• 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.

[ENTP] The role of argumentation in ENTPs

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
^ what she said....I'm way too erudite for such silly matters. :coffee:
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
I just noticed this "similar threads" thingie at the bottom of the page... so it's like... oh neat topic.

Sure it's like uhm... from... april... but that doesn't matter. Right?

Anyways, the point of argument is nil; arguing solves nothing, it's annoying, and is a waste of time.

DEBATE, on the other hand... has value twofold.

It encourages the opponent to think critically about their own position, and it provides cheap entertainment to the ENTP.

Now, the second one is great, but the first one can branch off indirectly.

See, if the OPPONENT has to learn whot their own position actually means, either they realize they're wrong, making the entp happy that they won via understanding, or they provide a point that makes sense, changing the ENTP's own beliefs, thereby making the entp happy that they just learned something new.

Either way, it's win-win.

Assumming that the opponent in the debate actually thinks critically about their own position and knows WTH they're talking about. If they just spout off random nonsense and don't have any clue how to back it up, it's a total waste of time; this's where arguments come in. An argument is one sided, no information is exchanged. Information may be SENT, but it isn't RECIEVED. Someone in an argument won't learn anything, because they're not trying to.

Yeu can't change someone's mind once it's made up, it's an impossible task. The only thing yeu can do is present them with the facts, and they have to decide if they actually care about reality or not. Yeu can try to force them to think, but it won't work if they really don't want to. Best yeu can do there is guide them around like a sheep at that point so that yeu at least get the end result yeu were looking for, even if it was more effort and they didn't learn a thing doing it.

In any case, debating is a game... not one to be won as such... just the act of playing the game is where the enjoyment lies.

That being said though, I personally will challange all sorts of stuff, even things I believe. If someone holds a different viewpoint than I do, I challange it, so they have to prove whot they believe to themselves, and to me. They might actually be right, but they need to provide evidence of such, and reasoning to back it up. On the other hand, if they hold the same viewpoint that I do... I challange it anyway. I understand through external communication, bouncing ideas off people, and so on, it's an E thing. As such, by playing devil's advocate, I can more easily poke holes in my own theory by poking it in THEIRS, in which case I know where the holes are and can figure out how I would've said it myself, or see if there's a flaw in there somewheres. If they can't argue back their own point, either they don't understand it well enough, or we may in fact both be wrong and I'll have to reconsider my position.

Either way, I'm going to debate the matter into the ground, and latch onto every single thing, be it an analogy that I go off the end of the world with and abusively turn back against them, or a piece of evidence, where I'll point out how it doesn't apply, or how it can be interpreted to support the opposite argument.

If yeu don't have someone forcing yeu to evaluate yeur own reasoning, yeu'll never grow. I can't do this to my own self very well at all (E not I), so I do it to everyone else, especially those that hold the same view as I do. I learn more from debating against someone who holds the same view that I do, than I do from trying to think about it on my own, by several factors of magnitude.

I imagine, that most of this applies to ENTP's in general.

I'd say sorry for graverobbing, but I love digging up stuff about me. Yay for long dead posts, ressurected!

Soon, my necromantic goal of becomming a lichess shall be achieved!
 

paperoceans

Une Femme est une femme
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
834
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
8w7
If they just spout off random nonsense and don't have any clue how to back it up, it's a total waste of time; this's where arguments come in. An argument is one sided, no information is exchanged. Information may be SENT, but it isn't RECIEVED. Someone in an argument won't learn anything, because they're not trying to.

Yeu can't change someone's mind once it's made up, it's an impossible task. The only thing yeu can do is present them with the facts, and they have to decide if they actually care about reality or not. Yeu can try to force them to think, but it won't work if they really don't want to. Best yeu can do there is guide them around like a sheep at that point so that yeu at least get the end result yeu were looking for, even if it was more effort and they didn't learn a thing doing it.

Aye-aye, truer words have never been spoken.

Unfortunately, when this happens to me I tend to lose respect for that person. Say, I admired them or I was curious about how their mind works... somehow we get into a tiny debate and they're just spitting out random shit that makes absolutely no sense. "Arguments" (if you can even call it that) that are weak and flawed. For a moment, I respond with: "I don't understand how you came to that conclusion because blah, blah, blah." If they cannot back up their argument, I lose interest quickly and I try to back out. Or I just go quiet. Which basically means, I am wondering why the hell I started talking to you in the first place.

I really do not know why I lose interest in people if they cannot back up their statements; it usually leaves me feeling empty because I cannot understand how someone can think that way. Kind of reminds me of the children I used to nanny for, you don't expect that type of behavior from adults, but it seems more common...

This happened recently with some fella' that I was interested in... as of now he repulses me. There were just so many contradictions in his arguments (and they made no sense whatsoever) that I felt kind of "dirty" inside. I guess you can describe it as bad sex. The kind with vomiting and the sound of a pot of spaghetti being stirred. Yes, it feels like horrible, nasty, Snorlex sex with Jon Gosselin. With him grunting on top while... oh wait, I have a visual...

2my28ic.gif


Basically, I "argue" with people so that I can understand them more. Otherwise, I'm just doing it for entertainment :D
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
See, if the OPPONENT has to learn whot their own position actually means, either they realize they're wrong, making the entp happy that they won via understanding, or they provide a point that makes sense, changing the ENTP's own beliefs, thereby making the entp happy that they just learned something new.

Either way, it's win-win.

It's good to see you write this, because I was starting to think that I was the only ENTP that thought this way. There is rarely such a thing as a win-lose argument. The vast majority of "arguments" are either win-win or lose-lose. If we listen to each other and someone corrects their position because they realize they were wrong then it's win-win. If someone in the debate refuses to listen then it's lose-lose, because communication has broken down. The only way you can really have a win-lose debate is if you are running for elected office or something and manage to swing more voters to your side.
 

tinkerbell

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,487
MBTI Type
ENTP
Good question - and I'm probably just agreeing with everyone else.

I like to argue about a subject (no enjoyment arguing with people). I like to explore peoples thinking and why they think like that and my own thoughts and why I think like that.

Although debates can get competitive, it's not about winning I don't think, more about trying to get from the fluffy zone of P type - into a more concrete poit of view. Therefore even explorin an idea with yourself helps with that. I do tend to see multiple sides of the same issue (which I often walk people through at work). When I get locked into a competitive situation I will argue to win, but on the main the bigger picture with debate is not contest its exploration.

If I have firmly held beliefs which I don't think people have understood, I will argue in order to get understanding. I often have REALLY big thoughts about things so forumlating the scale of thought simply enough for other people to understand what the hell I am talking about can be really difficult - more so if they are closed minded and get distracted by communications device that I try to employ to help convey the ideas. I get pretty fiesty about trying to explain the concept which is difficult if other people don't know me

A good argument you can go and look at... is the debate I had with Decline last week. We were discussing drug usage - I was taking the Anti soft drugs being safe role, he the opposite... it was a good debate... went on for a day or two... he didn't get abusive of attacking but neither of us yeilded possition. (as a side note I always new the debate would lead to this peice of research for this against - those conversations do)... we went though a variety of different dynamics about the issue that I thought was really productive - it wasn't about the outcome (that was a no brainer stalemate before we even started), it was about exploring the views and seeing what fell out - I learned stuff and I'm sure he did too.

Unfortunately no everyone can take exploration of thier beleifs and they get feirsly defensive/attacking which I find offensive if it is personal and not about the issue.
 

Goatman455

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
105
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Also, on a personal real life level, because I've noticed a couple of times they'll keep on amping up the insults until they finally go too far. Like, almost as if it's not real until they do some damage...



Yeah, I think Fe tries to discredit or dishearten their opponent with insults. Throw a strong Ti in their which actually has good logic behind it, and this can be very frustrating to the receiver. I don't think they want to do damage, I think it is the natural tendency of getting fired up about what they are talking about and then their weaker Fe taking over a bit too much. It works quicker for them (or is more stimulated by external events), and is easier for them to express than the Ti, and they can go over to it spontaneously when they really should be sticking to their Ti to use logic in their arguments.
 
Top