invested in your viewpoint and often criticism that is external to the person's position isn't an effective way of showing it's error as much as adopting their position and showing on their terms the limitations of it.
But this is also limited in that people don't necessarily have coherent and consistent viewpoints.

The issue of where one draws their motivation and how one develops their concepts of things is an elaborate task.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/wits/units-motives.pdf
That said, we retain will and motivation that rests on pre-intellectual bases within the psyche, and we do not acquire new motivational resources on a blank page. But in general, motivation is formed in the cultural and practical environment, in fact, one could almost say that the motivational structure of a person is a projection of the life around him or her.
And such concepts arise through our actions as part of already established projects in life, we incorporate ourselves into these larger activities as means of satisfying some need in ourselves. But the motive, the why anyone does something isn't evident in just assessing the specific action they're doing, one might posit the purpose of a worker to go to work is to earn a wage but the motive for why they do this specifically is hidden as the reason why they want the wage beyond bare survival isn't evident.

THE STANDARD answer is that someone is motivated for an action because the action satisfies some need they have. However, all this does is shift the question from the action to the need. Now, we must grant that in respect to a range of biological needs this shift is warranted; we eat because we are hungry, we sleep because we are tired; and also, these basic needs extend beyond the immediate sphere of consumption. Meeting basic needs in a modern capitalist economy usually means finding a job (or some other vocation) and thus the meeting of basic needs does penetrate society. But this is actually a very limited sphere, and for example, it is unlikely that a child attends school in order to eat when they reach adulthood, nor is it likely that a writer writes in the hope that it will put food on the table. And insofar as motivation is provided by biology, it is rarely a problem for educators and psychologists. Nonetheless, in the long run any society that fails to meet the basic needs of its citizens for food, warmth, security and so on must perish. But there are many ways of achieving these ends.
But to appeal to someone we have to get a sense of what sort of project are they working within, the ideas and perspectives they adopt and appeal to.
Certain beliefs make a lot of sense when appropriately situated within the relevant project, otherwise it remains alien/external to you and your own motivations.
It was Gadamer who coined the expression “Hermeneutic Circle.” Suppose you are confronted with a document, maybe an ancient manuscript or a letter from an old friend. You want to understand it, interpret it. Sometimes interpretation presents enormous problems and different people can get very different things from the same text. Speaking for myself, I have often returned to a work I long ago dismissed as worthless, only to find great wisdom in it! For the purpose of understanding a document Gadamer takes the context as the tradition in which the document is produced. It may have been written in certain social circumstances, but in order to understand it, what is important is the tradition to which it belongs, where the writer was “coming from,” so to speak. That tradition may be very different form the tradition in which the reader has been raised. I was raised as an atheist and I have some difficulty in relating to Christian literature, but it is not impossible.
So for example the atheist who comes in professing their own beliefs doesn't make an appeal as to why any Christian should really care to listen to them as they're in opposition to them and quite often, they may have very crude views about the position and nature of a particular Christian's belief. The atheist might explain it all that the Christian is simply too stupid to comprehend their incredible insight, but this is more typical of an immature and dogmatic adolescent than a mature thinker.

Need to find the reason why someone should give a shit about what you say long enough to properly consider it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Not sure what type I am, but likely xNTx based on years of testing.

For me belief and opinion formation is fairly simple: if it makes sense, then it could be true. And if it could be true, then it deserves considering, entertaining, including in discussions. Even if there's a plethora of "scientists" saying it's "untrue". I always rely on personal judgement for everything, no matter if my judgement clashes with scientists, friends, family, or the internet. The problem with "outsourcing" truth-finding to any group of people, is that they are still only people. I am not going to voluntarily surrender my faculties to make judgement about reality (which were given to me by nature) to some person or group of people just because they have a particular "permit to judge reality" more professionally than me.

I am motivated by what I would describe as "clarity" of truth. The truth is somewhere certainly out there, but in order to be seen, it must be completely stripped away from culture, politics, emotions, humanity, and all things that have no direct relationship to the truth. Hence why I often tend to find myself standing in opposition to the people around me on many topics, as I am instinctively scared of the "social bias" (that attempts to reshape reality for the purpose of enabling social bonding between people), hence I always reject what the group thinks or what "the common sense" is, because if it is "common" then it already indicates that it is biased/tainted/unclear/muddy/reshaped in benefit of social bonding.

I take great pains to ensure that what I feel are truly my feelings (and not just enforced or borrowed from somewhere) and to ensure that what I think and believe are truly my thoughts and beliefs (divorced from any outside influence, be that society, friends, family, professors, "common sense", etc.)
My thoughts and feelings must remain as "clear" and "raw" and divorced from "social biases" and personal biases, as possible.
 

·
Registered
I Thimk INTP
Joined
·
14,143 Posts
Can I get a response from someone who is not NT? Because it sounds like the people who responded were way too logical!
I'll give you a response from an imaginary (who could be real also) person. This is their opinion:

I don't want to have anything to do with Personality Cafe. I've hear you talking and I don't want to talk about it. The people are not real. I don't like them. I knew someone like that and they were disgusting. Don't talk to me anymore about it. I don't want to hear it.

Or:
I just love the Giants. Best players in the world. I'm going to the game and if you don't want to so there. You are not my friend. I love Charlie Curlijessi. I love to see him play. If you don't go with me I don't want to see you. I'm leaving.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
348 Posts
I believe that beliefs and opinions are based on emotions. When something comes along we have already subconsciously reacted to it before we become aware of it consciously (feeling comfortable / uncomfortable about it and then we try to justify ourselves), and our beliefs and opinions are formed and changed over time by reinforcements / deconstruction.

Logics are only artificial means we use to justify our beliefs and opinions because if your logic is applied correctly, you can argue for/against pretty much anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
I am trying to figure out how to be more persuasive or at least have someone consider what I would have to say. I try to appeal to logic and explain things in a very logical way and when the other person completely dismisses what I have to say, I just get annoyed. This happens most of the time. They dont even think about my logic, they just think of their preconceived beliefs. What made them form that belief in the first place? How can one appeal to non-logical people? Maybe I just lack charisma. Maybe it the tone in my voice. Maybe its the words I use. I have no idea. I am just curious on other type's experience or how they would form beliefs or opinions.
My two cents:

For starters, I think that sometimes you just gotta accept the fact that some people are just completely dishonest (primarily towards themselves) and not interested in the truth. They'll just dismiss your points, no matter how logical and evidence-based, without any counterargument. There's no point in trying to persuade these people of anything. ̶T̶h̶e̶y̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶f̶e̶r̶i̶o̶r̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶k̶i̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶o̶n̶c̶e̶.̶

With that being said, assuming that you're talking to someone who shows some honesty and interest in the truth, I think that the most important when trying to persuade someone is to see where they're coming from and agree on a common standard to reach the truth (like when you make a bet with someone, you're both agreeing on some standard to determine who's right by testing your beliefs against reality).

Maybe they don't have all the information, so if you show them the evidence and how you arrived at your conclusion they'll take that into account if they're honest. But, even then, they may not change their beliefs immediately, because you generally need time to think, do your own research, and integrate the new information.
Or maybe they're right and you're wrong. The only way to figure that out is, again, to honestly try to see where they're coming from and, even better, make their case as strong as possible, even stronger than they themselves would (what's generally called "steelmanning" or the ideological Turing test). If they see that you can present their views without distortions, and they can do the same with yours, that's a pretty good basis to have a productive conversation.

Oh, and defining terms is VERY important. Clarity is fundamental in any conversation, you gotta make sure that you're talking about the same thing, even more so when you're trying to persuade someone of something. It can get pretty annoying otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,922 Posts
I mean it’s sorta both on and off topic but was thinking about back when I was younger an spent more energy thinking about how I came to conclusions

I remember when I was like 5 or so I made a reference or comment to another child saying something about what was or was not right or wrong or something to that effect. But the other child yelled at me and said something to the effect of how was I to know what was right or what was wrong. I remember it did actually stop me In my tracks because whatever it was I lectured was right or wrong to the child had been a subject or topic that my mom had told me her opinion. Anyways it was at that age I realized on a deeper level that was just my mothers opinion and it was not fact. And due to the other child’s protest that there was not a for sure way for me to conclude what was right or what was wrong.

So then I remember getting a bit older. I remember once I got a bit older I consider things like shame and our actions and my own etc and I remember that I concluded rather than focus on finding a truth I should just take myself out of my own body and mind to assess. I tended to operate on whether actions would hurt others, as sort of a golden rule (notice I never asked myself if the actions would hurt myself and I really didn’t consider that) so anyway I remember operating with the general mind set people were too busy pondering their own revelations to usually care what I was doing. And I really did assess at a young age YOLO. So then I tended to generally just picture that I could always die at any moment anyways and so as long as I was not hurting others with intent then I could basically justify doing whatever the fuck I wanted. Shrugs

So anyways that was 5 yr old ESTP evolution & teenager ESTP evolution.
Older ESTP starts to think about consequences Ni, :laughing:
And things like how can this hurt me (Fi).

The point being I would imagine it’s several factors like other mentioned ranging from brain development, mental & emotional health and intelligence, both the persons intellectual capacity as well as parents and those who raise the children etc, Physical health. Sometimes when someone is challenged in one area they will evolve more In growth in another. While sometimes someone could be stunted just by environmental factors. I mean you hear plenty of people who come from good homes who turn into psycho and people from negative backgrounds who overcome adversity. And then you also see people stay within the status quo. So It all depends. The biological and environmental combination is likely to always make where people’s beliefs stem from likely inconclusive or not one simple answer
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top