MMm
I think it's possible for this scenario to occur. Types (people) using knowledge to gain the upper hand on the other types (people).
I also think it works in reverse. Types (people) using knowledge to gain an understanding of who has the upper hand and in what ways.
To summarize; it's used to know who is better and worst than you and in which way. I don't see anything wrong with that. Now it's up to the individual at hand to decide to make it known that they believe they're above or below the other person.
Although I don't think this scenario occurs. Actually this can occur but only in individuals who think that mbti knowledge = intelligence. Anyone who thinks that already lost in my book.
It sounds like you havn't really understood what I was getting at.
I was merely referencing something that goes on a great deal in real life anyhow and was wondering if there might be any correlation within the system of MBTI.
MBTI and a knowledge of it is hardly the context I was going for. I wasn't talking about knowing more about people's types and then using that information against them either.
Im talking about a natural drive within an individual to gain knowledge and information primarily for the purpose of making sure they dont slip up in the arena of socially or even intellectually perceived intelligence.
Because of course it is not just what you know, it's how you know it, but you do need to know something to build off in the first place.
My perception of this is not that there is some inherent better or worse or that such a person has lost or won, this is actually part of my point. An individual might engage in such thoughts and styles of thinking from time to time and im no different, but it's not a definer, it's subjective and personal rather than being an objective truth of conduct.
Competition and one-upmanship in a debate is often natural, but some people take it too far, they care not about the actual principle's at hand nor about opening up a dialogue of idea exchange, but instead they do it purely so that in their own minds they can satisfy a need for self approval of being better than others in the arena of argumentation. In essence the
winning becomes more important than the core reason for the argument or it's purpose as a tool of expanding perception and convincing someone of a point.
In my book THAT is when a person has truely lost. If you become like that, then you are nothing more than a terrier champing at the bit, possibly winning arguments, but usually only on the merits of that individuals own deluded standards and never putting such abilities to any use other than to rile up others for the sake of it.
Ive been like that in the past and I know many many people who are also like that; it solves nothing and helps nothing.