[mp2]

I'm curious about what you INTPs think, I think I might be INTP but am not sure at all.

For me, I often strongly dislike political or religious debates, because so many people appear to focus only on winning or proving the other person wrong. People appear to get angry over political or religious topics, which is very weird to me. I've tried to figure out why someone would get angry over politics or religion and result to attacking others, but I really can't figure it out.

I really like discussing politics and religion, but I rarely do it because most people seem to focus on it in a way where they're so convinced they're right and other people are wrong and they result to insulting the other side instead of trying to understand where they're coming from. No matter how sure I am of something, I'm always very open to the idea that I could be completely full of shit and I think it's important to always acknowledge that idea.

And, of course, politics does revolve around debate and trying to prove a point, but I'm not a politician and neither is anyone I interact with. Often times, I just see it as pointless to discuss political or religious points(as well as many other points) because people all of sudden can become angry or hostile while discussing these things, or at least see it as a means to prove someone wrong. To me, this is counterproductive as it can be blinding to the truth and I'd rather just understand what people think and why in a civil way.

But the main question I'm trying to get across :crazy: is how do you view debates vs discussion? Do you think taking too much of a strong stance on something can be blinding to understanding the truth? In you experience, are most people too prone to attempt to prove you or other people wrong rather than simply stating what they think and understanding where others are coming from?

 

[Judson Joist]

I like to have fun with it. Assuming it's on a forum, I often use highly contextualized pop culture references as allegories, though not necessarily memes. When you do it this way, it potentially eases tension because even people with opposing ideals will find common ground in the realm of fiction. My "cocktail" of ideals is typically presented as a blend of Ethos, Logos, Mythos, and Irony.

 

[HeadofHudet]

I think all INTPs have at some point loved debating religion and politics, but that's a tough business. Frustrating. Pretty sure most INTPs give up on those arenas since there's really no point in trying to learn anything or come to common ground, and they just get exasperated at the thought of it. I know I'm one of those.

We've all heard it all a million times. Arguments may take different shape, but it's always the same. Politics and religion harbors people of such strong beliefs that are rooted too deeply into their perception of the world, it's no point for you or the other to come to common, rational ground. I'm not even talking about the real scums of this planet - the radical and fundamentally charged ones - this is more or less the majority of how people treat these conversations.

It's seriously just two people trying to convince the other without being trying to be convinced themselves. Both sides will throw out anecdotal fallacies like it's confetti, and in the end they're just two people having a piss contest about who's best at formulating their opinions best. Because that's exactly what it is at the core: An opinion to express and an agenda to push, dressed with manipulated facts and presented at a catwalk.

Tl;dr: Fuck that noise. Seriously.

 

[Maybe]

I don't.

 

[Sava Saevus]

I've mostly resigned from this forum's political debate section.

Can not lead a horse to water, and expect it to drink.

 

[Sillyasuarus]

I do it only online with people I will never meet. I talk about other things, or nothing at all in real life. Though sometimes I will ask a person questions about religion or politics and let them try to explain exactly what it is they believe. When they get too uncomfortable (it always happens) I will stop. People love to talk about their beliefs if someone will listen and not judge them, up to a point. Perhaps someday I will meet someone who can actually verbally explore their beliefs without getting frustrated.

 

[spring]

I avoid political and religious discussion like the plague. Not that it doesn't interest me, but because like OP said, and in what I've experienced, many people hold these views dearly to them and cannot simply "discuss" them but will begin to "debate" even if I'm merely trying to understand their point of view.

There are very very few people that I've met that truly enjoy "discussions" like I do. Most people that I've met are simply too attached to their ideas, and to question them is almost like a personal affront to their very nature. The few types I've met that generally can be detached enough to discuss these things with me are INTJs and ENTPs, but they almost view these discussions as a kind of a game rather than a search for deeper understanding.

 

[Fredward]

I like bashing Trump, that probably counts as discussing both in some circles tbh.

 

[islandlight]

I don't mind discussing politics or religion in an oblique way. For example, someone might express an opinion, and I might make an agreeable--or noncommittal--noise, and file it away in my mind that this person is a kindred spirit--or not. Then I'll try to change the subject.

I do know a couple of people who have very well thought out opinions, and I enjoy listening to learning from them. I might express disagreement if pressed (I need to be honest) or ask an intelligent question, but I don't want to get into a real discussion. I let it be one-sided.

I have strong opinions about many things, but as someone I disagreed with about certain things pointed out, they weren't worth arguing about (and harming our friendship over) because "Nobody cares what we think anyway."

If it's a group discussion, I just leave.

 

[Reynir]

How I view most debates/discussions on these topics to be:
I like blue! it's the best!
I like red! it's the best!

How they in most cases are:
I like blue, it's BETTER!
I like red, it's BETTER!

What I learned from it thusfar:
Some like blue and think it makes them better.
Some like red and think it makes them better.

Recently I just started to listen, and stopped talking back, to people telling me about their religion. I likely won't agree anyway, but there is no reason for me to just go and fire cannons, of which I don't know if they even are grounded well enough.
Let them have their faith, let me have mine, everyone happy.

Now politics, I haven't put in the same frame yet, but it won't be long.

 

[SilverKelpie]

I like political/religious discussions IF I know the other person isn't going to get bent out of shape about it. Since most people do, I generally avoid them, but when I find someone who doesn't, it can be a lot of fun. My relationship with my now-husband was, I swear, partly built on these discussions/debates, and we had a lot of them considering I was a left-leaning atheist and he was a conservative Mormon.

the main question I'm trying to get across :crazy: is how do you view debates vs discussion? Do you think taking too much of a strong stance on something can be blinding to understanding the truth? In you experience, are most people too prone to attempt to prove you or other people wrong rather than simply stating what they think and understanding where others are coming from?

1) I see debates as essentially discussions between two people with opposing views.

2) I don't think taking a strong stance is inherently blinding, but people with a strong stance can be prone to letting their emotions take over which does blind them.

3) People, especially when they do not have anything invested in a relationship with the other person, are very prone to ignoring the argument of the person on the other side, and then attempting to make their argument by pure assertions and belittling their opponent as much as possible. They have zero desire to understand the other person because they already think they know what the other person is saying and are ready to build themselves up by tearing the other person down. It is a rare person who actually listens to the other side and makes an honest effort. The world would be a better place if people listened to each other, were respectful, and made the effort to understand.

 

[GusWriter]

I never think discussing anything of real importance is pointless, however I know what you mean about running into people who don't want a real discusssion. I often try to convince the republicans or democrats here in the USA to calm down and have a real discussion, but they are much more interested in name calling and such. Same thing in most religious discussions. If people don't have a good point or an answer to a question they often get mad and spout somet insult off and that's it. That's what turned me off of religion when I was young and it was a years and years after that until I found my relatinship with God. But occasionally, I feel like i've had a real meaningful discussion with somebody, with a healthy exchange of ideas, and maybe helped to open a perspective.

 

[Twichl]

Discussing politics and vetting people is literally my job. That said, I fucking hate politics.
Buuut playings devils advocate with people who agree with you is a lot of fun.
I don't mind religious discussions at all, as long as the other person is open to talking about it casually. I find most people are if you demonstrate a genuine curiosity about their beliefs.

As soon as it heads in the direction of bullheadedness - I bail. I'm not here for a pissing match.

 

[Sillyasuarus]

The big problem with discussing politics in America today is that in a multiracial society, the typical small/large government debate does not matter. It becomes about which racial group gets how much power and resources.
Why is politics more divided in a 60% white 2017 America than it was in a 88% white 1963 America? To ask is to answer. There are 2 electoral maps of the last election. The map representing only white voters show Trump winning 48 or so states. The map representing only nonwhite voters shows Clinton winning all 50 states. Expect the 2020 election to be the same.
This places the blame for divisiveness on those politicians and donors who supported mass nonwhite immigration- which is about 90% of democrat and republican national and state politicians, and less than 20% of voters.

 

[GusWriter]

The big problem with discussing politics in America today is that in a multiracial society, the typical small/large government debate does not matter. It becomes about which racial group gets how much power and resources.
Why is politics more divided in a 60% white 2017 America than it was in a 88% white 1963 America? To ask is to answer. There are 2 electoral maps of the last election. The map representing only white voters show Trump winning 48 or so states. The map representing only nonwhite voters shows Clinton winning all 50 states. Expect the 2020 election to be the same.
This places the blame for divisiveness on those politicians and donors who supported mass nonwhite immigration- which is about 90% of democrat and republican national and state politicians, and less than 20% of voters.

Which is sad. I was naive, and thought that racism was mostly dead. Then a couple of years ago all the racial stuff started up and then saw how many racists were posting comments under articles about it, and I was floored. For a long time now I've thought of skin color like I do hair color or eye color. Surprised its still an issue. People can suck sometimes..

 

[DemonD]

Religion and politics both deal with values.

People think they get their values from their religion and people think they apply their values in their politics. This leads to them tying these to their core-being. Meaning if you disagree with either then they view it as you fundamentally disagreeing with who they are.

Similar things happen with race, gender and sexuality which is why people are so rabid about those as well.

Facts are not really considered here.

 

[Sillyasuarus]

Why are you surprised? The definition of racism keeps changing. It used to mean that white people treated black people poorly just because they were black people. Now, I don't even know. I know that is is applied to white people who are not thrilled with the prospect of no longer being the population majority in their own nation (they may continue to be dominant, but that will require the repression of other races in America. See apartheid South Africa for an example of how whites can be a dominant minority.)
In any event, the idea of "racism being dead" was white people agreeing to not treat black people so badly. It didn't mean that whites wanted to be around them, or that whites liked them. Just that whites would be civil towards black people. Which is really about all you can expect from anyone.

 

[OneMind]

I don't debate. Sometimes I troll people for the purposes of making them angry until they burst into flames of anger. I'm good at it too.

 

[Handsome Dyke]

For me, I often strongly dislike political or religious debates, because so many people appear to focus only on winning or proving the other person wrong.

I dislike the way they tend to play out online (I assume formal debate involves much less bullshit), but I was drawn to them when younger (and I still am to some extent) due to starvation for intellectual stimulation in an interpersonal context. I was incredibly naive about others' motivation for participating (probably largely due to neurodivergent processing of social situations) and would sometimes reflexively continue trying to engage even when the others became more or less clearly abusive and I began to feel terrible (I attribute this to underdeveloped Fi, undervaluing my own psychological comfort). I still have to consciously remind myself that people are sometimes just trolling, just being assholes, don't care about ideas, etc.

I certainly wasn't in it specifically to prove people wrong, but I couldn't help noticing all the fallacies in their reasoning (something I'm quite good at), and holding myself back from pointing these out was very difficult.

I really like discussing politics and religion, but I rarely do it because most people seem to focus on it in a way where they're so convinced they're right and other people are wrong and they result to insulting the other side instead of trying to understand where they're coming from.

I used to be very interested in these discussions as well, but I've learned that people have rarely thought out their ideas and don't appreciate my pointing this out or even questioning them (no matter how neutrally I may do so), are in the discussion for shady reasons, can't/won't take any criticism, etc. (basically all the issues you've mentioned), so there's little stimulation for me there and little reason to bother anymore.

In particular, Ti type stuff seems to be devalued even when people are participating in earnest. Few seem to care to get down to principles, to premises, to personal differences that motivate differing perspectives, even when this is crucial for clearing up fundamental understandings. Watching people argue past each other due to ignorance of the fact that they simply have different goals is painful in a way.

I occasionally pop into the Debate forum to more or less tell people they are wrong, then never return to the thread due to the low probability of the posters caring about, fully understanding, or responding coherently, politely, or sincerely to my comment.

I am one of the people who is convinced of being right, but I also relate to this:

No matter how sure I am of something, I'm always very open to the idea that I could be completely full of shit

My being convinced of being right manifests as confidence, not resistance to new ideas and correction.

or at least see it as a means to prove someone wrong. To me, this is counterproductive as it can be blinding to the truth and I'd rather just understand what people think and why in a civil way.

I disagree. Sometimes (probably all the time, actually) reaching the truth requires identifying and discarding incorrect ideas. Now if you only or mainly care about reaching the truth yourself (rather than establishing it among all the debaters), it makes sense to me that proving people wrong is not important to you.

If everyone in the discussion/debate is more or less avoiding proving anyone wrong, however, some or all may miss out on errors that the others may have identified (and aren't sharing), and this can definitely prevent one from reaching the truth. I think politics and religion, however, have little to do with truth; some ideas are just more effective, more practical, etc., than others.

Do you think taking too much of a strong stance on something can be blinding to understanding the truth?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "strong," but I see no necessary relationship between strong beliefs and openness to new information.

In you experience, are most people too prone to attempt to prove you or other people wrong rather than simply stating what they think and understanding where others are coming from?

No, proving people wrong is actually half the point of debate (which is not the same thing as discussion); however, in my experience, people tend to be terrible at it or not interested in it so much as they are interested in shady things like making others "look bad."

 

[Chucky]

The first step of enganging is to know how to twist the engange into the pivot. Then releasing just before it engangitizes.