[NT] NT preference for semantic-based arguments

[Mad Hatter]

We're generally not doing this just to annoy you, but rather because we insist on having a common language defined before any meaningful discussion can occur.

This. Most times we don't do it to annoy, we actually want to make things clear before proceeding, so we don't get caught in traps or assign you to arguments that are not yours.

Setting the definitions is necessary so that discussing doesn't become a guessing game - but I can understand how annoying it is if it doesn't move beyond that. Once terms have been found that have been agreed upon, it's bad debating style to go back and try to re-define them just to suit one's argument.
And of course vagueness can be exploited (i.e. implying something that wasn't there, but which is semantically possible - as has been said before). It's common rhetoric strategy, which can find a leverage point on many levels. The logic is one of them, the semantics/phrasing of it is another.

 

[jenocyde]

Yeah, it can be annoying. NFPs do this as well, just in a different context. Trying to get to the "heart" of the matter, the authenticity, the connection between people. Ne can be a beast depending on what function it is being processed through.

But I'd rather I be annoying for 5 minutes than create a situation where you've been grossly misunderstood. It's a toss up, and situation dependent.

 

[teslashock]

Yeah, it can be annoying. NFPs do this as well, just in a different context. Trying to get to the "heart" of the matter, the authenticity, the connection between people. Ne can be a beast depending on what function it is being processed through.

Very true. NFPs won't stop pressing you until they've figured out exactly how you're feeling and how your choice of words aligns with your "feelings" (and some times they are a bit presumptuous and prematurely assign a feeling to your words, even before reaching the "heart of the matter"). This whole ordeal can be kind of annoying for me because often times I'm not trying to assign a connotative feeling to my word choice, and they overanalyze the emotional implication to death.

Perhaps it's fair to say that Ne/Ti wants to reveal the impersonally true meaning of one's words (more denotatively), while Ne/Fi wants to reveal the emotional undertones (more connotatively).

 

[Mad Hatter]

I think NTPs are also quite capable of (or prone to) discussing connotations of words in an argumentative context, but I'd say that they regard it more or less as a tool to help them making their point (which can sometimes amount to deliberate misunderstanding and ridicule) whereas with NFPs these emotional connotations can become so important that non-personal aspects of an issue get lost.

 

[jenocyde]

I think NTPs are also quite capable (or prone) to discuss connotations of words in an argumentative context, but I'd say that they regard it more or less as a tool whereas with NFPs these emotional connotations can be as important or more important than the matter at hand.

I disagree. I think the level of importance is the same, if the probing is honorable and in good faith. Ti is just as important to Ti users as Fi is to Fi users. We just value different things.

And you can't tell me that every NFP who probes to uncomfortable levels is doing so with everyone's best interest at all times. Sometimes, people act like jerks. Feelers and thinkers alike.

 

[Mad Hatter]

I disagree. I think the level of importance is the same, if the probing is honorable and in good faith. Ti is just as important to Ti users as Fi is to Fi users. We just value different things.

And you can't tell me that every NFP who probes to uncomfortable levels is doing so with everyone's best interest at all times. Sometimes, people act like jerks. Feelers and thinkers alike.

I think the if is really important because my point was that semantic nitpicking / hearing emotional subtext where there is non are perhaps the two most likely ways for a conversation to go wrong for Ti- and Fi-users respectively.

I'm really not trying to defend Fi-ers against Ti-ers or vice versa (I hope the edit of my post I was made while you were writing your reply makes that a bit clearer; sorry that I'm really prone to editing my posts ). I truly acknowledge the universality of human jerkdom as one life's few great certainties - irrespective of type

 

[jenocyde]

I think the if is really important because my point was that semantic nitpicking / hearing emotional subtext where there is non are perhaps the two most likely ways for a conversation to go wrong for Ti- and Fi-users respectively.

I'm really not trying to defend Fi-ers against Ti-ers or vice versa (I hope the edit of my post I was made while you were writing your reply makes that a bit clearer; sorry that I'm really prone to editing my posts ). I truly acknowledge the universality of human jerkdom as one life's few great certainties - irrespective of type

Ahh yes, you have made yourself quite clear, and I quite agree!

 

[onemoretime]

Semantic arguments are used to obviate the framework of assumptions that many often use to ensure their own victory in any sort of debate/argument. xNTPs argue semantics to bring things back to a level playing field, and not play by the other person's rules.

Whenever we hear someone complain "you're just arguing semantics", that's a clear sign that the other person knows they're in trouble, and out of their element.

 

[theadoor]

NTs aren't trying to start semantic arguments.

We listen to the words you say to us and then respond to their meaning.

This.

 

[simulatedworld]

Very true. NFPs won't stop pressing you until they've figured out exactly how you're feeling and how your choice of words aligns with your "feelings" (and some times they are a bit presumptuous and prematurely assign a feeling to your words, even before reaching the "heart of the matter"). This whole ordeal can be kind of annoying for me because often times I'm not trying to assign a connotative feeling to my word choice, and they overanalyze the emotional implication to death.

+8974573

 

[Shimmy]

I hate arguing semantics in serious matters. I do do it in fun discussions to frustrate people though.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

I've seen this mainly with INTP's and to a lesser extent ENTP's. The former can use semantics as a crutch to support their argument when they either fail to see or understand the larger argument or perceive they are losing the argument and hold on strongly to the one area of inconsistency, however minor to the main discussion, that they can be correct to argue against.

ENTP's can't ever seem to hide a smile when they do this and therefore you can see right through them.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't understand where this behavior comes from. Is it because they've spent so much time around people that this works on? What is the best way to respond so that the argument can be settled without stooping to the same level? Thanks in advance.

They like to yank your crank, and enjoy seeing you get in a tizzy when you confront such an argument.

Obviously it worked.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I hate arguing semantics in serious matters. I do do it in fun discussions to frustrate people though.

Almost all ENTP's do that, and i'm pretty sure that's what our friend is running in to!

I do it to people on purpose who are taking an argument too seriously.........not just semantics, though, i'll stir all sorts of logical arguments and illogical arguments, and even a few logical fallacies in to the argument just to see what they come up with in response.