[NT] How to argue like an NT

[raminda]

I can definitely argue that this is getting pretty pointless!

How very ENTJ of you.

 

[funkadelik]

Does this thread serve any good purpose other than to be used as a platform to argue against another individual's perceptions on the topic of arguing?

Are we really arguing about arguing?

I can definitely argue that this is getting pretty pointless!

Have fun arguing!!!!!!!!

It's meta-arguing.

I should start an argument with you over whether or not we're arguing about arguing and then we'd move into meta-META arguing!

 

[MoneyTick]

It's meta-arguing.

I should start an argument with you over whether or not we're arguing about arguing and then we'd move into meta-META arguing!

Well, first we should have a formal debate and argue over whether me and you should start an argument over the topic of meta-arguing.

Then we must hold an argumentative negotiation on what time of day we should begin the argument.

If we can come to an agreement to begin the argument, we shall argue.

Then I'll have my evening scotch and it really won't matter anymore.

 

[MoneyTick]

This must be the most pointless thread I've ever read!

It's so pointless I love it!

Hey! Let me throw you guys a couple of hard bones to chew on:

Ready? Catch! -

Is a penny saved, really a penny earned?

Is a friend in need, really a friend indeed?

Does he who laugh last, really laugh best?

C'mon arguing NTs! Wreck the crap out of the foregoing.

 

[raminda]

Is a penny saved, really a penny earned?

No, a penny saved is just a penny saved. Earning something by necessity comes before saving it, not after.

Is a friend in need, really a friend indeed?

Yes. There's really no difference between a "friend" and a "friend indeed", as "indeed" doesn't add any additional quality, it just verifies that the friend actually is a friend. And therefore any friend is a "friend indeed", regardless of the state of "need".

Does he who laugh last, really laugh best?

That depends. Is it even possible to qualify laughter in terms of "better" and "worse"? If we decide it is, then I figure it would be different from situation to situation, unless "laughing last" is part of the definition of "laughing best", in which case the statement is a truism, just like the one above.

 

[funkadelik]

^ Ahahaha...your answers are almost exactly what mine were.

Hmmm....looks like there's "agreement" in the "disagreement" (oops, I mean "argument") thread. If we get enough of those maybe everything will cancel out and the thread with disappear into the cosmos. Or explode in a mega-huge release of energy. I don't know how those things work.

 

[Beargryllz]

That depends. Is it even possible to qualify laughter in terms of "better" and "worse"? If we decide it is, then I figure it would be different from situation to situation, unless "laughing last" is part of the definition of "laughing best", in which case the statement is a truism, just like the one above.

We could find a way to quantify the laughter. For example, we could measure the people laughing for increases in endorphin levels to see who, if anyone, has the best laugh. Then we can reference this with the order in which the individuals laughed, to determine whether this statement is true or false.

 

[ZPowers]

Laughing last does not inherently equally laughing best. It implies A) you heard the joke last or B) you took the longest to understand it. That doesn't mean the last person didn't enjoy the joke the most, but it also doesn't mean they did. Of course, in a situation of rivalry, laughing last implies victory. However, laughing is not a necessary part of the concept of victory, and indeed even the victory may not enjoy their final gain more than the other enjoyed being ahead for a short time. It would be true or false mostly on a case-to-case basis, making the saying itself useless. Any saying that is random or unpredictable in how often it is true or untrue is not a saying that can be readily applied. "A barking dog is friendly sometimes" does no one any good.

 

[corey_vann]

How to argue like an INTP:

How to argue like an ENTJ:

Let us define what I just shouted as true. Therefore, what I just shouted is true. (Flex a bit, give that argumentative little dweeb from accounting a thousand-yard stare. Yeah. Let's see one of these pricks try to argue now.)

i have found that quiet and calm gets better results, backed up with facts that support my point. Dead cold stare sure does help though.

 

[corey_vann]

I like these!

ENTJ: Our goal is X, so the best way to get there is Y. Why? Well, why not? It's a worthwhile goal, and my plan will work, so let's do it! What, you say there's another goal we could pursue? That's nice, but I've already decided on this goal. I'll take that other idea of yours under consideration later, because it's not relevant to what I want to achieve right now. What? Y won't work because of factor Z? Then we'll do Y without doing G, which takes care of factor Z, but we're still doing Y.

AND

ENTJ:... "What??? NO!....Are you a fucking idiot??? "*tells the person why and how they should fix it*

 

[skylights]

this thread is funny.


how NTs argue from skylights' POV


INTP:

"your argument doesn't make sense. why would you believe that? it's like this: (takes 10 minutes to explain)."

• pro: best understanding of issue
• con: subjective viewpoint

ENTP:

"why would you believe that? your argument doesn't make sense. also, look how charming i am."

• pro: broad perspective on issue
• con: tertiary Fe is manipulative

INTJ:

"no, see, it's like this: (takes 5 minutes to explain). do you understand?"

• pro: most focused on issue
• con: good at making you feel stupid

ENTJ:

"no. here's why: (takes 30 seconds to explain)."

• pro: most efficient
• con: there's not much point in arguing with an ENTJ

personally i would like to see a list of how to win against each type in an argument.

 

[Athenian200]

You know what I would like to see? Two ENTJs with differing opinions arguing with each other. I would pay to see that.

 

[BlueGray]

ENTJ:

"no. here's why: (takes 30 seconds to explain)."

• pro: most efficient
• con: there's not much point in arguing with an ENTJ

I resent that. I have thoroughly enjoyed winning arguments with ENTJs after 5 hours. You simply need the patience to outlast them.

 

[Coriolis]

I resent that. I have thoroughly enjoyed winning arguments with ENTJs after 5 hours. You simply need the patience to outlast them.

I usually end up in a draw with my ENTJ friend, but neither of us cares. We have too much fun in the process.

 

[freeeekyyy]

I don't care how any type argues, because I'm right about everything I believe; arguing is pointless.

 

[skylights]

I resent that. I have thoroughly enjoyed winning arguments with ENTJs after 5 hours. You simply need the patience to outlast them.

props, and i will leave that to you INTPs.

it fascinates me how (edit: many) NTs ENJOY arguing with each other for prolonged periods of time. i enjoy arguing for about 20 minutes max, and then i want to go get ice cream with you. i mean we can keep discussing, but debating wears me out, lol

 

[onemoretime]

personally i would like to see a list of how to win against each type in an argument.

ENTx - show concrete proof of your being right. Otherwise, the best you'll get is an "agree to disagree". Still expect some argumentation after the demonstration.

INTx - throw as many logical loops and reasonable, yet non sequitur statements into the discussion, until the only clear means of getting out of the mess is through a logical pathway you've had on the back burner for the last ten minutes.

I resent that. I have thoroughly enjoyed winning arguments with ENTJs after 5 hours. You simply need the patience to outlast them.

Usually, the best way to win the argument is to say "fuck it, let's go have a beer." Eventually, the argument will restart, and the person will take a weaker form of the earlier position, which indicates that the person concedes the argument, but will not concede face. That's the best you're going to get.

 

[lunalum]

props, and i will leave that to you INTPs.

it fascinates me how NTs ENJOY arguing with each other for prolonged periods of time. i enjoy arguing for about 20 minutes max, and then i want to go get ice cream with you. i mean we can keep discussing, but debating wears me out, lol

I can't argue with people for much more than 20 minutes, but not by choice. People tend to end arguments with me with something along the lines of "you're not seeing the big picture" or "that's just how it has to be," to which I respond "tradition doesn't dictate truth because of (insert examples here)" or "well if you were following my logical progression you would see that I am synthesizing the big picture with each of the concepts that comprise it, and you are still wrong because of (insert flawed concept here)" to which the person responds "gosh you are so clueless about the big picture, why be so annoying about these little details?" or "You're wrong, I'm right. Respect MAH AUTHORITAY!"

(not actual conversations but the essence of them)

Looks like a classic unhealthy Ti/Te or Ne/Ni dual to me... but I don't know what to do about it other than find a xNTP to argue about things for days at a time or an F-type to at least get some ice cream with afterwards

 

[MoneyTick]

I resent that. I have thoroughly enjoyed winning arguments with ENTJs after 5 hours. You simply need the patience to outlast them.

Yes.

If the time and effort we spend on an argument is worth more than winning the argument itself - we surrender.

 

[Curator]

or an F-type to at least get some ice cream with afterwards

*Argues with you for 7 hours then gives you ice cream and cookies*