It strikes me as odd that there is any other reason to debate!
To be fair, I like fact-collecting etc as much as anyone, but I like it when all involved parties go into it admitting to themselves and everyone else that they don't have all information on the topic, and they're essentially going on a fact-finding mission... instead of going into it as if you have a strong opinion and then switching opinions without warning. Honestly, I think the whole communication issue would be solved if the other party would just say "I don't necessarily agree with this, BUT..." or if they would make sure not to sound or appear confrontational. In my mind, when you get emotionally involved in a debate, it's something you agree with. And if you get really passionate about both sides, that confuses the shit out of me!
Definitely. The statement before this I completely disagree with (because I don't want to walk on eggshells with my friends), but this statement is totally true. Nothing good ever comes out of debating morals - unless both parties are debating morals that they are emotionally detached from.
Question...
How can I keep information private from an STJ? I am going to be doing an activity for 2 hours that I don't want the STJ to know about.
...What do I say here? Is she asking because she actually wants to know? I don't want to lie to her, but I don't want to tell her. It doesn't concern her. It's personal. I really don't think it's relevant.
Is she a jealous person - to the point that if you were vague, she'd keep asking questions? If she is, I have no good advice for you. But if not, you could just say "I have a meeting" or "I'm going to a lunch" or "I'm meeting some people" or something along those lines.
Don't know about other ENTJs but no, I don't nag and hate being nagged. It's okay for someone to want to live a different life and be different. Perhaps that's the cognitive function difference of Ni vs. Si. Ni can shift perspectives but Si is attached to concrete values.
Makes sense.
And it explains how my INTJ friends can see something done wrong, complain about it, do nothing to fix it, and not feel bad that they didn't do anything - which has always baffled me.
When she nags me, I push her back and she shuts up for awhile. Then it starts all over again and I keep pushing her back. While in the past, I've put up with her boundary pushing, lately, I've been losing patience. Tempted to just cut her off.
Probably better to tell her exactly why you're doing what you're doing instead of what she wants you to do. That will reassure her - all she really wants is a reason to not be concerned. And if you show (in a non-snippy way
) that you're on top of things, it ought to work. I know that's temporary, but it does sounds like she's an incurable nag-er
so there's almost so much I can do. I'm sorry it's causing you trouble though
Really? ESTJs? The one's I've known have been the "debate for fun" type, and they're in it to win it.
I'm not like that, and I know many other ESTJs who aren't - same experience that strychnine had.
Although that competitiveness is probably slightly type-related, I'd say that it's just as much
1. Enneagram (type 8 much??), and
2. Ego!
Especially ego.
Do baseball players suddenly stop enjoying baseball when they lose?
One of the reasons why I hate playing sports is because I'm terrible at them. I play, I do poorly, I see other people doing incredibly well and I beat myself up for not living up to those standards.
But if I were any good - i.e. if I had the natural talent of other people who play sports for fun - I would get to the point where losing didn't bother me as much. My faith in my talent would overcome any possible insecurity over losing.
In order to debate one must engage in argumentation. You can have non-competitive debate (in the formal sense) in which there is no "official" winner or loser in the end, but the act of advocating for one side over another is fundamentally competitive. Whenever there is contention in discourse, there is competition.
I'm okay with debate, as long as I'm emotionally detached and am only talking about facts. When debates get into Feeling territory, I start to get emotionally involved, and start to take the debate (and its outcome) personally... and generally don't feel good about the outcome, even if I win, because I hate being upset and emotionally involved for long spans of time, and I have a hard time transitioning out of that bad mood very quickly.
Taking either side at any given point in a debate (devil's advocate) is not the same as taking no sides. Taking no sides would mean that you are not engaged in the debate at all. As for the bolded, it can't be much of a debate if you're making points for your interlocutor
I guess not being engaged in debate is my favorite position to be in, then.
When I'm not engaged, and I'm "playing devil's advocate" and not taking sides, it's because I'm collecting information in order to find the right position to take on the issue. I want to hear both pros and cons, because I care more about being right than about winning. That's another reason why I don't like debate that much; I get no satisfaction from winning a debate with the wrong argument. There's no point. It's rhetoric. I hate rhetoric.
Oh, btw - when did you become ESTJ? Thought you were an NP... or an SP... and for the record you don't seem like an ESTJ to me.
a water drop on forehead technique.
"Unethical" was a bad word choice. I didn't mean to say that they're not ethical in general (since, as Jenaphor pointed out, how ethical you are is not really type-based), I just meant in the context of debate. It's often said that those who argue both sides of a debate are sophists (which is a kind of unethical practice), and I meant to say that I don't think ESTJs would have qualms with setting aside their own feelings on the matter in order to argue a side for practical gain (like a lawyer.)
Depends on their Fi. I, personally, would hate to be a lawyer - or at least, I would hate to be a criminal attorney - because I don't think that I, in good conscience, could defend a guilty person. I would argue that NTs would be much better at detaching their feelings from that sort of situation; some of the best debaters I know are NTs, and the only SJs I know who are good at debate are SFJs, i.e. SJs without the Fi problem.
