[Aelthwyn]

When someone brings up something you don't like or expresses an oppinion you disagree with, what is your internal processes of reaction to this?

I’ve noticed with certain friends that when I happen to casually mention something they dislike there is an instant reaction: either the atmosphere suddenly goes cold and they won’t listen to me as long as we’re on the topic, or they will snap back with a quick and final “I didn't like it” or “that was stupid” etc. - Basically like taking a sledge-hammer to the conversation. And if I actually say something positive about whatever it is, the lash-back gets stronger, almost with a desperate edge to it, as though they feel like I’m attacking them. And that’s it. Subject closed. Move on, or shut-up because they’re not listening. They have Zero tolerance for topics they don’t like. This applies to both important and trivial topics alike.

In contrast, I've noticed other friends in the same type of conversation are perfectly willing to let me talk away about something even if they didn’t like it, don’t agree, or aren’t interested. They’ll listen to me anyways, seemingly unbothered by the fact we disagree, and will take an interest in the conversation for my sake, regardless of their own opinions. If they express a differing view it’s not done in a ‘this case is already closed’ style (which is how I’d characterize the first set of people) but rather in an open 'let's share perspectives and compare notes' sort of style.

I’m wondering if this might have something to do with type. What are your thoughts? Given the suspected types of two people I experience this most with I thought it could possibly have to do with Te/Fe and/or Ni, but it doesn't seem to apply with Si. One thing I'm sure of is that it's not a T/F difference (though Ts may be less aware that they are reacting in an emotional manner). I know this may sound a bit rantish, but it's a difference I've mostly just come to accept and work with - still I'd like to have a better understanding of what's going on internally here.

How do you personally react when someone mentions something you don’t like or disagree with? Is it mere information or does it trigger a reaction? Are you internally troubled when people don’t agree with you? Or do you shrug it off with a “whatever floats your boat.”

 

[Jennywocky]

Depending on how close I am with the person, I usually listen to it without providing any kind of negative response, even if I've already considered the item before and decided I disagree. (My friends are more apt to hear I disagree with something, but I still listen.)

The only time I have a short response is when it's something that has literally been beaten to death, and I can't understand why it's being brought up yet again another time.

Maybe the Openness factor has something to with it. I dunno. I've definitely noticed responses across a range of people as you have described -- those who are open will be open, those who feel threatened by something or don't personally like it, if closure-oriented, can be more apt to just shut down conversation.

Age (and more experience in these kinds of discussions) hopefully impacts people to not shut things down so quickly.

 

[PlayfulLilKitten]

I tend to react quite quickly and tell the reason why I'm disagreeing and get them to understand why I am right. Of course that is the tendency of my type... :laughing: Anyway, in case my argument draws a blank I switch to plan B - adopt an "I don't care, I still think I'm right" attitude. And then I pull a face and keep it that way till the conversation moves on.

 

[nobadee]

When I was younger I would brazenly refute their comments followed by harsh personal insults as a means of inhibiting them from thinking like that around me ever again. Over the years I learned that it's for more considerate and beneficial to take a step back for a moment as you consider their thoughts. If the issue is something personal I may take an entire day or two in order to contemplate a proper response. I've been known to play devils advocate on most issues; but, there are some things I will not tip toe around.

 

[Figure]

And if I actually say something positive about whatever it is, the lash-back gets stronger, almost with a desperate edge to it, as though they feel like I’m attacking them. And that’s it. Subject closed. Move on, or shut-up because they’re not listening. They have Zero tolerance for topics they don’t like.

Is it happening with so many topics that you think it's all on them? Conversations are two ways, and if it's just a few things they don't want to talk about, then giving them their space in those topics should work fine in preventing the problem from happening again.

How do you personally react when someone mentions something you don’t like or disagree with? Is it mere information or does it trigger a reaction? Are you internally troubled when people don’t agree with you? Or do you shrug it off with a “whatever floats your boat.”

Totally depends on what I know of the person subconsciously, and whether or not there is to be a boundary set.

Usually if the person is harmless and just blabbering on about something, there really isn't a reason for me to challenge what they're saying, or stick myself into the conversation, and I stay steady and supportive. I try to see the good as a person. This is why I don't put up with NTs (in particular) here when they talk about "stupid" people and listening to smalltalk. No, I don't like listening to it either, but then don't try to.

I have an INFP friend that gets a lot of this. I like letting him go on because it makes him happy. Do have to watch the occasional time when he says more pushy things about emotions ("you definitely feel like this"), because then it can become reactive. I can handle weird topics, but if you start trying to push things on me I don't deal with it well at all, and it becomes a lot harder to keep things from escalating.

 

[Recepta]

Well depending on what the disagreement is about I can react two way. One if it is just about what your favorite color is or games to play I really don't care and probably interested to know. Two if it is about polities or peoples rights and all that I am a full blown lets have a debate about this (mostly if they go against my values). But I never really try to end a person talking about what they like to talk about. How this answered the question asked

 

[LibertyPrime]

This depends on how ethical and logical their perspective is.

I tend to listen either way and if it goes against my ethics (sometimes it does), then I will explain why and state my point of view after I have listened to them and they have finished.. Whatever they do with it later is not my concern. If what they say is illogical and makes no absolute sense..i may be inclined to probe more just because I tend to be less certain that my logic is sound. the end result is the same. I share my view and we can either debate it and come to an agreement or debate it and disagree or just leave it.

If its a close friend I'm more open to it and file it under "this is how he/she is" insert my perspective *smile and I accept it as it is.

 

[gingerlefty]

Conversational violence is the manifestation of fear. This manifestation of fear is often rooted in ignorance of a topic, perception of coming harm or loss, rather than a legitimized belief. People generally lash out at what or who they do not understand, in an effort to control, change or suppress the ideas of the speaker.

We are challenged not to forget that the person speaking is of more value than what we perceive as the invalidity of their ideas or the position they hold.

 

[DiamondDays]

I guess i am a mix between the two.

If somebody close to me expresses a viewpoint that i do not agree with on a subject i actually think matters and on which i have clear and substantiated views i will be quite firm. I will certainly be open to debate the issue, but my goal will be to bring the other person over to my point of view. I will not shut the other person down and i will most likely not think less of the person for holding a viewpoint opposite of mine. However i will not respect the actual viewpoint if you cannot argue for it.

Some people do think that that makes me fall into the first category you descbribe. I do not agree, but i can understand why they would feel like that because those people often tend to be the kind of people whi can't take my aggressive style very well. Whimps, basically.

If the subject matter is something i do not have very clear views on or do not know very much about i will happily discuss it, but i will be constantly attacking the other persons point of view anyway. It's just the way i work. If you can't back up your claims i will not respect them, regardless off how little i know or care about the subject.

 

[snail]

Sometimes I will remain silent but distance myself from the topic until the conversation can be safely changed. Other times, I will argue.

If the person is someone I like, or someone who is likely to become defensive, I am less likely to speak out against whatever I disagree with, but sometimes I will afterward regret not saying anything. For example, when my brother mentioned that he let his baby "cry it out" instead of comforting her at night when she woke up distraught and alone, I became very angry, but I said nothing, even to defend my niece. I could have offered scientific evidence for why what he was doing was harmful for her development, but for some reason, I just let it happen. I hate myself for not challenging his behavior, but I felt like I couldn't say anything because he was my brother and I know that he did not mean the neglect maliciously. I just shook my head silently with my teeth clenched tightly, waiting for it to pass.

However, while overhearing a conversation in a coffee shop between retired teachers who were saying one of the responsibilities of the educational system was to toughen kids up, get them used to being controlled, make them more structured, and force them to conform by breaking their wills, I got upset and argued with them, my voice quivering with rage as I explained that their approach damaged children and was destructive to society. Rather than preparing children to change the world for the better, they were preparing children to be perpetrators and victims of destructive traditions. I told them so, which made them very uncomfortable.

 

[gingerlefty]

Some people do think that that makes me fall into the first category you descbribe. I do not agree, but i can understand why they would feel like that because those people often tend to be the kind of people whi can't take my aggressive style very well. Whimps, basically.

Or, or it could just be a thinker who does not value nor respect their fellow conversationalist's emotional makeup.

 

[Loupgaroux]

It depends on what it is, honestly. There are a few things that really push my buttons, but most things I can just shrug off. With people I don't know well, I'm not inclined to have a deep conversation with them, but I often surprise myself & state my opinion even if I don't know them well because of my deep convictions. With people I know, I love debating.

But there are also times (mostly speaking of politics) when I hear something so outlandish & so misinformed I can't even get mad because it's just so out there that it amuses me. Those are the times I tend to not say anything because I know I'd be talking to a brick wall.

 

[DiamondDays]

Or, or it could just be a thinker who does not value nor respect their fellow conversationalist's emotional makeup.

Why would i?

If they can't back up and defend their opinions they are better of without them.

 

[monemi]

How do you personally react when someone mentions something you don’t like or disagree with? Is it mere information or does it trigger a reaction? Are you internally troubled when people don’t agree with you? Or do you shrug it off with a “whatever floats your boat.”

I verbally berate them, make fun of their mother and then bitch slap them.




Sorry, couldn't resist. Seriously? Depends on the situation. In the work place, I ignore them. At a function, I ignore them. Family, depends on who I'm talking to. My mother in law will crumple like a kicked puppy if I disagree with her. It's best not to say anything. My father in law enjoys a good debate and I'll go for it. Most things I can shrug off. Once in awhile, something will hit a nerve and I don't ignore that, I argue it. And I mean argue rather debate because my arguments are usually more flippant and impatient.

 

[Aquarian]

It depends.

I have difficulty because in many cases, my in-person physical conversational style is kind of affirming by default as that's the way I listen and encourage people to talk (Fe-aux *sigh*). By affirming, I mean attending closely, nodding etc. So when someone says something with which I disagree, I get concerned that I am by default appearing to agree with what they're saying.

In some cases, I just go cold and don't react with the usual warmth. In others I do share my disagreement, but in many cases, it's not worth it to me. My reason is actually about the other person and not wanting to deal with their reaction to my disagreement.

I also have a whole interviewer mode where I barrier myself (though am externally warm and encouraging) and all I'm doing is listening and encouraging people to talk. I'm extremely good at it and they never know that I don't agree if I don't. But I do this while having barriers up and even so I still have to process it inside myself later and it can take a toll on me.

As I think about it, I realize that when I am listening, Fe-aux positions me to initially accept the other person's view as the default correct one. I take that into myself and see the world through its eyes for a time and then have to come back to center and to what I actually see. That takes energy, and as an introvert, I have somewhat limited interactional energy to begin with.

[HR][/HR]
And about INFP Fi-dom "energy push" in particular:

I will also say this: I've observed with my INFP mate that whenever she has a strong opinion on something, the only way to have an easy conversation with her is to agree with her one way or another. She'll entertain disagreement but will keep pushing and pushing her perspective and the only way to lessen the push is just to agree in some way. Even calmly saying "I don't agree" acts like fuel for the push.

So @Aelthwyn, I see in your profile that you're INFP. If I read your description with that in mind and taking into account my experiences with my mate, I do wonder - are you perhaps projecting that strong Fi-dom push and could it be that the people who respond by shutting down are actually senstive to that energy and find that push somewhat painful to experience (because truth be told, given my experience, it can be painful).

Here's what you wrote:

I’ve noticed with certain friends that when I happen to casually mention something they dislike there is an instant reaction: either the atmosphere suddenly goes cold and they won’t listen to me as long as we’re on the topic, or they will snap back with a quick and final “I didn't like it” or “that was stupid” etc. - Basically like taking a sledge-hammer to the conversation. And if I actually say something positive about whatever it is, the lash-back gets stronger, almost with a desperate edge to it, as though they feel like I’m attacking them. And that’s it. Subject closed. Move on, or shut-up because they’re not listening. They have Zero tolerance for topics they don’t like. This applies to both important and trivial topics alike.

Especially with the bolded part, I could easily read this as a reaction to Fi-dom push. And if that's the case (or sometimes the case), then you may want to look at the variable as whatever creates sensitivity to that kind of energy - in my case Fe-aux and whatever else makes me really really sensitive to what I call "energy," quite possibly Ni and some Se but that's just my case. Basically I can feel it streaming toward and into me and my body responds as if to a physical push.

Now in my case, I would never say something like "that was stupid." I would more likely put up barriers and just go cold. If they persisted with the Fi-push which is only lessened if I agree and I don't like to lie, I would start to feel attacked by that energy.

Just thinking out loud here.

 

[LadyO.W.BernieBro]

l'm never sure how l'm supposed to react when someone else reacts that way in conversation. lt feels isolating and very heavy.

l spend time thinking about a lot of things to the extent that l have a somewhat solid view on many things. lf l absolutely do not agree with what they've said, l would tune them out but usually l just listen because l don't mind adding the information into mental storage for consideration.

 

[Sun Lips]

I love disagreeing with people. I love hearing opinions I don't understand. People are so fascinating.

My reaction would typically be to open a discussion on it, if the setting is right and everything. Whatever it is I disagree with, I want them to tell me all about it. (I'd like if they listened to my position, too, but that's never guaranteed.) I ask questions and generally encourage them to talk about it. Why not?

If it's something I really disagree with, I'll admit that I act the same outwardly, but my intentions change. As opposed to just asking questions for the sake of stimulating conversation, I ask questions that will force them to consider my point of view. (My favorite question to ask astrology enthusiasts is, "What do you think the relationship is between the positioning of the planets and your personality?") Maybe that's a little mean. But if someone isn't open to debate, this is how I debate them anyway. I know, I know, I'm an awful girl!

The best is when everyone involved is willing to debate, though. If someone will happily let me tell them why they're wrong (and I will happily let them tell me why I'm wrong) then that's the most fun, in my opinion.

 

[LadyO.W.BernieBro]

Or, or it could just be a thinker who does not value nor respect their fellow conversationalist's emotional makeup.

Did you really have to resort to criticizing his type to respond to the post?

There are also aggressive feelers(and not so aggressive thinkers), one minute someone with a feeling preference is saying they don't want to be perceived as meek, the next minute, relying on a person's ''thinker'' status to appear righteous in comparison.

Why not express your personal opinion outside of a generalized T/F statement that could potentially apply to everyone?

 

[Splash Shin]

I don't talk about things that don't interest me as I suck at faking enthusiasm.

If I disagree with something, sometimes I will be blunt and say "that was stupid" but when I say it, it has humor supporting it, and I'm not personally attacking.
If I think it's very stupid I'll probe a bit more to get an idea of why they have that conclusion. If I can see personal logic I'll understand better. I will bluntly state things because I'm expressing from objective viewpoint.

I also have a guilty pleasure of playing devils advocate to Fi users even if i actually don't care or do not disagree with them.. They get more and more offended the more you objectively play devils advocate. Heh, I'm such an asshole.

If I intensely disagree with somebody I usually don't bother wasting my time changing their opinion. We have such different views that it's a waste of energy to try change theirs. In this situation I prefer to sit back and amuse myself by finding holes in their logic if they try changing my opinion. That Ti can tell you the sky is green

my 2 cents as an ISTP

 

[Random Ness]

Well, if we're talking bigotry...
1. Sigh, they said something bigoted.
2. I should think of a refutation.
3. I need to tailor my refutation to this person and statement.
4. I need to find an opening to say it.

This process goes very slowly in my mind so there are many missed opportunities. But if the process goes too fast then I end up saying dumb things that don't help my point.