How personal do you debate?

[kyuuei]

1. See title for reference. When you debate, do you take back and white, cold calculations and generalizations, or do you put your personal experiences into what you do and think?

2. Do other people doing this annoy you? Example.
Person 1: I don't think this is right because it sucks.
Person 2: It is right regardless of if it sucks or not.
Person 1: Well I've lived it before, and I know it sucks, so you can't just say it like it's nonchalant.
Person 2:

3. Do you think personal experience and emotions run closely together during debates? And if so, do those emotions discredit the situation?

During another thread, and others before it, I've used my personal experiences as a reference point. Trying to empathize with the overall picture based on what I've experienced. It's been pointed out to me several times that I've taken situations personally (to me, I've only ever had one thread get too personal and I opted out of it when it created a negative response from me) while debating.. and while I admit I made them personal in the sense that I don't allow my experiences to be discredited during a debate.. I didn't think that this was the same as being emotional or taking things personal.

But I find that frequently people mistake my insisting that experience plays a large part in things as taking things personally, and when someone tells me that it's like magic words. If you want me to shut up quickly about something, just tell me that you think I'm being overly emotional about a subject and I'll stop debating it that instant. I'm not sure why I react like this.. I think because I feel like the instant people sense emotion behind a point they stop listening.. but I wonder if others have this problem.

I like to debate, and I'll throw things I don't mind being attacked into the mix if I feel it helps illustrate a point. What-if scenarios I've seen from others, the experiences I've come across, and the things I've seen and done myself of course. But I feel like sometimes people want a cold, black-and-white scenarios and specifics, and when I throw those things in there to shake it up they dismiss it. At least, that's how I see it.

So..

4. Does what I've described above happen to you? Or do you tend to get annoyed when others debate like that?

 

[Lark]

I like to discuss topics and sometimes I like debates too, I dont mind if peoples posts are motivated by feeling or thinking, personal experience could inform or compliment either.

I dont think that arguments based upon experience are more valid than those based upon thinking, I dont think that arguments based upon feelings are necessarily invalid, however, arguments based upon feeling can be held despite ample evidence to the contrary and strong feelings can prove an obsticle to examination of evidence or contrary points of view even.

I think that is why feeling is considered as invalidating in discussion or debates, I also think that there are those who seek to short circuit or disable posting or discussion by attributing it to strong feelings, emotions or irrationality. Often because they dont want to examine the insights which might be presented, they experience their own feeling response, if its uncomfortable and triggers resistance, they'll deny it and project it on the other person.

 

[Nicodemus]

Aren't those questions the kind of questions that can at least approximately be answered by stating one's MB type?

 

[kyuuei]

Aren't those questions the kind of questions that can at least approximately be answered by stating one's MB type?

C'mon now I'm being serious here!

 

[tinker683]

1. See title for reference. When you debate, do you take back and white, cold calculations and generalizations, or do you put your personal experiences into what you do and think?

I will admit that personal experiences tend to strongly influence my actions and decisions but I do try (to whatever degree) to apply an objective viewpoint. I've found that both have their places but, just to be honest about my own thinking, being both a Feeler and an Si-dom, personal experiences do tend to usually trump theory.

2. Do other people doing this annoy you? Example.
Person 1: I don't think this is right because it sucks.
Person 2: It is right regardless of if it sucks or not.
Person 1: Well I've lived it before, and I know it sucks, so you can't just say it like it's nonchalant.
Person 2:

Oh yes, it annoys the hell out of me, and this is one of those instances in which I've realized the weakness of relying on past experience completely. INFJ and I use to argue a lot and most of those arguments were based on her own past experience and how "this is how I feel about it and they isn't anything you can do to change it because they're my feelings and you can't control my feelings!"

Nothing shuts down a conversation faster for me than a refusal to look beyond your own experiences and to consider that other variables may be at play when considerings the differences between your past situation and the current situation.

3. Do you think personal experience and emotions run closely together during debates? And if so, do those emotions discredit the situation?

They can, but I'd say it depends on the person. I know that I tend to attach emotional weight to my past experiences as it's often the power of the emotion that I felt at the time that triggers the memory in and of itself. I wouldn't be surprised however if other people viewed their past experiences in much more objective or detached fashion and as such I'm sure they are far more capable than I of keeping their emotions disconnected from their past experiences.

Do they discredit it? I think that that's certainly a possibility but I think it's worth considering that perhaps people have good reason to feel as strongly about a topic as they do and to view those reasons individually rather than just discrediting the whole argument just because the arguer feels very strongly about it. That is really irritating.

During another thread, and others before it, I've used my personal experiences as a reference point.

My my, how Si-domish of you

Trying to empathize with the overall picture based on what I've experienced. It's been pointed out to me several times that I've taken situations personally (to me, I've only ever had one thread get too personal and I opted out of it when it created a negative response from me) while debating.. and while I admit I made them personal in the sense that I don't allow my experiences to be discredited during a debate.. I didn't think that this was the same as being emotional or taking things personal.

I agree, and I've been accused of the same thing. I'd like to think my personal experiences can act as a good reference point for putting whatever it is we're talking about in context (though I will admit that the context may not always be appropriate).

But I find that frequently people mistake my insisting that experience plays a large part in things as taking things personally, and when someone tells me that it's like magic words. If you want me to shut up quickly about something, just tell me that you think I'm being overly emotional about a subject and I'll stop debating it that instant. I'm not sure why I react like this.. I think because I feel like the instant people sense emotion behind a point they stop listening.. but I wonder if others have this problem.

I like to debate, and I'll throw things I don't mind being attacked into the mix if I feel it helps illustrate a point. What-if scenarios I've seen from others, the experiences I've come across, and the things I've seen and done myself of course. But I feel like sometimes people want a cold, black-and-white scenarios and specifics, and when I throw those things in there to shake it up they dismiss it. At least, that's how I see it.

Well I'm glad you like to debate as I do not, at least not unless I find that it's going to lead to something useful or productive. But I understand how you feel about shutting down once someone tells me that, it can be very frustrating.

I think I understand what you're saying about wanting black-and-white scenarios and that frustrates me because I've discovered (here I go, references past experiences ) that life is rarely that way. There are always other variables or considerations to take into account and things don't often play out as they should or happen for reasons quite what you think.

As such, I feel situations need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I think that past experiences can be very useful in helping you navigate how to resolve or address a current situation but it is important to try and take into consideration that not all the variables are the same.

So..

4. Does what I've described above happen to you? Or do you tend to get annoyed when others debate like that?

The only thing that irritates me in a debate is when someone will tell me that they are not open to discussion or willing to consider that they are wrong. All discussion after that I feel is utterly pointless and I refuse to waste an iota of energy on it afterwards.

I like to discuss topics and sometimes I like debates too, I dont mind if peoples posts are motivated by feeling or thinking, personal experience could inform or compliment either.

I dont think that arguments based upon experience are more valid than those based upon thinking, I dont think that arguments based upon feelings are necessarily invalid, however, arguments based upon feeling can be held despite ample evidence to the contrary and strong feelings can prove an obsticle to examination of evidence or contrary points of view even.

I think that is why feeling is considered as invalidating in discussion or debates, I also think that there are those who seek to short circuit or disable posting or discussion by attributing it to strong feelings, emotions or irrationality. Often because they dont want to examine the insights which might be presented, they experience their own feeling response, if its uncomfortable and triggers resistance, they'll deny it and project it on the other person.

A very good thought, thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Such Irony]

1. See title for reference. When you debate, do you take back and white, cold calculations and generalizations, or do you put your personal experiences into what you do and think?

I do both. I do alot of calculations and I make some generalizations but I'm also careful not to overgeneralize as there are always exceptions. I try to avoid talking in black and white terms because most issues are more complex than that. I also take personal experiences into account. It's another form of data worth considering. I also realize that personal experiences vary between people and just because someone else had a similar experience doesn't mean we will think or feel the same way about it.

2. Do other people doing this annoy you? Example.
Person 1: I don't think this is right because it sucks.
Person 2: It is right regardless of if it sucks or not.
Person 1: Well I've lived it before, and I know it sucks, so you can't just say it like it's nonchalant.
Person 2:

I've been on both sides of this. What really irks me is when someone says something like "it sucks" and can't give a good reason why. Why does it suck? It just does. How does that give new information and insight?

On the other hand I can see where person 1 is coming from. If I have a personal experience that impacted me strongly and the other person acts like what I feel about it isn't important, then I probably will feel hurt.

3. Do you think personal experience and emotions run closely together during debates? And if so, do those emotions discredit the situation?

Yes, alot of the emotions from debates stem from personal experiences. They may or may not discredit the situation. I think they can add useful information to the debate but if someone acts like their personal experience speaks for everyone, that can be discrediting because experiences are unique. If alot of people experience the same sort of thing and are impacted by it in the same way, though, that tells you something. [/quote]

I like to debate, and I'll throw things I don't mind being attacked into the mix if I feel it helps illustrate a point. What-if scenarios I've seen from others, the experiences I've come across, and the things I've seen and done myself of course. But I feel like sometimes people want a cold, black-and-white scenarios and specifics, and when I throw those things in there to shake it up they dismiss it. At least, that's how I see it.

I like a healthy discussion and throwing my two cents in but when people start insulting each other, I'm out of there.

 

[garbage]

We all come into debates with our set of facts and perception of the world anyway. Best to lay them out there rather than believing that we're all talking about the same 'objective' truth before we actually understand where one another is coming from.

In general, though, the people who have lived through something know a situation better than those who are merely talking about it in the abstract.

We must recognize that the inexperienced party deserves more than a "Well, I've experienced it, so there!!!" though. Guide them through your story and your perspective if you want them to understand it.


Oh, yeah, and also: strength of feeling or vying for dominance says nothing about the true strength of the underlying idea.

 

[Lark]

While everyone is going to have baggage of one sort or another I still think its possible to be objective and objectivity is a legitimate goal of any or all discussion.

Good point about vying for dominance, that can unfortunately be a part of all social interaction and I dont believe benefits discussion or reaching conclusions.

On the other hand I dont believe that direct empirical experience is always to be valued beyond thinking and reasoning, for instance discussions about using drugs, parenting or sexuality, I think its possible to discuss all of these topics without having experienced drug use, child birth and child raising or adopting the behaviour or another sexual orientation.

 

[Ginkgo]

1. See title for reference. When you debate, do you take back and white, cold calculations and generalizations, or do you put your personal experiences into what you do and think?

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at. It kinda sounds like you're saying that black and white, cold calculations and generalizations are the only alternative to reasoning with personal experience. Everything bolded doesn't appear to be of the same skill set, nor do they all arise from the same mode of thinking.

It doesn't matter; I'll try to address the question.

I tend to use "calculation" as a hub to organize personal experience. Figuring out how things are organized, conceptually, and logically, and how they overlap into what could be directly observed through experience, is important. There are times when arguments based on pure personal experience invalidate others, but anecdotes tend to be too self-contained to make any useful generalization or argument that may hold the potential to influence anyone else's frame of mind. I guess I could use more anecdotes; they just don't bring any overarching idea to the table, so I ignore them for the sake of being open to something new.

2. Do other people doing this annoy you? Example.
Person 1: I don't think this is right because it sucks.

It does slightly annoy me. There's not enough embellishment. An explanation would be great.

Person 2: It is right regardless of if it sucks or not.

Doesn't bother me as long as they show their proofs.

Person 1: Well I've lived it before, and I know it sucks, so you can't just say it like it's nonchalant.

Actually I find that depth of personal experience very interesting.

Person 2:

Ambiguous.

3. Do you think personal experience and emotions run closely together during debates? And if so, do those emotions discredit the situation?

Umm... They don't discredit a situation unless someone made the argument that you felt X when you really felt Y. If they don't discredit, they just add more context.

During another thread, and others before it, I've used my personal experiences as a reference point. Trying to empathize with the overall picture based on what I've experienced. It's been pointed out to me several times that I've taken situations personally (to me, I've only ever had one thread get too personal and I opted out of it when it created a negative response from me) while debating.. and while I admit I made them personal in the sense that I don't allow my experiences to be discredited during a debate.. I didn't think that this was the same as being emotional or taking things personal.

But I find that frequently people mistake my insisting that experience plays a large part in things as taking things personally, and when someone tells me that it's like magic words. If you want me to shut up quickly about something, just tell me that you think I'm being overly emotional about a subject and I'll stop debating it that instant. I'm not sure why I react like this.. I think because I feel like the instant people sense emotion behind a point they stop listening.. but I wonder if others have this problem.

I like to debate, and I'll throw things I don't mind being attacked into the mix if I feel it helps illustrate a point. What-if scenarios I've seen from others, the experiences I've come across, and the things I've seen and done myself of course. But I feel like sometimes people want a cold, black-and-white scenarios and specifics, and when I throw those things in there to shake it up they dismiss it. At least, that's how I see it.

So..

4. Does what I've described above happen to you? Or do you tend to get annoyed when others debate like that?

It all depends on whether someone is letting their feelings get the best of them to the point where it overrules the discussion. Emotion plays a part in the making of every argument, no matter how subdued, so it's kind of silly to discard someone's point just because they feel strongly about it. However, at the point when emotion tries to tilt every point made in its favor, or when points are only evaluated instead of considered, the discussion simply becomes a matter of opinion that can't be taken much further outside of the opinions themselves.

 

[Thalassa]

I tend to debate mostly over things that have deep importance to me, that I've personally experienced, or that affect real people. I don't see the point of debating over things pointlessly that don't matter, like it's "fun." For example, the thread the INTP guy started about would you bet your life if the sun didn't theoretically come up and we didn't actually need the sun to survive...to me, thinking about that kind of thing is an absurd waste of time, and I could be discussing something more relevant to real life, or having fun doing a different activity than debating.

So if I even engage in a serious debate it's because I think it matters in the real world, so I have had to learn to walk away from certain topics, and examine things from a distance in a more cool and detached manner. What I have learned is to back up my personal beliefs with more facts, and less emotion, but it has been a process.

I will never be totally cold and detached, though, because to me, there's no point in debating things that I'm truly detached from, like why bother.

 

[garbage]

While everyone is going to have baggage of one sort or another I still think its possible to be objective and objectivity is a legitimate goal of any or all discussion.

Good point about vying for dominance, that can unfortunately be a part of all social interaction and I dont believe benefits discussion or reaching conclusions.

On the other hand I dont believe that direct empirical experience is always to be valued beyond thinking and reasoning, for instance discussions about using drugs, parenting or sexuality, I think its possible to discuss all of these topics without having experienced drug use, child birth and child raising or adopting the behaviour or another sexual orientation.

True. It's possible to discuss situations without having lived them. Although, if we're looking to discuss objectively, to get all of the facts in place, I think that those who have experienced a situation are likely to be able to bring very relevant information and facts into a discussion--less speculation and more "this is the way the situation is"--and the "horse's mouth" perspective is a pretty useful one in that way.

I do, however, believe that it needs to be balanced from an outside perspective as well, since outsiders will see things that the 'insiders' haven't seen.

I think that the best way to be truly objective is to mash together a whole slew of perspectives and talk about them, because we're all biased in ways that we don't even realize.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I try not to because it puts me in a hostile negative loop. I usually debate using my opponent's weaknesses though, but not to the point where I alienate them/the group. I prefer to win people over to my side. Usually this happens by making the person feel special and appreciated for who they are. Probably because I don't think in terms of truth vs. Lies though but more in terms of perspectives.