[MBTI General] Do you ever get "hungry" for a good argument?

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I like to participate in arguments where the goal of the participants is to reach a common understanding or at least a shared enlightenment. I do not like arguing with people who feel like they are trying to "win", nor do I appreciate those who act like arguing in itself is bad.

Occasionally I also like to debate, but debating is more for the sake of listeners than for the participants debating.

 

[Zergling]

That's the way to bet, generally, I suppose...but I would hate to run across a capital-T Truth, have someone question it, and then discard the idea just because I wasn't perceptive enough to give the appropriate defense. I'm not going to judge my ideas by my debating skills; it's not fair to the ideas. I don't think fast enough on my feet to be able to do that.

Same here. I never seem to actually win arguments, and in arguments it rarely seems like someone else's good points or things they notice well come across.

Arguments, even logical ones, have a tendency to degrade into one side vs. another, with out much room for new ideas of combinations to come in.

 

[ygolo]

That's the way to bet, generally, I suppose...but I would hate to run across a capital-T Truth, have someone question it, and then discard the idea just because I wasn't perceptive enough to give the appropriate defense. I'm not going to judge my ideas by my debating skills; it's not fair to the ideas. I don't think fast enough on my feet to be able to do that.

Ideas are a dime a dozen (or cost far less than that). How do you sepratedthe good ideas from the bad ones? I understand that sometimes, we need to incubate on incorrect notions that are on the right track to get good ideas. But do you not consider constrocting an argument to support your idea, anywhere along the lines?

Do you see any value in a logical argument?

And likewise, I don't think being glib or clever ought to substitute for being wise. Many a time I have argued against a thesis I have later adopted. This has very little to do with who won or lost the argument.

Do you equate having honed Crtical Thinking skills with being "clever" instead of being wise?

 

[ygolo]

Same here. I never seem to actually win arguments, and in arguments it rarely seems like someone else's good points or things they notice well come across.

I really prefer it when I "loose" an argument, though I don't think of it in terms of winning or losing.

If someone comes up with a sound argument for which every premise is some thing I believe, and leads to a conclusion I etiher did not believe or did not take note of, I consider it a great learning experience.

Arguments, even logical ones, have a tendency to degrade into one side vs. another, with out much room for new ideas of combinations to come in.

I've noticed that too, I think its is a great loss. I think if more people apreciated the beauty of a well constructed argument, then we would neither loose good ideas nor get into "one side vs. anothe" situations.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

epistemological, teleological, scientific, or even mathematical?

For me this hunger for an argument feels a lot like hunger for food. I tend to overeat, when I haven't had my intelectual fill.

Anyone have similar issues?

Maybe experienced in a very different way? Use your imagination.

Yes, this is the typical T need. The need to criticize that parallels the need to empathize in Fs. This is what inspired men to go to war throughout history. Among NTs wars were fought on pen and paper and STs with shield and sword.

The need to criticize derives from the need for competence which stems from the need to be independent (lack of comfort with support from others because the F is out of tune), and in order to be competent, one tends to be self-critical in order to ensure they are the best they can be. Then they naturally try to improve other entities the way they do their own--through criticism. Which in itself often shows as an antagonistical attitude towards others, and hence this is the reason why wars were more appealing to men than women. And why science and philosophy attract more male admirers than female, as it requires critical thinking which is predominantly a T-oriented enterprise and most men are Thinkers.

The need to argue among NTs is desirable and should be sated as being challenged tends to be highly beneficial. But, as previously mentioned, in the end it all goes back to Ts being uncomfortable with emotion and to avoid dealing with emotion by relying on others they deemed for it to be very important to be independent which required competence.

 

[celesul]

I don't like to argue just to argue, but I enjoy debating. I'm on the debate team, which is definitely a good way to get the intellectual stimulation without the personal attacks, as the type of debate I like is more formal and idea based. I hate debate based on attacking the other person as a person, and not paying attention to ideas. Is it a bad sign that I would rather vote for a high school debater than a politician because the high schooler seems more mature?

 

[alexkreuz]

As long as Ne is active enough to keep Ti in check everything is rosy dandy .. Once things get heated enough for Ti to race off without the backing of Ne, then things end up tunnel-vision'ed pretty fast ...

Debate to understand, not to critique .. thats the key .. hard to do though ..

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Debate to understand, not to critique .. thats the key .. hard to do though ..

Understanding is best reached through critiquing, by improving your ideas and those of others critical thinking. A better way to think of it would be critique to get an understanding and not to appease your prejudices.

People tend not to behave in a destructive fashion in debates if their purpose truly is the truth, yet very much do when they are out only for their own vainglory.

 

[InFlux]

Not just for NT's! I enjoy and DO hunger for arguments but only under very specific circumstances. It's only worth it to me if I know it's not going to get personal and that everyone involved can keep the debate away from his feelings. If someone is going to get his feelings hurt because I am ripping into his ideas, or if he gets personally involved and will attack me as a person - then I avoid arguing at all costs. That's just stressful.

So basically, I only want to argue with people I know and understand. But it's more than worth it when I do get that chance because I find a good argument is the best way to find every possible flaw in my reasoning. I've learned more from good arguments than anything else - sometimes I even learn what I think from what I construct on the fly.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Sometimes i can long for a rigorous debate, but context is important. I had a debate in class with arbitrary sides drawn and there was a lady on the opposing side who had that calm, smart, logical demeanor and made the best points on her team. I had a little urge to debate with her just because her mind was very clear and she was cute. If i trust the person it can be fun, more often i enjoy observing first. I probably wouldn't be up to snuff to debate with you ygolo, but wouldn't be against trying. :hi:

You have both debating requirements: a desire to think logically and kinda cute. More likely i'd rather watch, though.

 

[Ms. M]

I do enjoy debates, not because I believe I'll convert anyone to my way of thinking on any specific issue, but to sharpen my own beliefs.

Edited to add - wow, that makes me sound more selfish than I really think I am. I see open, academic discussion, as a way to challenge both myself and others....hmmm....that doesn't sound much better.....oh well. I'm an INTJ.

 

[alexkreuz]

Understanding is best reached through critiquing, by improving your ideas and those of others critical thinking. A better way to think of it would be critique to get an understanding and not to appease your prejudices.

People tend not to behave in a destructive fashion in debates if their purpose truly is the truth, yet very much do when they are out only for their own vainglory.

it isn't possible to understand by critique because critique almost always gets in the way of understanding .. most of the time the person critiquing doesn't even fully understand the opposing point of view because his focus is on the critique rather than to understand ..

the purpose of critique is to better understand one's OWN point of view .. to better understand what one's own point of view is not .. but understanding of another's point of view can not be achieved through critique but rather through un-interrupted active listening ..

 

[Nocapszy]

epistemological, teleological, scientific, or even mathematical?

For me this hunger for an argument feels a lot like hunger for food. I tend to overeat, when I haven't had my intelectual fill.

Anyone have similar issues?

Maybe experienced in a very different way? Use your imagination.

My brother, INTJ, and I argue almost literally every second we're on contact. It's positive arguing though. It's learning experience for both of us. We both enjoy it.

If I'm not arguing with him, I'm arguing with a teacher or my parents or other brother or anyone else. Almost constant battle. Consequently, everyone hates me, but I know a lot more than anyone I know because in arguing, I force myself to see more than one perspective. I find myself more and more frequently, since I started learning about types arguing the side I'm unfamiliar with. There are a few things which I'm decided on - that is, I always seem to argue the same side of the argument though. Things like religion. I always argue against god. Though, that's probably because it's easier to argue in favor of god, because you're always got the omni-powerful cop-out, "It's all a test - it doesn't have to make sense"

I usually am able to get through that with a single sentence when debating wiht a religious type, but unfortunately for me, I've never been in favor of God where someone could do the same, so the argument ends there. Otherwise I might actually end up arguing in favor of god if any of the atheists I know knew how to hold up an argument.

I wouldn't call what I have a hunger.... more of an addiction. I'm actually uneasy when not arguing at times. Partly because if you're not arguing then the only other option is to ask "how's school?" or "how's the kids?"

Fuck that shit. Boring and uninteresting. Small talk is bullshit. In the first place, no one really cares. They just ask because "it's what you do when you see someone" as though butting into their personal life were some kind of compliment or something. Perhaps it's the flawed mentality that showing fake interest in someone else's affairs is supposed to trick them into feeling that their life is important. I doubt there's any reasoning in it - it's probably just social refle at this point.

Anyway, arguing is much better.

 

[Veneti]

Arguing is just sparing.

The more you spar, the better you hone your knowledge.

 

[simulatedworld]

ME? No!

 

[Salomé]

Good God yes!
And if I can't have a good argument, I'll have a bad one.

Yes, this is the typical T need.

Ti > Te?

most men are Thinkers

I think it's a 60/40 split.
You've already established it's about cognitive functional preference, why do you feel the need to introduce gender into the equation?

I want an argument.

 

[Laurie]

I love getting in a good discussion and I will go looking for one.

I usually enjoy arguing with T's because they won't get offended by me and therefore it is easier for me to not be offended by them.

I think it is one reason that I like discussing issues on forums. It's a controlled, non emotional environment.

 

[FDG]

I kind of hate arguments. Either I know I'm right with 100 percent certainty, and thus arguing will be pointless if the other person won't agree with me (and changing somebody else's mind is extremely difficult), or I avoid arguing on topics I have no certain knowledge about.

 

[01011010]

I enjoy debates, I am always seeking likeminded to people, or near enough to thrash out certain subjects. My mating ritual lol pretty much involves heady debates, argueing, challenging my ideas and me theirs, the more intelligent the man, the more intrigued I will become, I lose total interest when someone has no debate skills, or no willingness to touch certain subjects.

Yes.

Most of the people I dated, typically caught my interest on the opposing side of a debate. Yum.

 

[LucrativeSid]

I've never felt a craving for it, but I find myself doing it sometimes without having planned on it. Most people I know in real life don't enjoy it whatsoever, though. Some just always end up believing me and some get offended that I'm doubting them. I don't think I argue as much as I used to. I'm not as inclined to want to pull my hair out when people don't make sense these days. Sometimes, I even see opposing viewpoints as beautiful, even if I think they are basically retarded.