INTPs - why do they love fancy-shmancy snooty debates?

[BlueGray]

You should have seen a female ENTP and a female INTP going at it last year.
I've never seen such a bunch of ridiculous drivel in my life. No meaning, no purpose, no nothing.
This went on forever. Pages and pages and pages. Squawking birds.

This makes me want to read it...

 

[Jaguar]

This makes me want to read it...

You wouldn't be able to. When things get out of hand, a mod steps in and swings the axe in sections.
Then those posts get thrown in the graveyard, or maybe even deleted.

 

[Totenkindly]

Ah, emoticons. That hopefully scared off all the INTPs. Now we can slam discuss them in peace.

It should have.

Unfortunately for you, I've spent years developing an immunity to smileys.

"Ad hominem", "logical fallacies" "red herring" "strawman argument" "circular fallacy" "Scrotum reasoning" BLAH all of this Harvard latin jargon...

Is all of that? (Sorry, just had to get rid of any INTP scragglers...) They will go ON and ON with their snooty armchair philosophy legal studies debates, and the only red herrings I know of belong in my SAMMICH.

It's because we are more interesed in the discussion itself rather than what is being discussed. HOW we discuss things -- framework and underlying foundation -- is more important than content because even correct facts are wrong if placed in wrong context.

Think of it like current web page methodology or coding methodology: Content needs to be separate from code, it's usually stored in a database. The code and layout format is a framework into which content is poured in. While many people will debate the content, INTPs are far more prone to debate the code itself and the framework itself, to make sure that everything is being framed correctly lest the content be made inaccurate.

As far as straw men and all that junk goes, that's just shorthand to convey typical illogic pitfalls, rather than having to explain every time what someone is doing wrong.

I hope it wasn't too annoying to get a serious response to a somewhat tongue-in-cheek OP.

You should have seen a female ENTP and a female INTP going at it last year.
I've never seen such a bunch of ridiculous drivel in my life. No meaning, no purpose, no nothing.
This went on forever. Pages and pages and pages. Squawking birds.

Well, despite everything above, I agree. Gets monotonous fast. I'm too old for that crap nowadays.

ENTP dynamics are fun, they're usually just dancing around trying to provoke a response. The INTP ends up providing a serious response analyzing the ENTP comments. The ENTP provokes another response. The INTP tries to settle it.

... I guess I fell into that in this post, didn't I?

 

[tcda]

I don't use those logical terms very often, if at all. Probably because I never learnt them.

It's because we are more interesed in the discussion itself rather than what is being discussed. HOW we discuss things -- framework and underlying foundation -- is more important than content because even correct facts are wrong if placed in wrong context.

This doesn't apply to me really. I'm most interested in the content of the discussion.

ENTP dynamics are fun, they're usually just dancing around trying to provoke a response. The INTP ends up providing a serious response analyzing the ENTP comments. The ENTP provokes another response.

I don't find that fun, I find it trollish and perverse.

This is probably why although 3 of my best friends IRL are/were ENTP's and I was really close to them, it is one of the types I get on least with online (edit: with some notable exceptions!)

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't use those logical terms very often, if at all. Probably because I never learnt them.

I didn't learn them until I went onto online forums, although I saw some of them while studying Christian apologetics.

This doesn't apply to me really. I'm most interested in the content of the discussion.

Good for you. I'm describing the INTP archetype, not specific individuals, although I guess my terminology wasn't clear.

I don't find that fun, I find it trollish and perverse.

So do I, in general, but I understand they aren't typically doing it to be trollish and perverse. So it changes how I respond. It's part of learning how to accommodate each other or have the proper framework in mind so that you can negotiate and change the interaction.

Yeah, I get along great with ENTPs IRL but online sometimes I still get angry.

 

[JocktheMotie]

You should have seen a female ENTP and a female INTP going at it last year.
I've never seen such a bunch of ridiculous drivel in my life. No meaning, no purpose, no nothing.
This went on forever. Pages and pages and pages. Squawking birds.

Not type related

 

[tcda]

So do I, in general, but I understand they aren't typically doing it to be trollish and perverse. So it changes how I respond. It's part of learning how to accommodate each other or have the proper framework in mind so that you can negotiate and change the interaction.

Fair enough.

Thing is it's not all ENTP's nor is it characteristic of ones I know in person. Maybe it's to do with an Ne-Fe loop.

(Also I think there's soemthing particular about those two functions that makes them hard to get together, as both seem "arbitrarily argumentative". A Pi-Ji loop may not be pretty, but it's self-referential. A Pe-Te loop is more clearly tied to an original premise. Ne-Fe loop is just bewildering. But I guess I should try to understand it better.)

 

[Totenkindly]

Fair enough.

Thing is it's not all ENTP's nor is it characteristic of ones I know in person. Maybe it's to do with an Ne-Fe loop.

That's an interesting way to look at it, with a link between primary and tertiary?

(Also I think there's soemthing particular about those two functions that makes them hard to get together, as both seem "arbitrarily argumentative". A Pi-Ji loop may not be pretty, but it's self-referential.

Example: Si + Ti (or flipped around)

A Pe-Te loop is more clearly tied to an original premise. Ne-Fe loop is just bewildering. But I guess I should try to understand it better.)

How could we describe the structure of the Ne-Fe loop using ENTP behavior as an example? (I can describe Ti-Si pretty well.)

 

[Resonance]

I read the thread and I get a ~great idea~ for a post. I type it up and hit submit before thinking it through. Then someone takes a look at my post and goes 'hmm, that is really insightful! You're awesome!' and I get super happy and try to keep coming up with more similar ideas in order to gain more positive feedback or reinforce the positive image. Or, someone looks at it and says, "no, you're wrong, that's stupid" and I get all defensive and sarcastic or trolly, spewing out whatever nasty garbage I can come up with. Or someone says "the problem with that is [x]" and that engages my Ti and then I go into INTP debate mode, like the OP describes. Either divining and pointing out the flaws in their argument/reasoning or conceding my own.

 

[tcda]

How could we describe the structure of the Ne-Fe loop using ENTP behavior as an example? (I can describe Ti-Si pretty well.)

One ENTP described it to me as "a shallow popularity contest".

In my own words, I kind of think of someone first throwing out a mix of loosely connected concepts, or answering an idea they dislike with a loosely conencted criticism (Ne),

and then rather than delving into their own reasoning to explore possible faults (Ti),

instead backing up their "brainstorming" with insinuations against the other person to suggest "if you don't agree, it's because of x shortcoming" (Fe).

(I can't think of an example off the top of my head though).

 

[kendoiwan]

The OP is an Appeal to ridicule!

 

[INA]

This is rich coming from an ENTP. I guess they go for the down-home* types of debate.

*Yes, this is used euphemistically.

 

[Aleksei]

:steam: :jofticon_1:

Ah, emoticons. That hopefully scared off all the INTPs. Now we can slam discuss them in peace.

All types love their debates, and all types have debate snobs, but what's the deal with the INTPs?

"Ad hominem", "logical fallacies" "red herring" "strawman argument" "circular fallacy" "Scrotum reasoning" BLAH all of this Harvard latin jargon...

Is all of that? (Sorry, just had to get rid of any INTP scragglers...) They will go ON and ON with their snooty armchair philosophy legal studies debates, and the only red herrings I know of belong in my SAMMICH.

I'm supposed to be reading poems for homework tomorrow... YAY procrastination!

It's Ti at work. It makes them boorish grammar nazis. I do enjoy using latin phrases in my own debates, but I'm not that stuffy (my posts are generally Te-heavy smackdown -- I've been accused of being an SJ because of it ).

 

[INA]

How very gangster.

 

[mrcockburn]

Because Ad Hominem is such a obscure term...



Most of the people I work with use words and phrases, such as: "yo, nigga?", "what you said?", "that ain't no way to do that", "she has a fine ass", "what the fuck did you just say?", and my personal favorite, "Speak english, new boy". So yes, debates don't spring up that often, and if they do, they are about simple things that can usually be resolved with a "naw, homie... Do it like this..."

I wish I could hear intelligent discussion more, to be perfectly honest.



Looks like you have time to learn what a Redherring is... Since, apparently, you have enough time to create this thread about the thing.

Ok, I just googled it. Red Herring = Intentional diversion.

WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE JUST SAY THAT? It's the same number of words!!

 

[Reflection]

Ok, I just googled it. Red Herring = Intentional diversion.

WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE JUST SAY THAT? It's the same number of words!!

But, but, red herring is a very common term! At least in crime fiction...

Ergo, we are quite within our rights to use it. It's not as if it's archaic.

 

[mrcockburn]

I enjoy debating as well, but I debate general ideas and use examples. I don't snootily try to nitpick linguistic imprecisions (solely to insert RED HERRINGS that detract from the issue at hand.) When we can debate in plain unpretentious English, I can go all night.

Not very ENTP of me to avoid "scholastic debate", yes, (then again I may be ESTP.)

It's not 'hard' to LEARN the phrases, but I'm guaranteed to use them incorrectly.

 

[mrcockburn]

Most of the people I work with use words and phrases, such as: "yo, nigga?", "what you said?", "that ain't no way to do that", "she has a fine ass", "what the fuck did you just say?", and my personal favorite, "Speak english, new boy". So yes, debates don't spring up that often, and if they do, they are about simple things that can usually be resolved with a "naw, homie... Do it like this..."

Haha same here!

I don't know about you guys, but I've grown up with Paris Hilton type party girls and people who love nothing more than to surf and get stoned.

You "intellectual" people are FOREIGN to me.

 

[Reflection]

Haha same here!

I don't know about you guys, but I've grown up with Paris Hilton type party girls and people who love nothing more than to surf and get stoned.

You "intellectual" people are FOREIGN to me.

I grew up with my mother, who always pressured me into learning new words so as to better express ideas. My speech has been termed florid in a discussion at the university just last week. But it's something I do unconsciously; I don't think: "Oooh, I must now insert a Latin phrase, so that I may sound like an intelligent and well-educated person."

Using plain English (or any other language, while we're at it) doesn't detract from the topic - provided that what you're saying is intelligent in its essence.

Most people I know who use complicated phrases use them because they are unsure of what they're discussing and thus simply try to appear intelligent, without having anything specific to add to the discussion at hand.

 

[Jaguar]

It's because we are more interesed in the discussion itself rather than what is being discussed. HOW we discuss things -- framework and underlying foundation -- is more important than content because even correct facts are wrong if placed in wrong context.

I don't have much sympathy for people who have nothing better to do than poke holes in a barrel of oil and end up with a broken tailbone, after they slip and fall.