• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Emotional debates...

funkadelik

good hair
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,614
MBTI Type
lmao
So last night I was with my dad and we got into a debate about the nature of religion, it's importance in human history, it's impact on our society today, etc.

Ok, so it would have simply been a discussion in which we both agreed on more or less the same things, except for the fact that early on my dad exhibited WAY too much attachment to his point of view and I simply couldn't let bygones be bygones.

And it was like I couldn't control the devil's advocate poking her little horns out and ruining his tirade. He'd say all these things that weren't logical or pertinent at all to my counterattacks and the more I came back with a well-constructed argument, the more stuck to his original claims he became (like just repeating them over and over again made them more validated).

Anyway, eventually when I felt like I'd "won" I told him that, actually, I believed that what he was saying in the first place was quite true and that I was just being a stinker. He just laughed and that was that.

But it got me thinking about how I almost always have this desire to play devil's advocate if I see that the other person is using emotion and irrationality to defend their arguments. I don't always engage in this (I guess Fe kicks in and I bite my tongue), but the urge is always there.

I want to know if other ENTPs (or NTs) have the same urges? Do you usually act on them or do you keep it to yourself unless you feel like the other person will be a good sport?
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sounds like an ENTP thing to me... I see it all the time.

INTP does the devil's advocate thing too, but I think we do it less capriciously and more because we really are interested in the argument.

Put another way, ENTP prioritizes the exploration of possibilities (so devil's advocate can just be something to try, to see what happens, and max variety); INTP prioritizes the construction of an actual rational model, so even when we play devil's advocate, it's usually to weed out bad ideas and reveal to everyone which ideas are worth keeping. Both NTP types can take a varied approach on the matter... from choosing to be very hard-line in the challenge to being more coy and exploratory; it's based on contextual needs and the person being challenged.

Because of the Fe side I developed, I tend not to do devil's advocate unless I'm in an environment where it seems suitable. It can restrict me sometimes in keeping peace more often than some of my INTP friends, a few of which would walk into any situation and immediately trying to poke holes in the prevalent view. I'll think it, but I won't necessarily say it unless I see a point to the challenge.
 
N

NPcomplete

Guest
I play devil's advocate only with some people (and mostly for fun). It's a good way of exploring other perspectives and possibly acquiring more knowledge on the matter through discussion. I've never played devil's advocate on people I dislike (yet! although it's tempting) because sometimes, those people are "dear" to people I like so hurting them would hurt my people (is that Fe? I'm still new to identifying functions). If I'm full of hatred for them however, I can see it happening. It would end quite badly for them hehe unless they are better at pwning.

My closest friends usually appreciate this quality. It helps us examine different situations through various lenses and it helps with figuring out who's thinking what. When I play devil's advocate for fun, it's usually because it's too boring to agree with people on everything.
 

Shimmy

New member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
1,867
MBTI Type
SEXY
I can easily defend two sides of an issue when arguing with two different people. I do it all the time. My dad is a proponent of the smoking ban in bars and I oppose him with the law that the arguement restricts our freedom and that our government is patronizing in deciding which activities aren't allowed for us. But on the other hand, most of my friends oppose the smoking band and I argue with them that it increases the overall health of the population and that there has been no significant negative effect on the solvability of bars and clubs in general.
 

Owlesque

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
416
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I love playing devil's advocate to prolong the bantering if we're both on the same "side" and the conversation is winding down, and I'm guilty of doing it when the other party mistakes their emotional conviction for strength of argument as well, though that doesn't always end well. I tend to only do it with people I know won't get really riled up in the first case (most likely other NTs, now that I think of it), and I usually just bite my forked tongue.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I will play devil's advocate, sometimes as a way of sounding out more thoroughly the other person's point of view. I do this especially when someone has difficulty supporting their statements, or appears not to have thought things through well, or has obvious gaps in logic. I might do it in the face of emotional arguments as well, or I might instead appear to agree, but then push the limits of the assertion to show how it ultimately breaks down. I rarely worry about how the other person will take either approach. If they are a willing participant in the discussion, and especially if they initiated it, I consider them fair game.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Playing Devil's Advocate? Well, I've been known to do that with people online who I don't know very well, but I'm a little too serious to do it with anyone I would find myself interacting with on a regular basis.

I don't really care for anyone who isn't able to appreciate more than one perspective, though. It usually leads me to avoid discussing anything besides the weather with them, because I don't want to hurt their feelings, and also don't want to waste energy arguing with the intellectual equivalent of a brick wall.

I have a lot of respect for people who can see more than one side of a situation, and think less of those who cannot... I'm not sure why I'm like that, but it goes deeper than simple agreement. It's a different, deeper kind of respect than the typical admiration I have for people who simply happen to agree with me. And it's still there even if they ultimately disagree with me, though the disagreement might make me uncomfortable or angry for a while, depending on what it's about.
 

Mephistopheles

New member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
160
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
6w5
I always talk against others, no matter what my real opinions are. I always feel the strong urge to let one side see the perspective of the other. One INTJ acquaintance doesn't seem to realise WHY I am doing that and says I would be an "Anti-Person" because of that.
 

funkadelik

good hair
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,614
MBTI Type
lmao
I will play devil's advocate, sometimes as a way of sounding out more thoroughly the other person's point of view. I do this especially when someone has difficulty supporting their statements, or appears not to have thought things through well, or has obvious gaps in logic. I might do it in the face of emotional arguments as well, or I might instead appear to agree, but then push the limits of the assertion to show how it ultimately breaks down. I rarely worry about how the other person will take either approach. If they are a willing participant in the discussion, and especially if they initiated it, I consider them fair game.

So you do it more to be helpful to the other person, rather than for antagonistic purposes? Or is it more in order to uphold the sanctity of objective fact?

I'd like to say that I always play devil's advocate for the other person/for objective fact (because I genuinely think it's important for people to make sure their "convictions" don't get between them and reality, even if their convictions are based in reality), but sometimes I simply like to be antagonistic for the sheer glee I derive from it (which doesn't come from demeaning the other person, but from the excitement of a new perspective).
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
Arguing for the sake of arguing is one of the best ways to make people hate you. Not that this is always a bad thing, but it is something that goes relatively unknown while we relish in our smugness and participate in rationalist circlejerks.
 

funkadelik

good hair
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,614
MBTI Type
lmao
Arguing for the sake of arguing is one of the best ways to make people hate you. Not that this is always a bad thing, but it is something that goes relatively unknown while we relish in our smugness and participate in rationalist circlejerks.

That am the truth!
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So you do it more to be helpful to the other person, rather than for antagonistic purposes? Or is it more in order to uphold the sanctity of objective fact?

I'd like to say that I always play devil's advocate for the other person/for objective fact (because I genuinely think it's important for people to make sure their "convictions" don't get between them and reality, even if their convictions are based in reality), but sometimes I simply like to be antagonistic for the sheer glee I derive from it (which doesn't come from demeaning the other person, but from the excitement of a new perspective).
I do it first and foremost to help me understand their argument better. I find it hard to follow an incoherent, poorly supported train of thought. Helping the other person understand their argument themselves is a second purpose. If I am playing devil's advocate rather than arguing for a position I actually accept, I am not so much trying to persuade the other person to agree as to uncover whatever fallacies exist in his/her reasoning. I often do this through the use of questions rather than statements, which also makes it easier to see if my own reasoning is faulty.
 
A

A window to the soul

Guest
So last night I was with my dad and we got into a debate about the nature of religion, it's importance in human history, it's impact on our society today, etc.

Ok, so it would have simply been a discussion in which we both agreed on more or less the same things, except for the fact that early on my dad exhibited WAY too much attachment to his point of view and I simply couldn't let bygones be bygones.

And it was like I couldn't control the devil's advocate poking her little horns out and ruining his tirade. He'd say all these things that weren't logical or pertinent at all to my counterattacks and the more I came back with a well-constructed argument, the more stuck to his original claims he became (like just repeating them over and over again made them more validated).

Anyway, eventually when I felt like I'd "won" I told him that, actually, I believed that what he was saying in the first place was quite true and that I was just being a stinker. He just laughed and that was that.

But it got me thinking about how I almost always have this desire to play devil's advocate if I see that the other person is using emotion and irrationality to defend their arguments. I don't always engage in this (I guess Fe kicks in and I bite my tongue), but the urge is always there.

I want to know if other ENTPs (or NTs) have the same urges? Do you usually act on them or do you keep it to yourself unless you feel like the other person will be a good sport?

I don't relate to that. I'm cool and open to the facts.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Believe it or not I think it's tertiary Fe that prompts you to bait people, not just what stops you sometimes to be polite. It's the nasty side of Fe that is frequently exhibited in young (often male) ENTPs. Especially since you fundamentally agreed with your dad - who I think probably is an Fi type from what you've said here - but you kept arguing with him just to be a troll.
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP
A debate has a loser, one that failed to use logic to win, hence the corruption of emotion, the seething anger, the frantic fallback points, the pleas of aid to other individuals.

No, it isn't an oxymoron at all. A true master of debate will have mastered emotions.
 
R

ReflecTcelfeR

Guest
I usually play devil's advocate in order to see how much one knows/cares about the topic of discussion. It seems to be the quickest way to find and form boundaries.
 

funkadelik

good hair
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
1,614
MBTI Type
lmao
A debate has a loser, one that failed to use logic to win, hence the corruption of emotion, the seething anger, the frantic fallback points, the pleas of aid to other individuals.

No, it isn't an oxymoron at all. A true master of debate will have mastered emotions.

Right. When you wield the stick of emotion in a debate, you can easily get thrashed down by the claymore of logic. But the thing about that stick is, even when you are given the opportunity to use a bigger weapon (ie. fact, logic, reasoning), many people would rather hold on to their stick and lose with it by their side.

My personal values and feelings about things have little to do with what is truth. Sure, I may form them around what appears to be true in a given observation, but I certainly can't look to them and say "I feel it is true, it must be true."

I'm not saying personal values are BAD, but they can seriously cloud your judgment of objective fact if you let them.
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I never play devil's advocate on concious purpose. For example in that other thread where they all collectively blamed a man for his age being to old to probably drive a car (which he has proven): I nevertheless thought well he's old but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be treated with respect. On the contrary people in the thread treat him kinda disrespectful cause they refering to his inability to drive. I nevertheless found their behaviours not really good.

That's how it goes all day for me, I usually have something to criticize or to speak about. I called this a sense of justice when I was young, nowadays I understand it as a sense to see the big picture and not to forget about other facts when one fact is kinda strong at any given moment.

Still sometimes in discussions when I have no idea what I could criticize, I make something up just to provoke an arguement. I have gotten better at recognizing this within me with age and my personal need that everyone needs to know what I think about a thing has grown less intense.

But yeah with some people discussing can be ultimatively boring. I miss the old philosophy discussions I had with my intp friend back then when we were 16. Substitute philosophy with starwars and you know what I mean :D
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Sounds like an ENTP thing to me... I see it all the time.

INTP does the devil's advocate thing too, but I think we do it less capriciously and more because we really are interested in the argument.

Put another way, ENTP prioritizes the exploration of possibilities (so devil's advocate can just be something to try, to see what happens, and max variety); INTP prioritizes the construction of an actual rational model, so even when we play devil's advocate, it's usually to weed out bad ideas and reveal to everyone which ideas are worth keeping. Both NTP types can take a varied approach on the matter... from choosing to be very hard-line in the challenge to being more coy and exploratory; it's based on contextual needs and the person being challenged.

I semi-agree - I also like to construct and weed out. But I would say that the main reason why INTPs don't get into those types of debates is because they tend to trip over their own tongue. But in print I've seen more INTP trolls than any other type - simply because they have time to form their arguments.
 
Top