[NT] How to mess with an NT's head

[JocktheMotie]

I guess you are very hungry, then, just like the dog in Pavlov experiment. :rolli:

Sure I am. There are tons of people smarter, more accomplished, and more knowledgeable about fields I am interested in. If, for example, I were interested in the botany of your local region in France, I'd ask you and would be eager to listen.

 

[Kangirl]

Really? I love it. Bring on the hate. That means we're doing a good job!

The hate is fine (I am taking it as friendly ribbing, mostly) but the talk of actual strategies, deliberate use of faulty logic etc. Waaaaaaah!

 

[Salomé]

A: Isn't FemmeUrbane an NT?

Nope. She was right the first time.

How to mess with an NT's head? Be an ENFP.

 

[Qre:us]

There is nothing more infuriating than someone THINKING they out-logic'd you, when they did nothing of the sort.

Couldn't they be thinking the same thing about you? Who determines the 'winner'?

 

[Amargith]

Nope. She was right the first time.

How to mess with an NT's head? Be an ENFP.

Oh so some of you guys like having your heads messed with then?

 

[entropie]

Oh so you guys like having your heads messed with then?

That made me a bit naughty

 

[JocktheMotie]

Nope. She was right the first time.

How to mess with an NT's head? Be an ENFP.

From what I've seen of her posting, this seems to be the case. Although those that know her in real life say ENTP.

 

[Kangirl]

Couldn't they be thinking the same thing about you? Who determines the 'winner'?

If there is a winner, then it's the person with the strongest argument. It's not subjective (depending on topic - some topics are unanswerable in a concrete way). They could very well be thinking the same thing about the person who's 'won' the argument, but they're still wrong.

 

[Virtual ghost]

3) Lot of others who agreed with us were extreme NTs (Antisocial One, for instance)

Don't you think that this is too subjective argument ?

 

[Blackmail!]

Don't you think that this is too subjective argument ?

It is.

It doesn't mean we "won", it just proved Jock was wrong with the way he picked his example, since there were NTs on both sides (objective observation).

 

[ajblaise]

Couldn't they be thinking the same thing about you? Who determines the 'winner'?

The objective and conceptual third party of logic. Unfortunately, there's no litmus test for when it agrees with you.

 

[Qre:us]

The objective and conceptual third party of logic. Unfortunately, there's no litmus test for when it agrees with you.

Exactly. So, then it shouldn't be that hard to make clear then, should it?

If it is hard to make clear, then, either you're not doing a good job of presenting the logic clearly, or it isn't objective and thus, has enough holes to be up for attack, interpretation.

 

[ajblaise]

Exactly. So, then it shouldn't be that hard to make clear then, should it?

If it is hard to make clear, then, either you're not doing a good job of presenting the logic clearly, or it isn't objective and thus, has enough holes to be up for attack, interpretation.

Even if you make it clear to someone, that doesn't mean they'll admit to it. Then it just comes down to whether you care enough about what other person or the spectators think.

 

[Helios]

Since noz was so nice at letting us all take stab at SJs, I figured I'd give the SJs (and the rest of us ) a chance to annoy some NT's. So what are your fav strategies to drive an NT up the wall?

Personally, I love the emo-bomb, though I use it with care.

Other than that, getting them riled up about their new pet-theory and deliberately playing 'dumb' aka misunderstanding what they're saying completely works brilliantly as well.

And then there's the ever popular 'I know you're just bullshitting but I won't engage you and give you any ammo'-tactic which is lovely too.


NT's, be sure to thank Noz for this thread

This pattern of argument is almost guaranteed to annoy me:

Person claims that x is true.

I refute x.

Person then cheerfully and nonchalantly agrees with refutation of x, and asserts that they had always claimed y.

:steam:

 

[Tallulah]

Exactly. So, then it shouldn't be that hard to make clear then, should it?

If it is hard to make clear, then, either you're not doing a good job of presenting the logic clearly, or it isn't objective and thus, has enough holes to be up for attack, interpretation.

Sometimes, though, it's not even that. Sometimes one party thinks he/she has won when the other side has simply given up trying to argue with them, or has decided that there's no point in continuing.

Also, sometimes people think they're being logical when it's just their values feeling logical to them. This can happen to NTs, too, though NTs are usually scanning their systems for traces of subjectivity constantly. We're always trying to find the holes in our own thinking before someone else can beat us to it, and the cardinal sin is to not be objective.

But really, my original statement was more along the lines of pertaining to the OP, so subjectively that is what makes my NT head explode--someone thinking they've won the argument when I don't judge that to be the case, or if I don't think they're being logical at all.

 

[entropie]

Winning is my favourite word

 

[Blackmail!]

But really, my original statement was more along the lines of pertaining to the OP, so subjectively that is what makes my NT head explode--someone thinking they've won the argument when I don't judge that to be the case, or if I don't think they're being logical at all.

Frankly, I would not care whether my opponent thinks (s)he has "won" the argument or not, even if I would not think (s)he has.

What we adults do or think in private, is only up to our concerns. I find the idea to "convert" people around me to be quite repulsive.

For most trivial matters, it's only a game.

 

[SillySapienne]

Nope. She was right the first time.

You mean when she first came here and started the thread, "Another ENTP"?

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/welcomes-introductions/11548-another-entp.html#post441754

How to mess with an NT's head? Be an ENFP.

 

[Qre:us]

Even if you make it clear to someone, that doesn't mean they'll admit to it. Then it just comes down to whether you care enough about what other person or the spectators think.

Sometimes, though, it's not even that. Sometimes one party thinks he/she has won when the other side has simply given up trying to argue with them, or has decided that there's no point in continuing.

Also, sometimes people think they're being logical when it's just their values feeling logical to them. This can happen to NTs, too, though NTs are usually scanning their systems for traces of subjectivity constantly. We're always trying to find the holes in our own thinking before someone else can beat us to it, and the cardinal sin is to not be objective.

Fair enough, I'll give you guys that it can of course be the bull-headedness of the other side to accept what's clearly evident.

It may be my ENTP side coming out, that fails to give up in convincing someone only when it is so clear as day. If I am right, objectively so, it cannot help but be clear. And, I won't give up until the other side admits. Or, forced to admit 'cause they're cornered so. (you wanna know what bull-headed is like? let's rock!)

It bugs me, people carrying false knowledge around. Quite a bit. OCD-level so.
I have to work on letting go.

 

[entropie]

the good thing is, you are never right, when she is naked