[NT] The NT Rationale and Rightness

[Spartan]

Verbally, NT's are probably the best are showing that their point is the best and all other points are weaker.
I have an ENTJ father so I have personal experience with this.
Many times I am in some sort of arguement with him and he says something that makes perfect sense and all I can do is say "ok" and walk away.

But other times I don't think what he says is right, but I can't think of anything to say to refute it.

Is the right answer the point that cannot be disproven while all other points relevant can?

Or is it just right because it make the most sense?

 

[Helfeather]

Confuse him w/ a paradox. Though I'm sure he'd love trying to solve it. xD

Gl arguing w/ a ENTJ tho, they don't phase until the situation goes wrong, and even then they won't take the blame.

 

[Economica]

Morning ramble:

Sometimes the only arguments against a proposed way of doing things suck from an NT perspective but still turn out to have been worth listening to.

The argument of tradition: "It's always been done that way." An improvement-seeker suffers massive frustration upon hearing those words (if spoken by an obstacle person in authority anyway) but sometimes there is an unseen superior rationale that has caused the procedure to become standard and that will assert itself if ignored.

Case in point: 99-cent pricing. Leaving aside the question of whether people irrationally believe .99 to be much less than 1, if you run a small store and you do not practice this seemingly inconvenient form of pricing, odds are your profits will be lower for the (in the view of some unbelievably cynical) reason that a dollar bill can pocketed by a clerk whereas in order to make change a sale must be recorded on the cash register. In this case, hearing that "it's always been done that way" should serve as a warning to the would-be convenience-increasing entrepreneur even if reflection fails to illuminate the superiority of doing it that way.

Advice for the NT: Discern the possibly hidden logic behind the tradition, then judge whether your innovation really is a net improvement.

The argument of feeling: "I cannot argue with your logic but I feel that you are wrong." This is another hot button for NT frustration and/or contempt (Ayn Rand, anyone? ) but sometimes the feeling is founded in a tacit knowledge of humans and relationships that if crystallized would trump the arguments currently on the table. If the person experiencing the feeling is unable to see and communicate the underlying rationale that prompts their feeling, then it will typically be scorned by the logician who will then in fact - as the feeling person sometimes in an exercise of futility knowingly warns - later pay.

Case in point: Unwittingly tactless behavior. Sometimes a logician's quest for truth has social consequences that she is oblivious to, the awareness of which would cause her to rearrange her priorities. An (admittedly asinine) example would be asking a person who has complained about their weight why they are taking dessert. A more tactful onlooker may cringe at such displays and yet be unable to think of a persuasive reply to the logician's clueless (/childlike) reaction of "What? I wanted to know" (and its complacent variant "What? I was right, wasn't I?"). I expect that some NTs here are going to disagree with me on this devil but I claim that this particular kind of integrity comes at a cost in the form of loneliness that is generally underestimated by the person pursuing it.

Advice for the NT: Interpret contrary feeling as a sign that there might be relevant factors that your rational analysis is ignoring. Work with the person experiencing the feeling to tease out what is prompting it. Once you are satisfied that you entirely understand the rationale behind the feeling, then you have my blessing to judge it (the rationale) logically.

 

[Veneti]

Verbally, NT's are probably the best are showing that their point is the best and all other points are weaker.
I have an ENTJ father so I have personal experience with this.
Many times I am in some sort of arguement with him and he says something that makes perfect sense and all I can do is say "ok" and walk away.

But other times I don't think what he says is right, but I can't think of anything to say to refute it.

Is the right answer the point that cannot be disproven while all other points relevant can?

Or is it just right because it make the most sense?

My father when I was younger used to argue for the fun of it.

I'd say something that I had learned and he'd just say... "Your wrong".

Which then meant I had to argue the point, and he'd still argue...

I'd end up getting absolute factual evidence and then slamming it down in front of him to prove the point... only then he'd say. Ok, I agree... "but I knew it anyway".

:steam:

 

[Oberon]

Sometimes one of my kids will come to me and say "Daddy, I was in the backyard today and..." and I'll interrupt with "No you weren't."

It used to throw them for a loop. Now they just say "DA-ddy..." and wait for me to get over my little contrarian fit.

 

[runvardh]

Sometimes one of my kids will come to me and say "Daddy, I was in the backyard today and..." and I'll interrupt with "No you weren't."

It used to throw them for a loop. Now they just say "DA-ddy..." and wait for me to get over my little contrarian fit.

Sounds like something an uncle of mine would do for his own shits and giggles.