• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] NT and debate vs discussion

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I've never suggested anything of the sort, though. You are shifting to another argument which is in violation with your own rules for a rational discussion. Please, reread my post, it was very clear and concise.
Not at all. This part of the discussion has always been about relative degrees of bias in people. If you don't think NTs are less likely to be subject to bias, then either you think it affects everyone to the same degree, or that it is some subset other than NTs who are less affected. If the latter, then which group would that be?

I don't think they look hostile at all. I think everyone in this thread is only seeing what they want to.
Hostile, no, but definitely not above board. If you (general) think someone is seeing only what they want to see, you can enlighten them, especially when they ask, or allow them to continue in ignorance so you can continue to criticise.

i didn't have a clear idea of what the agenda was, but i knew it wasn't as simple as curiousity... i am glad i didn't reply then because it is more difficult to respond to someone when you have no idea why a question is being asked and what they actually want to know... i'm not opposed to informing someone, but i dislike trying to ferret out what is actually going on...
I agree, especially because I don't trust that what I ferret out will be accurate. That being said, while it is nice to know why someone is asking something, I have no problem addressing the question at face value. This usually coaxes the truth out sooner or later.

What in the world is going on in here... The thread should be about Ti/Ne views on discussion/debate as compared to Te/Ni, as this thread demonstrates the differences quite well. :D
There's no reason the thread cannot proceed in this direction, especially now that the purpose of the OP seems to have been overtaken by events.
 

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
Not at all. This part of the discussion has always been about relative degrees of bias in people. If you don't think NTs are less likely to be subject to bias, then either you think it affects everyone to the same degree, or that it is some subset other than NTs who are less affected. If the latter, then which group would that be?
You have no information of bias level across different cognitive groups. All you did is to cite one study involving a small representative group which shows that people have different level of biases. How this corresponds to NT or any other group is a wild speculation, which contradicts point 3 (the part that requires evidences) from you rational discussion algorithm. You actually already violated all the other points, starting from the entry one, so I guess this isn't a discussion after all.

My guess would be that every group is prone to certain type of biases. Ours tend to assume that we are always right. Example:
If you (general) think someone is seeing only what they want to see, you can enlighten them, especially when they ask, or allow them to continue in ignorance so you can continue to criticise.
 

Yuurei

Noncompliant
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
4,509
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
You have no information of bias level across different cognitive groups. All you did is to cite one study involving a small representative group which shows that people have different level of biases. How this corresponds to NT or any other group is a wild speculation, which contradicts point 3 (the part that requires evidences) from you rational discussion algorithm. You actually already violated all the other points, starting from the entry one, so I guess this isn't a discussion after all.

My guess would be that every group is prone to certain type of biases. Ours tend to assume that we are always right. Example:[/QUOTE]

“ Ours” don’t speak for me.

I am not so insecure as to feel that I need prove my intelleckshualism or be correct all the time. Life would be pointless if we had nothing to learn.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
A lot of younger ‘intellectuals’ seem to be self-blind and full of themselves. When one comes to the realization that they really know nothing, it’s like getting hit in the face with humble pie.

Then the real fun begins. :)
 

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
A lot of younger ‘intellectuals’ seem to be self-blind and full of themselves. When one comes to the realization that they really know nothing, it’s like getting hit in the face with humble pie.

Then the real fun begins. :)
This is exactly what I tried to say and to demonstrate it, because for some reason I find it necessary to back my statements with facts especially if I am accusing someone of something. Facts are a very humbling thing indeed... But why when Coriolis uses the same tactics, no-one sees any problem in it is a very interesting discrepancy.

I apologize to anyone who finds my 'intellectualism' offensive, and I can assure you that I learn stuff from others too, otherwise I wouldn't be here at all. If we don't extract the same information from communication, it's because we are different, not a reason to find personal insult in it.

On a side note, I think this taste for drama is begging for trolls.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
You have no information of bias level across different cognitive groups. All you did is to cite one study involving a small representative group which shows that people have different level of biases. How this corresponds to NT or any other group is a wild speculation, which contradicts point 3 (the part that requires evidences) from you rational discussion algorithm. You actually already violated all the other points, starting from the entry one, so I guess this isn't a discussion after all.

My guess would be that every group is prone to certain type of biases. Ours tend to assume that we are always right. Example:
You, like Eilonwy, missed the point of that reference. You are missing it the second time, after I clarified why I cited it. (That violates your rule 2.) The specific study was irrelevant. The important part was the introduction and background information which explained as an accepted premise that not everyone is affected by bias to the same degree. It is the position that is more reasonable and has more evidence that should be accepted. Definitive proof is not required. Perhaps the third time will be the charm. While your "guess" is not unreasonable, it says nothing about the degree of bias experienced by subsets of people. NTs may indeed be more affected by a bias that we are always right, but if we are relatively free of other kinds, on balance we may be less biased.
 

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
You, like Eilonwy, missed the point of that reference. You are missing it the second time, after I clarified why I cited it. (That violates your rule 2.) The specific study was irrelevant. The important part was the introduction and background information which explained as an accepted premise that not everyone is affected by bias to the same degree. It is the position that is more reasonable and has more evidence that should be accepted. Definitive proof is not required. Perhaps the third time will be the charm. While your "guess" is not unreasonable, it says nothing about the degree of bias experienced by subsets of people. NTs may indeed be more affected by a bias that we are always right, but if we are relatively free of other kinds, on balance we may be less biased.
I didn't miss that point, but there is no logical reference to the NT group whatsoever. You are just as biased as Eilonwy, only have different biases. In any case, you're not in a position to enlighten anyone ;)
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
i recalled this thread and felt that my only contributions served to derail the topic... in the interest of rectifying that, here is my take on things...

it came to my attention earlier that this thread came about because of someone rationalizing wrong doing... i am fully capable of doing that when i feel attacked... regardless of my guilt or the lack thereof, i am capable of finding all sorts of reasons/excuses for my behavior... generally if things start off calm, i am more likely to see/admit where i fucked up... the harder i am pushed, the harder i will push back... there are some cases where i simply wouldn't have a leg to stand on, and in those cases i can be snide if i am approached agressively... on the other hand, if someone points something out and leaves me to stew on it, i am much more likely to see where i was at fault quickly (if i was indeed at fault)... i can get really stubborn about admiting guilt if i feel my treatment was harsh... i don't think that any of that is really type specific, but it relates to what you were talking about... if you have questions, i can awnser them...
 

pmg_entp

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
12
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
It doesn't seem as those this thread has many responses from a xNTP, so I wanted to weigh in...

Although, yes, the words "You are right" are literal music to my ears, it is usually not the end result I'm after. In fact, when I begin or engage in a debate/discussion it's more of a knee-jerk, in-the-moment reaction and I'm not concerned with the final result. I'm into the sport for the fun of the game, not the trophies. When I challenge someone or play devil's advocate, I'm not looking to tear them down... I want to understand them.

As I've gotten older, I've realized that most people do not consider engaging in passionate debates to be a fun pastime. I've learned to become hyper-aware of who I can and can't debate with, as it tends to drive most people away (I wonder why!?)

I really love learning new things, gaining a deep understanding of people, and talking. A discussion is a matter-of-fact interaction, and for the logical NTs, of course it exists. A debate is what I think we prefer and I often have to catch myself if I'm getting too fired up when it isn't reciprocated. I understand it comes off as dominating and competitive, but I think most XNTPs would consider their motives misunderstood.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
Do NTs only think in terms of debate? In other words, every communication is part of a zero-sum game (win/lose, dominate/submit)? Or does discussion exist in the NT vocabulary?

Sounds like a T vs. F thing. Here's a long analysis on psychological grounds. For the tl;dr version, see the final paragraph.

Anyway, I saw a nice way of putting this issue in a book "Mastery" by Robert Greene. Greene said that the most creative way to tackle any issue is to see it from two directions. A particularly ideal way to engage in problem-solving from two directions is to engage in both "thinking into" and "reading into" a problem. From the description, he was clearly talking about marrying or merging together a rational (T) approach and an emotional or empathetic (F) approach.

His argument was that if you only use F or T alone, then when you encounter difficulties you tend to double down on that mono-directional approach, start white-knuckling and getting stressed, and reach a point of tunnel vision where you can only see your own point and can't see any other options that might be available.

For example in the mono-directional approach that only uses T alone, when the rational (T) person comes under pressure, his natural instinct will be to double down on the rational approach, i.e., insist that only a rational approach is valid, engage in word vomit, nit-picking, lawyering, hair-splitting, etc. to prove his point.

Similarly in the mono-directional approach that only uses F alone, when the emotional/empathetic (F) person comes under pressure, his natural instinct will be to double down on the emotional approach, i.e., insist that only an emotional approach is valid, engage in feelings-based appeals, blame, guilt, bully, tirade, etc. to prove his point.

Greene advises using a two-direction approach. Be able to both "think into" (rationalize) and "read into" (empathize with) a problem. Switching back and forth avoids the problem of white-knuckling and tunnel vision and leads to greater creativity overall because you're staying open to new possibilities instead of doubling down on a single favorite proposition or approach.

Again, this is basically just a T vs. F thing. And Greene isn't the only one to point it out. The book "Against Empathy" by Paul Bloom (a Professor of Psychology at Yale) points out that both empathy and rationality are flawed when used alone. They have to be used together. The full title of his book is: "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion."

Finally, Jung said that if a person is strongly T, then his F side tends to be repressed and vice versa. In such cases, we all favor our strong side and react with stress and fear at the appearance of the repressed function in ourselves and others. But if we learn to embrace our repressed function, we come to a point of understanding and creativity. In fact, marriage of both functions is pretty much a prerequisite for true creativity. That tends to be why young people are often more creative than older people: Older people often get set in their ways and focus their efforts on honing their stronger function, leaving the other function to disappear into repression.

That's it. Anyway, here's the Tl;dr version:

When a Feeler asks "Why do T's have to turn every communication into a debate, like it's a zero-sum game?", the appropriate response from a Thinker is to ask "Why do F's have to turn every communication into a feelings-fest, devoid of intelligence and analysis?" Both questions are equally true and equally misleading based on what I said above.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Nobody defined the terms at the outset of this thread, that being so can anyone say that anyone in the thread has been using the words debate and discussion and been referring to the same things?

I dont see debate as necessarily a zero sum game. I dont see there being a dichotomy of debate vs. discussion. I dont think that intuition or thinking or intuitive thinking lends itself more to debate or discussion as I understand it. There is also the alternative of dialogue, not considered in the OP but different from debate and discussion as I understand those terms.

Finally, I would say that what is popularly understood as debate, ie games playing, is generally disputes.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Nobody defined the terms at the outset of this thread, that being so can anyone say that anyone in the thread has been using the words debate and discussion and been referring to the same things?

I dont see debate as necessarily a zero sum game. I dont see there being a dichotomy of debate vs. discussion. I dont think that intuition or thinking or intuitive thinking lends itself more to debate or discussion as I understand it. There is also the alternative of dialogue, not considered in the OP but different from debate and discussion as I understand those terms.

Finally, I would say that what is popularly understood as debate, ie games playing, is generally disputes.
I went by the OP's description of debate being "every communication is part of a zero-sum game (win/lose, dominate/submit)". Discussion would then be a conversation that does not have that sense of competition or stakes associated with it. My first post pointed out that most daily communications fit neither category. I can also see that one person might consider a conversation a debate if they feel they have something at stake that they will "lose" if the conversation doesn't go a certain way; while the other person might have no such investment in it, and consider it a simple exchange of information. That may be part of the misunderstanding or disconnect when such arises.
 

Tilt

Active member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
2,584
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't see a discernible pattern in most of my interactions. But then, I try really hard to frame contentious points as thought experiences/differing perspectives.
 
Top