I don't really like real interpersonal conflict much, but I will lob some balls into a discussion just to see HOW someone responds... not just the content, but how the content is delivered, what their assumptions are, etc. (It's kind of like testing the boundaries of the argument for weaknesses, tap-tapping away.) So I guess I am guilty in that regard. Test, test, test... I want to know where someone is coming from, but often they don't reveal that until you change up the conversation or come at them from an unexpected angle.
I think for Ti people there's a focus directly on the ideas (versus all the interpersonal stuff, until you've been bitten in the butt by it enough and are aware of it and realize the impact... some choose to not care anyway, some choose to avoid going there to save themselves grief), so they can come off as "argumentative" because they're just "testing the ideas" whereas for others, they are more focused on all the other aspects of the conversation and what is appropriate or considerate versus not.
I would say that I don't seek out conflict in most cases, but I am loathe to filter myself, and this is what causes problems for me. I understand that it's expected to keep silent, and yet, I consider that to be almost immoral, so I find it difficult to do. I have learned to do this for expediency in work environments, but in other contexts, I am reluctant to hold things back. Perhaps that's a failing, but I feel that I'm not doing family members a service by shielding them from the root of their problems. For instance, if someone is complaining incessantly about how helpless they are because of back pain, but they were ignoring advice by their physical therapist to do exercise, I'm going to tell them to listen to their therapist. Coddling them won't help them feel any better in the long run.
Sometimes, I suppose, I do get confrontational with people if I can see that they are full of shit, and everyone else seems to be taken in by the illusion. I truly have a hard time seeing why I should just let that go in a social setting. I'll shut my mouth to keep my job, but in social environments, that's a different matter. I almost consider it distasteful to pretend as though the way someone is acting isn't bothering me immensely.
When I see someone that I think is full of shit, I will test them, to see if my suspicions are right. If this is confirmed, then it's hard for me to just let things slide, especially if they're flinging their garbage in my direction (which is usually the case).
I suppose I also get into trouble because if I am accused of something, I'm not going to accept someone's accusations if they don't make any sense. If I am guilty, you should be able to tell me what I am guilty of. If it's "not about morality" then you should be able to explain what problems I've been causing and how I can prevent them. Expecting me to just "figure it out" through contemplation isn't going to work. You have to articulate yourself; I am not perfect, but not all criticisms have merit. I am not going to feel guilty or penitent over baseless bullshit. This is something that, I suppose, can be seen as argumentative, because it's not respectful of "authoritah."
I don't set out to make uncomfortable or do it just for the sport. On rare occasions where I do so deliberately, it's because I perceive (and I've gotten better at perceiving this correctly) that someone's being screwing with me. This may or may not be the proper way to go about things. The other times I've been "argumentative" have either come from a place of trying to provide people with advice so that they can stop wallowing in despair, or because I don't accept the proposition that all ideas and criticisms have merit.
