• 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

Eilonwy

Vulnerability
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
7,051
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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?
 

j.c.t.

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
387
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Discussion is closer to what I favour.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
there are very few people who do either strictly, without indulging in the other... i would suggest you widen your social circle to find clarity if this isn't obvious...
 

Firebird 8118

DJ Phoenix
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
3,134
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
279
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I've had enough - more than enough - conversations with my mom and BF on a variety of subjects, to say with certainty that this isn't true.

Sure, NTs tend to see things from a more logical perspective, but not to the point where every conversation becomes a debate or whatnot. In fact, the NTs in my life are often so kind and patient with someone like me, that it becomes so easy to openly share ideas with each other and expand each other's views through even the most casual talks. :D

Well... I love it at least... :blush::heart:
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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?
I guarantee when I ask a clerk in the grocery store where I can find artichoke hearts, I am not looking for debate. So no, every communication is not viewed as a debate. (See what I did there, though? More below.)

At the risk of speaking for NTs, or perhaps just for INTJs, though, we don't do well with being told we are wrong. We have to be shown we are wrong - whether on a deep philosophical topic, or on a simple logistical matter like whether the restaurant you suggest we go to is open on Mondays. We also don't have much patience with sloppy reasoning, faulty assumptions, unsupportable generalizations, or clinging to debunked facts. It is our tendency to call out such things that often leads others to perceive our discussion style as "debate" rather than discussion. The only winner we want to see, though, is the truth, or the right answer, "right" here being the one that will actually work (e.g. we don't waste time going to a restaurant that is closed). If you teach us something new, or show us where we were in error, we usually will count ourselves among the winners, so no, it is very much not a zero sum game. We all win if we come away knowing more, and having a perspective closer to the truth.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
Ha! No. It's safe to deny it.
Sometimes it's debate, other times it's discussion where the latter can be construed as the former, reliant on how sensitive the individual to blunt questions.
 

Agent Washington

Softserve Ice Cream
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
2,053
Eh, if they're worth talking to, their viewpoint is worth considering. A debate doesn't have to be win/lose. A zero sum game is really more like an argument.
 

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
15,908
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
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?

Far more discussions and communications than debate. I don't have the energy or tolerance for more.
 

Yuurei

Noncompliant
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
4,509
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8w7
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?

Good Lord no. What most call “ debate” I call petty bickering. I used to enjoy it but after debating a particular subject often, I had a suddan moment if clarity:

It said “ Why are you STILL doing this? Facts are only what the other person wants to believe and you will get nowhere. This is a waste of your time and energy.”

Furthermore, unless we are debating a split-second decision with lives hanging in the balence, I just don’t care enough about what other people think..

My best freind loves to debate. She considers it a sport like the Greeks. Her and my husband get into very...err..passiobate debates. I often go outside when they do. It’s just aggrivating noise to me.

I do greatly enjoy a civil duscussion. Unfortunatly, those are so rare anymore. It seems like people are incapable of voicing any opinion at all anymore without petty bickering and there are about a million more imprtant things to do with ones life
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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?

It all depends on the conversation, person, and position.

I adjust my "debate" or "discussion" depending on what type of person I am talking to. Most shrink away, so I tend to try an emotional reasoning approach for those who are more idealistic. But when confronted by other thinking types, it depends on how much of an independant thinker they are, rather than "I am going to regurgitate all these "facts" I learned." I have little patience for people with unshakable faith in education, than using logic.

I also don't like authority, but will appease them if need be and do the opposite (right way) and not let them know usually. Lol
 

Lib

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Messages
577
People from all types could enjoy a good debate.

But when confronted by other thinking types, it depends on how much of an independant thinker they are, rather than "I am going to regurgitate all these "facts" I learned." I have little patience for people with unshakable faith in education, than using logic.
It's sad when education doesn't provoke people to think on their own, but most of the time it's a personal choice of the student. Facts hold logic, though.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,117
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
People from all types could enjoy a good debate.


It's sad when education doesn't provoke people to think on their own, but most of the time it's a personal choice of the student. Facts hold logic, though.

I don't disagree, and I am more referring to things that are not solid facts (like there is no god, theories etc) I also strongly believe that entertaining "what ifs", is intellectually important. I've met people far too rigid, or stubborn to accept things simply based on the fact it either hasn't been done before.
 

Eilonwy

Vulnerability
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
7,051
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Thank you to everyone who replied. I've been in a bit of an experience bubble lately and felt the need to ask the question so I could gather more realistic info.


I guarantee when I ask a clerk in the grocery store where I can find artichoke hearts, I am not looking for debate. So no, every communication is not viewed as a debate. (See what I did there, though? More below.)
No, I don't see what you did. Would you mind explaining?

At the risk of speaking for NTs, or perhaps just for INTJs, though, we don't do well with being told we are wrong. We have to be shown we are wrong - whether on a deep philosophical topic, or on a simple logistical matter like whether the restaurant you suggest we go to is open on Mondays. We also don't have much patience with sloppy reasoning, faulty assumptions, unsupportable generalizations, or clinging to debunked facts. It is our tendency to call out such things that often leads others to perceive our discussion style as "debate" rather than discussion. The only winner we want to see, though, is the truth, or the right answer, "right" here being the one that will actually work (e.g. we don't waste time going to a restaurant that is closed). If you teach us something new, or show us where we were in error, we usually will count ourselves among the winners, so no, it is very much not a zero sum game. We all win if we come away knowing more, and having a perspective closer to the truth.
I've found it's sometimes next to impossible to come up with the evidence that will convince anyone (not just NTs) that they're wrong. No one has all the information, so they cling to what they know. Logical as you are, you're also human and are subject to this, too. And some of you NTs are stubborn as all get out and won't accept anything except the "right" evidence. Using your definition of "right", that may be what works for the NT in certain cases, because convincing someone that they're wrong is much easier when the subject is concrete (the restaurant is open on Monday) than when the subject is abstract, such as moral arguments, or arguments involving memory (this happened, no that happened). Also, I'm pretty sure that NTs are subject to all the brain issues that other people are subject to, such as memory loss, cognitive illusions, bias, etc., and thus sometimes that adherence to logic may need a reality check but may also not be able to be convinced of that.

That said, my OP statement falls apart because "not all NTs".

---------------------------------

Sometimes it's debate, other times it's discussion where the latter can be construed as the former, reliant on how sensitive the individual to blunt questions.

Questions, even blunt ones, show a willingness to discuss, imo.

---------------------------------

there are very few people who do either strictly, without indulging in the other... i would suggest you widen your social circle to find clarity if this isn't obvious...

Thanks for helping me clarify my thinking. While it's true that very few people do either strictly, I'm making a distinction between what people do and how they think. I can't know how NTs think unless I ask, and that's much easier on a typology forum than in real life.

---------------------------------

Good Lord no. What most call “ debate” I call petty bickering. I used to enjoy it but after debating a particular subject often, I had a suddan moment if clarity:

It said “ Why are you STILL doing this? Facts are only what the other person wants to believe and you will get nowhere. This is a waste of your time and energy.”

Furthermore, unless we are debating a split-second decision with lives hanging in the balence, I just don’t care enough about what other people think..

My best freind loves to debate. She considers it a sport like the Greeks. Her and my husband get into very...err..passiobate debates. I often go outside when they do. It’s just aggrivating noise to me.

I do greatly enjoy a civil duscussion. Unfortunatly, those are so rare anymore. It seems like people are incapable of voicing any opinion at all anymore without petty bickering and there are about a million more imprtant things to do with ones life

The bolded is along the lines of what I'm asking. It's sport. It's enjoyable. It can be what one defaults to because it's enjoyable. Does your best friend have discussions with you?
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
No, I don't see what you did. Would you mind explaining?
I called out a blanket generalization by presenting a common exception. Not only isn't it "all NTs", but it also isn't "every communication". As with other types, I expect the vast majority of our communications are utilitarian exchanges like my example: talking to store clerks, or the dental hygienist, or the payroll office at work. Every so often, one of these might turn into an adversarial situation that could fit your model of debate vs. discussion, but that is rare, and when it does I usually have some pretty good reasons for pressing the issue. "What I did there" was to use our exchange to illustrate the way I will often call something like that out, even if I don't consider it to fit what you describe as "debate".

I've found it's sometimes next to impossible to come up with the evidence that will convince anyone (not just NTs) that they're wrong. No one has all the information, so they cling to what they know. Logical as you are, you're also human and are subject to this, too. And some of you NTs are stubborn as all get out and won't accept anything except the "right" evidence. Using your definition of "right", that may be what works for the NT in certain cases, because convincing someone that they're wrong is much easier when the subject is concrete (the restaurant is open on Monday) than when the subject is abstract, such as moral arguments, or arguments involving memory (this happened, no that happened). Also, I'm pretty sure that NTs are subject to all the brain issues that other people are subject to, such as memory loss, cognitive illusions, bias, etc., and thus sometimes that adherence to logic may need a reality check but may also not be able to be convinced of that.
Your generalization about humans is, of course, unassailable. Just the fact that we can identify a subset which we label "NTs", however, suggests some significant differences in how people process information and make decisions. Some people really are less subject to cognitive illusions and bias, or at least are more able (and more willing?) to recognize this and take steps to compensate for it. Some people also employ strategies to compensate for poor memory, while others won't bother. Much of this behavior is learned, but then again we learn it because it is important to us.

And yes, there is a "right" kind of evidence, or at least evidence varies in how relevant and convincing it is. My previous message included some examples of poor evidence: faulty assumptions, unsupportable generalizations, and debunked facts. You might be surprised how many people rely on such things. Sometimes you almost have to assume or generalize, but at least that can be acknowledged up front, along with what you recognize as the limitations or possible errors involved.

Moral arguments are fine, as long as they are understood as such and not used in place of facts (think Earth-centered model of the universe, or more recently, the anti-vaccine movement). A sound decision is based on a logical process that includes both objective (facts) and subjective (values) inputs. You and I might differ on the second; it's when we cannot agree on the first that it is a problem.

Finally arguments about memory are pointless, unless there is some way of independently verifying what happened. If that is not possible and a decision must be made, we must then base it on what can be known with confidence, considering possible values that unknown quantity might take on.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
I think the exploratory nature of NTs combine with their thirst for knowledge makes for an individual eager to sponge up the unknown, but because they favor subjective internal organization to some extent (be it via Si or Ni pairing with Ti or Fi respectively), being wrong can be a sore spot for them, so you'll tend to sense some defensiveness or evasiveness in debate when something new is thrown at them that they haven't had time to assimilate into their system of thought.

I notice with INTPs, that they tend to lean to defensiveness or counterattack substantially more than INTJs, because of inferior Fe (sensitivity about their place in the world). With INTJs, they tend to lean to the evasive side as a coping strategy, either reworking what they already know but saying it in a different way, or suddenly piecing things together in a new way, almost as if saying "Aha! But you haven't looked at it from this angle yet! I got you now!" That's because their sensitivity revolves around inferior Se, so when new info is sprung at them, they struggle to respond openly in the moment because it threatens their internal worldview.

Overall though, I think after the fact, INTJs are a little less die hard stubborn and can walk away from things with less upset because they aren't as heavily invested in balancing the scale of Je and Ji, so it's less about "I am right and you are wrong!" than it is for INTPs.

I neglected the extroverts... sorry - I only have solid experience with introverts of both types.
 

Eilonwy

Vulnerability
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
7,051
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think the exploratory nature of NTs combine with their thirst for knowledge makes for an individual eager to sponge up the unknown, but because they favor subjective internal organization to some extent (be it via Si or Ni pairing with Ti or Fi respectively), being wrong can be a sore spot for them, so you'll tend to sense some defensiveness or evasiveness in debate when something new is thrown at them that they haven't had time to assimilate into their system of thought.

I notice with INTPs, that they tend to lean to defensiveness or counterattack substantially more than INTJs, because of inferior Fe (sensitivity about their place in the world). With INTJs, they tend to lean to the evasive side as a coping strategy, either reworking what they already know but saying it in a different way, or suddenly piecing things together in a new way, almost as if saying "Aha! But you haven't looked at it from this angle yet! I got you now!" That's because their sensitivity revolves around inferior Se, so when new info is sprung at them, they struggle to respond openly in the moment because it threatens their internal worldview.

Overall though, I think after the fact, INTJs are a little less die hard stubborn and can walk away from things with less upset because they aren't as heavily invested in balancing the scale of Je and Ji, so it's less about "I am right and you are wrong!" than it is for INTPs.

I neglected the extroverts... sorry - I only have solid experience with introverts of both types.

Thank you! This was educational as well as humanizing.
 

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 notice with INTPs, that they tend to lean to defensiveness or counterattack substantially more than INTJs, because of inferior Fe (sensitivity about their place in the world). With INTJs, they tend to lean to the evasive side as a coping strategy, either reworking what they already know but saying it in a different way, or suddenly piecing things together in a new way, almost as if saying "Aha! But you haven't looked at it from this angle yet! I got you now!" That's because their sensitivity revolves around inferior Se, so when new info is sprung at them, they struggle to respond openly in the moment because it threatens their internal worldview.
Interesting how you describe this. I sometimes find, when I am disagreeing with someone, that they will say something - a piece of information I didn't have, or a different way of viewing something - that does reveal a different way of "piecing things together". In these cases, usually both I and the other person were wrong in our original positions, and only through discussing and combining what we know do we reach the better or more accurate perspective.
 

Peter Deadpan

phallus impudicus
Joined
Dec 14, 2016
Messages
8,883
Interesting how you describe this. I sometimes find, when I am disagreeing with someone, that they will say something - a piece of information I didn't have, or a different way of viewing something - that does reveal a different way of "piecing things together". In these cases, usually both I and the other person were wrong in our original positions, and only through discussing and combining what we know do we reach the better or more accurate perspective.

Do you find that thinking aloud helps, and more importantly, that sometime after the conversation, you are able to have deeper more expansive insights into the subject?

That's how I view INTJs. I think their debate style is actually quite cool and collected, but I can sometimes sense the "uh oh, I didn't see this before" dynamic flowing beneath the surface. I don't think they like to let on to others that they don't fully understand something in the moment and will instead attempt to rework their knowledge to support themselves, whether it involve incorporating the new info or walking around it by sidestepping the topic at hand almost artfully.

Actually, now that I think about it, that's pretty much what I do in debate.
 
Top