uumlau
Happy Dancer
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 5,517
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 953
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/so
What you're describing is the "who the hell are you?" effect. It's important to note, because a person rarely has as much legitimacy with others as he may think of himself.
Interesting that "legitimacy" would suffice in place of sound arguments.
Another way of putting it is that those whom one is trying to convince often hold their own opinions in very high esteem, regardless of the facts of the matter.
It also serves to explain how INTJs are often perceived as arrogant: how can we speak with such authority when we have not first established our legitimacy? INTJs have the opposite perspective: we base "legitimacy" on whether someone makes sense in the first place.
Credentials.
Which don't have to be in the form of degrees.
Yeah, I've recognized that it helps to get a "reputation" for being extremely competent. It gets rid of a lot of hassle for me.
I think there's a Ti effect going on here. Ti is extremely resistant to being told what to think, no matter how correct. Ti insists upon figuring things out for oneself.Yeah, I’m gonna guess this is just as much a Te vs. Ti issue, if not more so. It gets annoying when I’ve got someone spewing ‘facts’ at me that don’t particularly add up, at least not enough to change my course of action. I need for something to make sense- to sort of connect at both ends- before changing my course of action over it. And defending my position doesn’t happen easily because the functions I use to determine such things are introverted; so I usually just get obstinate.
And yeah- it does work to appeal to my sense of what’s fair. But objective arguments work as well, they just have to be sound. The only reason- ever- spewing ‘facts’ doesn’t work with me is because it isn’t a convincing argument. It’s amazing to me sometimes how some people think I should be swayed by half-ass arguments. It's rarely worth putting the effort into figuring out how to articulate why an argument seems flawed. This is why it feels like Te types are perpetually trying to cram their own will down my throat.
The problem isn't "half-ass" arguments, per se: it's that any argument that Ti doesn't immediately understand sounds half-assed. Note that the bolded portion is where the conflict with Te begins: any Te-style argument is looking for reasonable counterarguments (though immature people will still try to "win" such exchanges). The refusal to give a counterargument sounds like stubbornness, like intransigence. What's really going on is that Ti has a hard time pinpointing logical flaws: an incorrect argument sounds 100% incorrect, even if the "flaw" is a simple misunderstanding, e.g., one person having misheard a word or holding a slightly different, but valid, definition.
Te, on the other hand can be rather adept at finding communication errors, missing information, extraneous misleading facts, and so on.
Agreed. I don’t care how many letters someone has behind their name: if what they’re saying doesn’t add up, then I won't go along with it.
What if it doesn't "add up" but it sounds fair and reasonable?
On the Te/Fi side of things, the attitude seems to be one of giving the benefit of the doubt until one proves oneself to be stupid or incompetent, while on the Fe/Ti side, the attitude appears to be one of distrusting one's competency until it's been proven. Does this conform with others' perceptions of the matter?
Oh, and I almost forgot:
*gives Domino a doughnut*