User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 69

  1. #41
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    I always thought INTPs were stereotypically the annoying semantics arguers...
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  2. #42
    Senior Member Misty_Mountain_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    This is why the English Language sucks. In other languages, Spanish for example, there are two separate verbs of 'to be'. Ser and Estar. Estar is a temporary state of being, with no definate beginning or end. Ser is literally, as we would see it in the English language 'are'.

    Ser - I AM a woman. You ARE stupid (as a general state of being)
    Estar - I AM tired. You ARE stupid (right now)

    The only tiny distinction we have in the English language between these two states of 'being' has morphed into the modern use of 'is being _____' (Using the verb itself as a helping verb, making my brain twitch uncomfortably) which implies that it is temporary.

    So, to go back to the OP, strictly speaking, if someone 'is stupid', that is interpreted as being their constant state of being, in the past, present and future. It is a permanent characteristic. If someone is 'being stupid', then there is doubt as to whether that is a permanent condition.

    If your friend did not intend to say that the person 'is stupid', always with regards to all things, then he was, as technically as you can be wrong in the English language on this... wrong
    Embrace the possibilities.

  3. #43
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Basically, stuff.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I always thought INTPs were stereotypically the annoying semantics arguers...
    In this case, I argued semantics because a word he used evoked a negative feeling, not because I thought the word itself needed to be defined to proceed with the discussion. My compassionate side flared up because I didn't think it was right or fair to call someone stupid as a general label. After thinking about it, I'm pretty sure my INTP friend typically argues about the meaning of words when he thinks it is relevant and necessary to the conversation at hand (which is still often annoying.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Misty_Mountain_Rose View Post
    This is why the English Language sucks. In other languages, Spanish for example, there are two separate verbs of 'to be'. Ser and Estar. Estar is a temporary state of being, with no definate beginning or end. Ser is literally, as we would see it in the English language 'are'.

    Ser - I AM a woman. You ARE stupid (as a general state of being)
    Estar - I AM tired. You ARE stupid (right now)

    The only tiny distinction we have in the English language between these two states of 'being' has morphed into the modern use of 'is being _____' (Using the verb itself as a helping verb, making my brain twitch uncomfortably) which implies that it is temporary.
    Yes! That is exactly what I was trying to say to my friend, only you said it much more clearly. (I am still at fault, though, for messing up the conversation by getting sidetracked from our topic. Whether the "stupid person" is 100% stupid or situationally stupid is a completely different discussion from the one we were initially having.)

  5. #45
    ✿ڿڰۣஇღ♥ wut ♥ღஇڿڰۣ✿ digesthisickness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,262

    Default

    your friend was arguing semantics just as much as you were. he was just frustrated and used that as an attempt to 'win' and put an end to it.

    as far as this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I think the argument's sort of stupid, and your friend sounds like he's going through typical immature INTP hair-splitting in social situations where his views are being challenged unexpectedly and so he responds in pseudo-rational fashion so that he won't feel like he lost face.

    However, he could also think that you are hair-splitting. The deal here: He was upset, his intellectual sensibilities were offended by what this other person had done, and so he was emotionally venting (although it sounded like a rational judgment, because that's how emotions get expressed)... and instead of taking it in that vein, you started hair-splitting with him. (I'm guessing his criticalness irritates you, and so you sort of starting splitting hairs with him as your own way to vent, even if you didn't quite think of it that way.)

    This frustrated him even more, and since he had already started this emotional cycle under the guise of pseudo-rationality, and you had followed it up that way in how you challenged him, he now was stuck responding intellectually (while actually just being exasperated) and then got pissed and left.

    Next time, if you want to give him what he REALLY wants, you should say something more along the lines of, "It sounds like this person really upset you by how they approached this issue," or some other sort of confirmation of how he's feeling. Or not. Yeah, he might irk you by his complaints and judgments, but if he's your friend, maybe a different approach would be more suitable.
    i was in complete agreement before reading the bolded part. FFS, do NOT accuse any NT of arguing or thinking anything because of their FEELINGS. that'll just piss them off even more. best thing to do is learn to let things go at least sometimes and simply say, "we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."


    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    I like to think that we're not as attached to our arguments as other types tend to be. I don't get mad or really annoyed when I argue with friends.

    I have a good INFP friend and I think he sometimes interprets me caring more about the issue than I do, while he sometimes gets very involved.
    i've noticed this too. worse is that if you attempt to explain how wrong they are, the more right they think they are because they conclude your doing so means you give a shit.
    ✻ღϠ₡ღ✻
    (¯`✻´¯)
    `*.¸.*'ღϠ₡ღஇڿڰۣ
    •.¸¸. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒჱܓ. இڿڰۣ.¸¸.இڿڰۣ´¯`·.─♥


    Cerebral Artery
    http://www.facebook.com/CerebralArtery

  6. #46
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jewelchild View Post
    (I am still at fault, though, for messing up the conversation by getting sidetracked from our topic. Whether the "stupid person" is 100% stupid or situationally stupid is a completely different discussion from the one we were initially having.)
    It's not a fault issue. There are no rules governing where conversations should and shouldn't go. If you felt like talking about that particular angle, then there is nothing in the world to stop you from doing it. It's not wrong because it swayed from the direction that he perhaps intended the conversation to go. Conversations are supposed to be dynamic.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #47
    Senior Member Aleph-One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Yes, there are rules. Equivocation and obfuscation are always wrong, and irrelevance is a distraction. They're squid-ink style defenses.
    Aleph-One, you look like the kind of person who would spend his spare time building a giant robot to hold the government for ransom. -Some Guy on the Internet

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    It's not a fault issue. There are no rules governing where conversations should and shouldn't go. If you felt like talking about that particular angle, then there is nothing in the world to stop you from doing it. It's not wrong because it swayed from the direction that he perhaps intended the conversation to go. Conversations are supposed to be dynamic.
    If it were an everyday conversation about the weather, I suppose I'd agree, but we were debating the merits of a particular belief, so it was slightly more formal. Wouldn't it drive you nuts if you were having a debate and somebody kept bouncing around on unrelated subjects?

  9. #49
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jewelchild View Post
    Wouldn't it drive you nuts if you were having a debate and somebody kept bouncing around on unrelated subjects?
    Not asking me but I'll answer anyway.

    No. I'd effing love that. I can bounce around all night long with a smile.

    Your subject hopping is something I might have picked out to get angry about when I was younger and more intent on attempting to dominate people intellectually to cover up for my own fears in other areas. Or today if particularly inebriated, in a terrible mood, or lacking caffeine.

    Of course your friend could be a serious, mature, grownup that simply has strict personal rules about conversation flow that must be obeyed. It's your call if you want to adapt to that or not.

    And yeah, as an INTP I would have called him out on that point as well, and I think you're on solid footing vis-a-vis stupid vs. being stupid as far as common usage is concerned.

    /intrusion

  10. #50
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    It's not a fault issue. There are no rules governing where conversations should and shouldn't go. If you felt like talking about that particular angle, then there is nothing in the world to stop you from doing it. It's not wrong because it swayed from the direction that he perhaps intended the conversation to go. Conversations are supposed to be dynamic.
    Depends. Sometimes I get attached to one conversation topic, and there's things I want to say about it, points I want to get across, and things I want to hear. Basically, I'm not done with that topic, so things that distract from it get annoying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleph-One View Post
    Yes, there are rules. Equivocation and obfuscation are always wrong, and irrelevance is a distraction. They're squid-ink style defenses.
    How very NTJ. I agree of course, when there's some specific thing that I want to accomplish with the conversation. Otherwise, everything is fair game.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] INFP male in relationship with INTP female
    By Ariz in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-28-2017, 11:15 PM
  2. [INTP] Help with INTP guy and smoking?
    By yupyupyup in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 09-28-2010, 10:24 AM
  3. [INTP] self control with INTP
    By think2much in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-14-2010, 02:31 PM
  4. Is it possible to be an INFJ with INTP tendencies?
    By aic in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-05-2008, 12:02 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