Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There is a thread in the INTP sub-forum titled "debate and Ti-Ne ." The topic came up on how to handle other types in debate. INTPs are generally not going to be as quick as you guys. I think it would be foolish to try to beat an INTJ at their own game by going point for point with them. I think INTPs would benefit by slow-playing a debate and to deconstruct arguments.

How would you handle yourself in a debate? What's the best way for someone to trip you up and get you off your game?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,227 Posts
I'm actually pretty bad if it's an unfamiliar topic, or a situation in which I haven't had a lot of time to come up with a solid argument. There have been a few times during which people have caught me off-guard with something an Fi takes over, paralyzing. I tend to do better having performed a good amount of research beforehand - not so much in the way of facts and figures, but in constructing an overall strategic argument and predicting possible responses and defenses. This is why some of us are much better online than we might be in person.

Another facet to the discussion is knowledge of type. If I can predict the debator's type, I adjust my style to appeal to his/her/their desirous functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Well i benefit from "slow-playing" debates as well. it's usually this or one liners crafted from experience to confuse the opposing person. According to my mood i guess.
And I usually find myself the one with the upper hand if the opponent doesn't interrupt for let's say....five minutes.

Someone would probably frustrate me if they use too many "around the subject but not on the point" statements, i'd honestly just give up.

I should mention i hate debates, i don't want them to be "my game". I only debate if i strongly believe the situation HAS to be corrected. Uh maybe it's a little (Feel)ish of me.:crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Another facet to the discussion is knowledge of type. If I can predict the debator's type, I adjust my style to appeal to his/her/their desirous functions.
Do you honestly use this strategy in arguments? It sounds way too complex (for me at least)

If so, then how would you use it? i'm asking too much i know. but i guess it's still related to the OP's OP.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,227 Posts
Do you honestly use this strategy in arguments? It sounds way too complex (for me at least)

If so, then how would you use it? i'm asking too much i know. but i guess it's still related to the OP's OP.
Indeed. Not all the time, and not with all of the functions. It's not complete mimicry, as I haven't yet really learned how to allude to Ti or Ne yet - so against types such as _NTP I tend to just stick with what I'm comfortable with. If I think I can get them with Fe, however, I sometimes try to do that.

It's not really that complicated if you understand the CF system. All you need are a few characteristic phrases and phases of body language of each type, and you can get them by careful observation. You do need to do a bit of research on the person beforehand (social networking, etc), and that isn't always possible.

More importantly, I do it only when I think it will help a situation or "break the ice" with someone who might end up being able to share a great friendship with, given a little commonality. I don't debate enough or in a setting that is serious enough to pull out the stops regularly. Though I could.
 

·
Registered
NiTe 549
Joined
·
5,321 Posts
I'm actually pretty bad if it's an unfamiliar topic, or a situation in which I haven't had a lot of time to come up with a solid argument. There have been a few times during which people have caught me off-guard with something an Fi takes over, paralyzing. I tend to do better having performed a good amount of research beforehand - not so much in the way of facts and figures, but in constructing an overall strategic argument and predicting possible responses and defenses. This is why some of us are much better online than we might be in person.
Seconded. I prefer to have planned/strategized for a debate beforehand.

Online environment also allows me to take my time responding to things, which is preferable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
From my experience observing INTJs in debates, I've noticed a tendency to key in on specific words or phrases. It can be used to attack a weak spot in a bad argument or work as a diversionary tactic for an INTJ who has realized their own stance isn't strong. It takes some maturity and self-confidence for anyone to reach the point where they can admit they are wrong about something, even in part...which makes the really really immature INTJs interesting to watch....

"I am right, you silly fool. It's cute you think that. You are getting on my nerves. OMG I AM RIGHT!!!!!! LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER HOW RIGHT I AM!!!"

>.> It then escalates into a shouting match until the other person walks away and the INTJ claims victory by default. It's clumsy, embarrassing to watch, and frankly misses the point of a debate entirely. It's not about being right or forcing someone else to proclaim a winner. Debate topics don't have enough objective information to be anything but a personal opinion....or they wouldn't be debate topics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hermes

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I'm actually pretty bad if it's an unfamiliar topic, or a situation in which I haven't had a lot of time to come up with a solid argument. There have been a few times during which people have caught me off-guard with something an Fi takes over, paralyzing. I tend to do better having performed a good amount of research beforehand - not so much in the way of facts and figures, but in constructing an overall strategic argument and predicting possible responses and defenses. This is why some of us are much better online than we might be in person.

Another facet to the discussion is knowledge of type. If I can predict the debator's type, I adjust my style to appeal to his/her/their desirous functions.
Yeah, I stay away from debates about topics I know nothing about. I'm like you in the sense that I need to have researched every single thing about the topic. As opposed to you, my focus is always on the facts and figures, which usually helps me find inconsistencies in the other person's argument. It's sometimes hard for me to stick with a strategy at times. This is usually a major downfall for me. I imagine INTJs being excellent at being able to control the strategy and tone of the debate. My strongpoint is finding holes in arguments. I could see it being frustrating if I didn't let you control the tempo and style of the debate by interrupting your thought flow and making you focus on issues you didn't want to. This is where the ability to be able to control and steer the debate might be key.

Well i benefit from "slow-playing" debates as well. it's usually this or one liners crafted from experience to confuse the opposing person. According to my mood i guess.
And I usually find myself the one with the upper hand if the opponent doesn't interrupt for let's say....five minutes.

Someone would probably frustrate me if they use too many "around the subject but not on the point" statements, i'd honestly just give up.

I should mention i hate debates, i don't want them to be "my game". I only debate if i strongly believe the situation HAS to be corrected. Uh maybe it's a little (Feel)ish of me.:crazy:
Hmm, "slow-playing" is my game. Never "slow-play a slow-player." ha. In my instance, it would probably be more beneficial for someone to be quick so as not to let me collect my thoughts and strategize in my head while they are talking. For me, being able to stick to the points and drive home my strongest arguments are key, and is something I have to be consciously aware of. I sometimes forget to drive my point home. At times, it's easy to get me off topic and steer me into a direction which might not be in my best interest.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,227 Posts
@downsowf

Yes, that would be pretty frustrating, and probably the best verbal tactic against many INTJ. If I'm debating something, I'm doing so because I believe that I know that I'll be right (at least egotistically) about it. And, that pretty much all I need to do is articulate whatever's needed to win. Interruptions throw this off significantly, and this is the locus of many INTP/INTJ almost-mirrored functional clashes. I'd state the obvious based on my own insight, you'd state a subjective conclusion based on the existence of an enormous number of possibilities.

Debate that prediction/model if you wish, it's just the way one INTJ sees it :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,077 Posts
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a hard time focusing if someone is sticking a gun right in my face. Maybe you should try that. Or you could come try really hard to come off as close minded, that way, your INTJ might decide that arguing with you is futile, and so you will "win" by virtue of INTJ being bored and quitting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
From my experience observing INTJs in debates, I've noticed a tendency to key in on specific words or phrases. It can be used to attack a weak spot in a bad argument or work as a diversionary tactic for an INTJ who has realized their own stance isn't strong. It takes some maturity and self-confidence for anyone to reach the point where they can admit they are wrong about something, even in part...which makes the really really immature INTJs interesting to watch....

"I am right, you silly fool. It's cute you think that. You are getting on my nerves. OMG I AM RIGHT!!!!!! LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER HOW RIGHT I AM!!!"

>.> It then escalates into a shouting match until the other person walks away and the INTJ claims victory by default. It's clumsy, embarrassing to watch, and frankly misses the point of a debate entirely. It's not about being right or forcing someone else to proclaim a winner. Debate topics don't have enough objective information to be anything but a personal opinion....or they wouldn't be debate topics.
I don't know how many INTJ debates you've witnessed in real life but this describes none that I have seen as a participant or an observer (probably a hundred). Online, people (both INTJ and non-INTJ) get digital muscles and don't talk with respect for others.

There is desire to have your position be recognized as the correct position but its not because the other person is not treated like a fool, unless the person is reacting clueless in the debate because they couldn't defend their position.

INTJs in a debate tend to setup a logical foundation based on a theory(or theories) and back that up with observations proving that point. So, an effective counter I use to is to punch holes in the theory or the applications backing up the theory.

The debates are all calm- no shooting, no hurt feelings, etc. The idea is to get to the truth (or each participant) of it. In the end, one person gets tired of the debates and just says-we can't settle this/agree on this. We both know the strengths and weakness of our positions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I don't know about anyone else, but I have a hard time focusing if someone is sticking a gun right in my face. Maybe you should try that. Or you could come try really hard to come off as close minded, that way, your INTJ might decide that arguing with you is futile, and so you will "win" by virtue of INTJ being bored and quitting.
Eh, that's no fun. Though if the debate comes to a standstill, we can always skip right to the Russian roulette.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,184 Posts
@searcheagle I did specify immaturity...repeatedly. My main point was the focus on key words and phrases....the immaturity was a tangent that happened to be longer than the main point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
@searcheagle I did specify immaturity...repeatedly. My main point was the focus on key words and phrases....the immaturity was a tangent that happened to be longer than the main point.
I think focusing on words and phrases is fair game. The problem is if the person looks petty and if the correction is unnecessary. However, if a person uses a word or phrase that would change the structure of the debate, it might be legitimate to correct that person so as not to debate a faulty premise or let you set the debate in a different direction if they agree to your phraseology.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,005 Posts
This isn't something I can easily put into words, since deconstructing arguments/points of view comes so naturally to me. Inconsistencies stick out and so I go after them. Prep work isn't at all necessary because I can generally predict how someone will approach a particular subject matter based on what I know of them. If I don't know them, I let (or prompt) them talk for a while until I get a "feel" for their thought processes. From that point, avoiding logical fallacies (making them and getting tripped up by the other person's) is relatively simple, unless they start practically vomiting irrationality in my general direction. In which case, I'll disengage, because my interest wanes as debates get emotional and it's generally not worth my time/energy at that point.

ETA: I also agree that picking apart word usage and turn of phrase is fair game, since words mean things, and semantics are indeed important when examining nuanced subject matter. I don't think it's asking too much that people be concise and aware of precisely what comes out of their mouths.

What's the best way for someone to trip you up and get you off your game?
You'd have to say something so mind-blowingly idiotic that it stuns me into silence. This is pretty rare, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
@searcheagle I did specify immaturity...repeatedly. My main point was the focus on key words and phrases....the immaturity was a tangent that happened to be longer than the main point.
Just for the record, you said it once. But my only reason for posting a response is precisely because you did ONLY discuss an immature debate. I wanted to put on the record a discussion of a typical and mature INTJ debate.

And also the use of Keywords and phrases is also entirely proper. If people can't on the terms of the debate, the debate won't go anywhere or mean anything. A friend and I had a debate on the military tactic "Shock and Awe" but couldn't agree when tactic of "Shock and Awe" began and ended in the Iraq war. Defining the terms of the debate is a huge factor in the debate, because if not you frequently end up talking about different things.

The other factor that you mentioned was key words and phrases. That goes back to another way that INTJs think. If we discover a flaw in an argument presented to us, through it may only be a word or two, it may be so important that an INTJ may make a big deal of it. INTJs are system thinkers. Let's say that you are presenting an idea to make "Microsoft Word." You say, it can do this, this and this but it can't print out documents. We hear, it can't print out documents and won't let that little detail be pushed into the background. That may seem like nitpicking but to us it's an important factor. Yes, my example was simple but that's the way and the reason we seize upon certain details- they are too important to ignore, even if the rest of it is perfect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,276 Posts
If I'm debating something, I'm doing so because I believe that I know that I'll be right (at least egotistically) about it.
I only debate about what I know. If I don't know it, I won't debate it. I am an avid collector of facts and information. I literally have a storehouse of facts at my fingertips ready to access whenever needed. There have been many times in school in which we had to write about something and I didn't have to do a lick of research because I already had the information necessary to complete the assignment, as I had researched it long ago on my own. I've taken a certain measure of satisfaction in those instances knowing that I'd already prepped for the assignment. I also use the Internet constructively, by looking on discussion boards where a certain subject comes up and taking notes of arguments against. Once I've familiarized myself with all the commonly used arguments against whatever it is, I prepare responses for all of them so that I have a ready answer for whatever anyone may happen to say. (My Te at work.) I told a professor of mine once that I did this, and he said he'd never heard of anyone using the internet in this way before.

What's the best way for someone to trip you up and get you off your game?
Given that I only debate what I know, I am incapable of being tripped up or thrown off my game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Well firstly I try to be objective on the subject and try to analyze it from multiple angles. Preferably would like to be ignored until I have formed an opinion from all the facts and let them argue/debate all they want , because let's be honest , some people can't discuss anything in a logical manner and eventually get very angry and frustrated .
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top