User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 21

  1. #1
    garbage
    Guest

    Default Points of agreement and disagreement in discussions

    This is not intended to judge. Both in real life and on the Internet, I notice that some people (a) habitually pick out details in a discussion that they disagree with, while others (b) try to look for a common understanding with others' points of view--not just with me, but with most people. This type (a) does not often explicitly state whether they agree with the overall point (though sometimes they do), while (b) does not often explicitly state what, if anything, they disagree with. Both have their obvious 'flaws' if taken to extremes.

    Where do you fall on this continuum? (chalk me up as (b), for the most part)

    What do you think drives this? Is it as simple as a focus on ideas versus a focus on harmony? Does (a) subconsciously attempt to distance him/herself from other people? Is (b) a people-pleaser?

  2. #2
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    When someone picks one particular thing they disagree with, it means that they agree with rest or see that you are close enough to the truth with that other stuff that it would be just useless nit picking.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #3
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I would consider myself to be B, although people are free to disagree, I think that its more about wishing to have enough of a shared prespective in order that discussion can be possible at all, probably an E trait as opposed to an I one, I would not say that its people pleasing per se but it could be if taken to extremes.

  4. #4
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    When someone picks one particular thing they disagree with, it means that they agree with rest or see that you are close enough to the truth with that other stuff that it would be just useless nit picking.
    Well, it can mean that. I know sometimes it means that for me, and I assume for you too... I'll ignore the things I agree with and just hit the areas I think are important to debate.

    But not everyone who just picks out one point has that as their motivation.

    I'm more big-picture. It depends on the topic, but usually I'm looking for points of agreement with people and can overlook small areas of disagreement. Still, sometimes I approach it from the other direction if it's a big thing I disagree with or feel the comment needs to be heavily qualified.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #5
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Without both of these I've noticed that discussions really get to a lot of nowhere. Without some disagreement it's just a bunch of "this is awesome I agree!" which just isn't much of a discussion. When it is all picking at the tiniest of things and not acknowledging that in general you actually agree 99% with the other person but instead of directly acknowledging the 1% you zone in on some abstract detail and dance angrily around it to infinity, it all goes to nowhere until you directly acknowledge the 99%/1%ness that is usually really is. This sort of angry dance is pretty much what @shortnsweet and I have coined as "purpley" I try to stay away from having it go completely purpley but instead usually say where I generally agree and highlight clearly the specific stuff I don't agree on so we can build on it.

  6. #6
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity View Post
    Without both of these I've noticed that discussions really get to a lot of nowhere. Without some disagreement it's just a bunch of "this is awesome I agree!" which just isn't much of a discussion. When it is all picking at the tiniest of things and not acknowledging that in general you actually agree 99% with the other person but instead of directly acknowledging the 1% you zone in on some abstract detail and dance angrily around it to infinity, it all goes to nowhere until you directly acknowledge the 99%/1%ness that is usually really is. This sort of angry dance is pretty much what @shortnsweet and I have coined as "purpley" I try to stay away from having it go completely purpley but instead usually say where I generally agree and highlight clearly the specific stuff I don't agree on so we can build on it.
    (nods dumbly, smiling.) I agree!!
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  7. #7
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    This is not intended to judge. Both in real life and on the Internet, I notice that some people (a) habitually pick out details in a discussion that they disagree with, while others (b) try to look for a common understanding with others' points of view--not just with me, but with most people. This type (a) does not often explicitly state whether they agree with the overall point (though sometimes they do), while (b) does not often explicitly state what, if anything, they disagree with. Both have their obvious 'flaws' if taken to extremes.

    Where do you fall on this continuum? (chalk me up as (b), for the most part)

    What do you think drives this? Is it as simple as a focus on ideas versus a focus on harmony? Does (a) subconsciously attempt to distance him/herself from other people? Is (b) a people-pleaser?
    I fall in between the two. It comes to whether or not I care to spend energy on such discussions. Usually I decide I don't have the energy or inclination to do so.

    My problem is typically that I don't trust that I am 100% correct on my point of view, and I don't wish to get into a debate if I don't have all the facts, or have looked at the situation from all the angles. I am usually pretty content with holding opposing ideas in my head at once and seeing that I am perhaps 48% correct in my assessment and the other person is 37% correct and someone else is 64% correct, etc.

    TL;DR: A-------------------------------------------------------------x--------------------------------------B

    What drives me usually is inner harmony, harmony for those I care about.... and that's about it. I dislike succombing to the side of me that wants to prove how right she is at a topic.

    I think people can desire harmony between others without wanting to be a people-pleaser per se.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Depends on what I feel like. Do I want to be argumentative or suportive. It really depends on the other person...I just decide which way I want to take something and run with it.
    Im out, its been fun

  9. #9
    Senior Member Owfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Very much a type A. Sometimes people get confused and think I'm opposing them, when I am fundamentally supporting them. I hate it in discussions when people just agree with each other without adding anything new or expanding on anything already said.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

    • MBTI? ISTJ
    • Enneagram? 6 with a strong 7 wing
    • Brony? Yes
    • Stereotypes?

  10. #10
    can't handcuff the wind Z Buck McFate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    3,689

    Default

    I will pick out the details which don’t make sense to me in what someone else is saying, but I do it with the goal of finding common ground. It’s like my way of saying “This specific part is what prevents me from seeing how your argument is effective/agreeing with you.” I should probably make an effort to articulate agreement more often, though. I have a bad habit of assuming it goes without saying that I probably agree with whatever details I don’t point out as being problematic for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    What do you think drives this? Is it as simple as a focus on ideas versus a focus on harmony? Does (a) subconsciously attempt to distance him/herself from other people? Is (b) a people-pleaser?
    There are times when I’ll argue a point with the intention of creating distance. For example- if someone is arguing why they believe a certain group of people shouldn’t have the same civil liberties as others…..basically expressing an opinion which I personally believe is unethical, then I’ll feel the need to express disagreement for the sake of establishing a clear distance between that person’s beliefs and my own. I suppose part of it is finding the person’s beliefs threatening to my own identity and feeling the need to clearly establish a difference- but it’s also driven by some goal to affect the environment around me by establishing to ‘others’ that person’s beliefs are ONLY a set of beliefs (which, imo, merit questioning).

    I do think, though, that a lot of times even individuals who take an antidialogical approach to discussion and aren’t interested in finding common ground so much as imposing their own beliefs on others are still doing it for the sake of creating less distance between opinions- it’s just that they’re trying to get rid of the difference/distance by making others adopt their own viewpoint in its entirety. It’s mostly ineffective, but I think ultimately it’s still driven by the urge to get rid of distance/differences.
    Reality is a collective hunch. -Lily Tomlin

    5w4 sx/sp Johari / Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Discuss this analogy of Fi and Se in isfp
    By wolfy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 11-17-2013, 08:25 AM
  2. [JCF] The difference between Fe of INFJ and Fi in general?
    By gandalf in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-16-2011, 08:20 AM
  3. Fictional examples of sensing and intuition in action
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-30-2010, 04:39 PM
  4. Survey of genuineness and acting in TypoC. Roles in persona and in type.
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-21-2009, 11:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO