[ENTP] Do ENTP's feel the need to use objective facts when arguing?

[The Great One]

Okay, so using facts when arguing seems to be much more of a Te thing. However, I've noticed that ENFP's with strong Te do it as well. What I'm wondering is "do ENTP's use objective facts while arguing as well"? It seems like a great way to prove a point, so I commonly use objective facts while arguing, so I'm wondering if I may be a mistyped ENFP with strong Te?

 

[entropie]

intps can go quite deep down the rabbit hole with objective facts as well when arguing.
I dont think that you can define your whole type differently via that single thing.

I always have the impression that I am objective when arguing, but the problem is objectivism lies always in the eye of the beholder and doesnt really exist per se. I tho do know what you mean and how its frustrating for Ne users to talk to argue with Te users. Its not even so that we would want to argue but some Te users seem to always think it's there way or the highway and since that is so, arguing is inevitable. For an Ne user the independence of thought is more important and an arguement is thrilling because of how much abstract thought someone put into it and not because its an unbedanble fact (let alone the fact that all facts are bendable, even this one).

The distinction whether you are an entp or enfp is no easy one, tho there are people who may see that differently. For a primary Ne its not so easy and since we can imagine everything to be, its easy for us to tell ourselves something that might not be the objective truth.

I think if you dont go vertigo if you see glitter or unicorns its a good first indicator for your pness being ent

 

[The Great One]

intps can go quite deep down the rabbit hole with objective facts as well when arguing.
I dont think that you can define your whole type differently via that single thing.

I always have the impression that I am objective when arguing, but the problem is objectivism lies always in the eye of the beholder and doesnt really exist per se. I tho do know what you mean and how its frustrating for Ne users to talk to argue with Te users. Its not even so that we would want to argue but some Te users seem to always think it's there way or the highway and since that is so, arguing is inevitable. For an Ne user the independence of thought is more important and an arguement is thrilling because of how much abstract thought someone put into it and not because its an unbedanble fact (let alone the fact that all facts are bendable, even this one).

The distinction whether you are an entp or enfp is no easy one, tho there are people who may see that differently. For a primary Ne its not so easy and since we can imagine everything to be, its easy for us to tell ourselves something that might not be the objective truth.

I think if you dont go vertigo if you see glitter or unicorns its a good first indicator for your pness being ent

People constantly associate the usage of objective facts with Te users. However, I first pick up things with my intuition then I look for materials to back up my opinions. For God's sake, I can't just use nothing to back up my opinions and go pure Ne with it, or no one will understand what the fuck I'm talking about. Also, what's very ENTP about me is that I often analyze the hell out of "so called" objective facts, and decide by myself if these facts even make sense. I really have my own brand of logic, and this seems much more like Ti to me.

 

[INTP]

i think everyone does that and how well educated you are has more to do with it than type. Any type who doesent know what he is talking about wont be using objective facts as an argument, simply because they dont know about them. And any type who knows these objective facts, will see that its a good idea to use them as evidence to support your opinion in argument.

 

[greenfairy]

Okay, so using facts when arguing seems to be much more of a Te thing. However, I've noticed that ENFP's with strong Te do it as well. What I'm wondering is "do ENTP's use objective facts while arguing as well"? It seems like a great way to prove a point, so I commonly use objective facts while arguing, so I'm wondering if I may be a mistyped ENFP with strong Te?

Arguments consist of premises and logical structure. You can't have a good argument without both. Ti provides the logical structure and Te the truth of the premises (objective facts). While anyone can produce good arguments, the type distribution goes something like the following:
Fe-Ti: mainly focuses on objective facts about human (animate) relations, uses logical arguments to back it up
Fi-Te: mainly focuses on rational argument concerning human (animate) feeling, uses objective facts to back it up
Te-Fi: mainly focuses on objective facts about nonhuman (inanimate) organization, uses personal feeling to back it up
Ti-Fe: mainly focuses on rational arguments about nonhuman (inanimate) ideas, uses human relations to back it up.

 

[The Great One]

Arguments consist of premises and logical structure. You can't have a good argument without both. Ti provides the logical structure and Te the truth of the premises (objective facts). While anyone can produce good arguments, the type distribution goes something like the following:
Fe-Ti: mainly focuses on objective facts about human (animate) relations, uses logical arguments to back it up
Fi-Te: mainly focuses on rational argument concerning human (animate) feeling, uses objective facts to back it up
Te-Fi: mainly focuses on objective facts about nonhuman (inanimate) organization, uses personal feeling to back it up
Ti-Fe: mainly focuses on rational arguments about nonhuman (inanimate) ideas, uses human relations to back it up.

Where did you recieve this information?

 

[RaptorWizard]

Where did you recieve this information?

I believe this to be greenfairy's tertiary Ti construct.

Arguments consist of premises and logical structure. You can't have a good argument without both. Ti provides the logical structure and Te the truth of the premises (objective facts). While anyone can produce good arguments, the type distribution goes something like the following:
Fe-Ti: mainly focuses on objective facts about human (animate) relations, uses logical arguments to back it up
Fi-Te: mainly focuses on rational argument concerning human (animate) feeling, uses objective facts to back it up
Te-Fi: mainly focuses on objective facts about nonhuman (inanimate) organization, uses personal feeling to back it up
Ti-Fe: mainly focuses on rational arguments about nonhuman (inanimate) ideas, uses human relations to back it up.

 

[greenfairy]

Where did you recieve this information?

I believe this to be greenfairy's tertiary Ti construct.

Yep.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I have to admit I didn't understand it either.

Reality is the only truth - Aristotle.

 

[INTP]

I have to admit I didn't understand it either.

Reality is the only truth - Aristotle.

Define reality and how to see it

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

^^^ A good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[The Great One]

Objective argument vs. objective fact. That sounds... Odd. Can I get an example of one and the other...?

Yes, let's look at this argument between the user Halla and I: in this particular thread entitled, "SP's and delayed gratification", I used objective facts to argue and he just umm...didn't. Read the thread to understand what I'm talking about....

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/sp-arthouse/55331-sp-s-delayed-gratification.html

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I use facts when I'm educated on a topic, but truthfully, I'm a fucking illitirit moron, so I have to default to either:
1) shutting the fuck up
2) looking for flaws in logic or principles that are so broad they lead to outrageous consequences
3) tracing arguments back to fundamental values, and then arguing passionately for one set of values

I've also noticed as I've gotten older that (1) the person who can marshal the facts better usually wins and (2) the facts are usually pointless, because there are enough facts to build a case either way, and the difference does come down to differences in values

 

[lunalum]

Approximated objective facts that may or may not actually exist yet, yes

 

[entropie]

Does beer turn yellow when you pee in the bottle ?

 

[skylights]

I think the difference is in application. TPs and FJs tend to utilize facts to demonstrate an underlying system; TJs and FPs tend to utilize facts to demonstrate shared external parameters. One miscommunication that can occur is when the TP/FJ sees their underlying system as logically precise, with all the kinks worked out, but the TJ/FP does not see how it matches up to the situation at hand. You end up with a lovely system, but it's not applicable. Or, alternatively, the TJ/FP sees their understanding of the external parameters as efficient, but the TP sees how the logic breaks down once you cross-contextualize.

As a perhaps-poor but convenient example, TP father just walked into the room and suggested we use the daylight while it's around, and opened the blinds. TP father is very picky-picky about the blinds - he wants them open during the day; closed while the TV is on; closed at night. This all makes sense. However, sometimes I just am tired and want less light. This bothers TP father, who feels like it doesn't make sense to have the blinds closed during the day. On some level, he is right. I do have a bedroom that is available for sleeping, it has less light, and if someone else wanted to use the den, they could. But on the Te level, if what I want is less light, the most expedient thing is to close the blinds. So you can see how TP father has a logical system, but it doesn't match up to what would be most effective for me. Or you could equally say that I'm being a pain by not just using different rooms they way they're meant to be used, creating unnecessary conflict through ad-hoc usage.

Probably the best way to differentiate TJ versus TP and FJ versus FP is to ask yourself whether you are more concerned with external efficiency or more concerned with internal validity. J seeks what works; P seeks the universal ideal.

 

[entropie]

 

[The Great One]

I think the difference is in application. TPs and FJs tend to utilize facts to demonstrate an underlying system; TJs and FPs tend to utilize facts to demonstrate shared external parameters. One miscommunication that can occur is when the TP/FJ sees their underlying system as logically precise, with all the kinks worked out, but the TJ/FP does not see how it matches up to the situation at hand. You end up with a lovely system, but it's not applicable. Or, alternatively, the TJ/FP sees their understanding of the external parameters as efficient, but the TP sees how the logic breaks down once you cross-contextualize.

As a perhaps-poor but convenient example, TP father just walked into the room and suggested we use the daylight while it's around, and opened the blinds. TP father is very picky-picky about the blinds - he wants them open during the day; closed while the TV is on; closed at night. This all makes sense. However, sometimes I just am tired and want less light. This bothers TP father, who feels like it doesn't make sense to have the blinds closed during the day. On some level, he is right. I do have a bedroom that is available for sleeping, it has less light, and if someone else wanted to use the den, they could. But on the Te level, if what I want is less light, the most expedient thing is to close the blinds. So you can see how TP father has a logical system, but it doesn't match up to what would be most effective for me. Or you could equally say that I'm being a pain by not just using different rooms they way they're meant to be used, creating unnecessary conflict through ad-hoc usage.

Probably the best way to differentiate TJ versus TP and FJ versus FP is to ask yourself whether you are more concerned with external efficiency or more concerned with internal validity. J seeks what works; P seeks the universal ideal.

Well, that's my problem: I have all of these crazy ideas, but it's like I need to go out in the external world and confirm them with research and facts. A lot of times though, I don't give a shit what the facts say, and I just know that my ideas are true. I think that Ti is one of the most difficult functions to identify.

 

[skylights]

Well, that's my problem: I have all of these crazy ideas, but it's like I need to go out in the external world and confirm them with research and facts. A lot of times though, I don't give a shit what the facts say, and I just know that my ideas are true. I think that Ti is one of the most difficult functions to identify.

I guess it usually seems pretty clear to me because I'm so used to living with two Ti-doms!

To me it always seems about internally-logical systems. Like how you organize your CD collection, or what the house temperature should be, or what the best speed to drive at is, or how best to approach a problem, or anything that requires a determination of logical priority to make an idealized system. And I can tell it's different from Te because Ti seeks the system that is "ultimately" right, not what is most expedient. Keirsey might call NFs idealists but I think Ti is a very idealistic function. It's like you said, you know your ideas are [internally] right/logical so the external parameters aren't as important to you. It's the same with Fi, sometimes you know your feelings are internally valid/ethical so the external reaction or implications of acting on or expressing those feelings aren't as important to you.

 

[The Great One]

I guess it usually seems pretty clear to me because I'm so used to living with two Ti-doms!

To me it always seems about internally-logical systems. Like how you organize your CD collection, or what the house temperature should be, or what the best speed to drive at is, or how best to approach a problem, or anything that requires a determination of logical priority to make an idealized system. And I can tell it's different from Te because Ti seeks the system that is "ultimately" right, not what is most expedient. Keirsey might call NFs idealists but I think Ti is a very idealistic function. It's like you said, you know your ideas are [internally] right/logical so the external parameters aren't as important to you. It's the same with Fi, sometimes you know your feelings are internally valid/ethical so the external reaction or implications of acting on or expressing those feelings aren't as important to you.

Then you are implying that I am indeed a Ti user then?