User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 114

  1. #41
    Reptilian Snuggletron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    10
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dizalddin View Post
    I googled Typologycentral and a lot of people think that the people here are ass holes, i have yet seen any of these statements ring true. Maybe some people just don't like to be broken down or are inflexible to new ideas?
    hahah I could totally see why people who don't/formerly post here would think people here are assholes. Just try and browse the board as an outsider and try not to cringe at least once.

  2. #42
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Apparently that's considered a pretty high level of intelligence in our culture, seeing as that my AP English teacher my senior year informed us that her primary goal was to make us be able to form cohesive arguments even for things we didn't believe by year's end.

    Also, lawyers are pretty fucking high paid people.

    I've always thought rude and witty banter was hilarious, since I was a child. I've always thought a certain kind of arguing was funny, as long as there is some restraint to it.

    The problem comes when one or both parties get out of hand with personal garbage.
    Actually, teaching stands above argueing. Where argueing requires two people of similar intelligence and wisdom. Teaching requires someone of a higher intelligence and wisdom.

    Yet teachers get paid terribly. Although, something can also be said about the fact that most teachers pretty much fail at teaching anyway.

    But that's just because all the potentially good teachers are smart enough to choose a job that pays better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snuggletron View Post
    hahah I could totally see why people who don't/formerly post here would think people here are assholes. Just try and browse the board as an outsider and try not to cringe at least once.
    I can't say I've ever actually cringed at this forum and have seen this forum as a heapload of positiveness and happiness ever since I joined! The occasional obvious troll aside, who fail to spark my interest anyway, this forum is quite happy-go-lucky in my personal experience.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  3. #43
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    When challenging another, not only are you testing your own understanding/concept but you're also testing whether the concept being expressed by the other is bullet-proof. It's also a good way to get insight into other thought processes. In doing so, you can get a more three dimensional understanding of both the concept and the person so instead of it being an intellectual understanding, it becomes an intuitive understanding. Consumption and consumation.
    Last edited by fidelia; 01-07-2011 at 04:16 PM. Reason: Consummation - there's another one for your stupidly spelled words list.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    Some people also hold that learning requires arguing. I think they also include personal attacks to try to get to the "truth". They want to throw the person off-guard so they are more likely to make mistakes in their reasoning and so they will reveal any underlying anger. I've had a hard time understanding the constructiveness of that reasoning.
    I can say that perhaps characterised my thinking when I was seventeen or eighteen, yes I was young but I was also immature and it wasnt until someone properly reasoned with me about it and encouraged me to reflect that I relinquished that way of thinking, I'd say it was as many and three, perhaps four, years later that I learned to be a good listener. That is in social intercourse away from the internet, with the dominance of the social media medium I'd expect those sorts of insights to take longer still to develop.

    At work we've had rounds and rounds of the best communication training and they all underscore that most people but especially children, young people and people who're still maturing (like if their development has been derailed or delayed by trauma or especial challenges) will respond to how others make them feel rather than what is being said and how they feel could correspond to a whole set of internal scripts or games which while they reflect that individuals sense of self or reality could be removed from the reality of the situation at hand. I've seen that kind of thing play out online. I'm still shocked at just how widespread it appears to be both online and in person, it really should be a lot less common than it is.

  5. #45

    Default

    A lot of people prefer argument to debate or discussion because its a game they're playing, while still others reckon they have their ideas so well worked out and conclusions already reached that if they wanted to discuss it they could provide the contra points themselves, all they are interested in is finding people who conform to their expectations.

    In the second instance I've seen quite a bit of argument and even insult deployed in an effort to provoke responses which will prove that "they are just a bigot/douche/hater etc." anyway, I've always thought that was incredibly poor, at least since I've matured in discussing topics, because a hostile response to hostility proves nothing other than people are apt to defend themselves or mirror the behaviour they encounter from others, it says little or nothing about the actual topical issue. Still some people cling to it pretty tenaciously.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    3,403

    Default

    Precept to highly ingrained arguments are an underlining facilitation to insecurity. Which means when the energy created to argue in a strong way that is intended to dominate and be aggressive and provocative in stance is in essence insecurity as a base level artifact in interaction to create contention. The difference between argument and conversation is that arguments create reactions, and reactions is a constant in what is being sought all along to ones own modality. When conversations become heated, intense, confrontational often creative in a different kind of energy that is without the element of argumentative conversation which is assertive conversation.

  7. #47
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    Precept to highly ingrained arguments are an underlining facilitation to insecurity.
    Can be applicable both ways.

  8. #48
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Annwn View Post
    Some people also hold that learning requires arguing. I think they also include personal attacks to try to get to the "truth". They want to throw the person off-guard so they are more likely to make mistakes in their reasoning and so they will reveal any underlying anger. I've had a hard time understanding the constructiveness of that reasoning.
    Can you provide an example of the above? Would this be like the baby ENTPs who go around pushing buttons perhaps? There was a great deal of that last year...I guess I never realized the underlying motive was to destabilize others. From my perspective emotional destablization of others makes no sense at all. If the point of a discussion is to come closer to an objective notion of truth, it makes no sense to evoke emotional responses intentionally as then the feedback received on the objective idea is more or less gibberish.

    What I have noticed more this year was a more pervasive trend towards more subtle personal attacks such as "If you believe that you must be [insert insult]". Rather than discuss the actual idea being proposed and have a back and forth discussion of facts/ideas about the topic under discussion, the whole convo would shift to a discussion of individuals having flawed characters. It was really quite odd and totally irrational to observe.

  9. #49
    Iron Maiden fidelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sx
    Posts
    11,099

    Default

    I think Orobas that that is the equivalent of Te destabilizing a person's idea. By making the person feel destabilized, maybe the thinking on his part was to see what comes out then - does the argument or stance hold together even when the person gets emotional? What's left? Don't know...

  10. #50
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fidelia View Post
    I think Orobas that that is the equivalent of Te destabilizing a person's idea. By making the person feel destabilized, maybe the thinking on his part was to see what comes out then - does the argument or stance hold together even when the person gets emotional? What's left? Don't know...
    Funny, I almost feel afraid to post anything about functions in threads anymore..

    Does it appear that Te seeks to provoke an emotional response from others? My toddler already does the Te thing -he just states factually I am wrong and corrects my idea. If I was actually correct, I factually state why in return...but there isnt really a goal of provoking emotion-almost the opposite in fact-it is almost purposely devoid of emotion......It feels to me internally that Fi is such a sacred thing that to seek to provoke Fi and emotion in another, simply to find a flaw in logic...that feels wrong and bad and verges on evil. It feel very unethical to find an Fi value and then knowingly use that to destabilize a logical argument....this came up on an INTJf thread. If Fi really does form a foundation under Te even in Te doms-Fi is like an achilles heel, almost out of their control. So to knowingly use Fi or emotions against a TJ without an exceptionally good Fi reason-typically others being hurt-makes me shudder inside.

    Now if there is a good reason-then Fi can be externalized-but it needs to be a VERY good reason I suspect.....But all of this is for me personally and is me thinking out loud thus is tentative and nebulous.

    Do I understand you correctly...in that by emotionally destablizing another person -by rocking their Fe boat so to speak-this allows another Fe user to peek inside and see what Ti looks like and how consistent it actually is? I may not understand this clearly. If this is true....is there the possibility that by an Fi user expressing emotion, we may inadvertantly at times appear to be trying to rock the Fe boat-thus feel invasive or even attacking to an Fe user?

Similar Threads

  1. Why on earth do so many people interfere with other people's lives?
    By Comeback Girl in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-01-2013, 01:11 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-23-2012, 10:13 PM
  3. [NT] Why does so many people fail to get rich?
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 09:32 PM
  4. Replies: 135
    Last Post: 07-04-2009, 10:00 PM

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