[INTP] Baffling argument with INTP

[Wiley45]

Jennifer, your whole post was extremely helpful to me. Thanks.

 

[Costrin]

Yes we do, and you're stupider than I am.

No we don't and you're intelligence is lower than that of a manateen.

 

[93JC]

Manateen?

 

[Costrin]

Yes, manateen.

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxLe-o1FYMQ"]HORSE the band - Manateen[/YOUTUBE]

 

[simulatedworld]

This thread is being stupid.

<3

 

[Synarch]

Manateen?

You got tricked into correcting him. He laid a trap.

 

[93JC]

Bullshit. I've seen Return of the Jedi: Admiral Ackbar would have told me if it was a trap.

 

[Costrin]

Bullshit. I've seen Return of the Jedi: Admiral Ackbar would have told me if it was a trap.

Eventually you gotta learn to think for yourself.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I am having deja vu to a past relationship with an INTP .....
I do not miss these kinds of arguments at all.

 

[Zoom]

This is one of the reasons my friend gets annoyed with me - semantics. He is always throwing that term around and saying that my arguments don't count because they're just semantics. How do I improve this problem? Just try to focus less on getting into the fine details of what words mean to individuals?

My apologies to those who are annoyed by this thread, because I know it's a little trivial, but I'm trying very hard to learn how to argue intelligently and be better at talking with thinking types. I've learned a lot about logical fallacies, etc. and have learned not to make emotional appeals or talk in circles, but sometimes I still frustrate NT's and get a little baffled as to what I said that was incorrect or poor arguing.

I am actually quite happy that someone wishes to develop their skills in discussing topics in a thought out way, even if it's for arguments.

I believe that the main thing when it comes to talks I have with others is that they need to be able to fully explain themselves. I can - and do - think about what I say and have the facts to back it up, so I expect the same... when they take a stance on something they are not sure of, it defeats the purpose of sharing information and learning from each other. Miscommunication is anathema to me.

Also... I think that arguing semantics (i.e., small, minute details that involve accuracy of information but not a lot of original thought) with an INTP - for me, at least - might be part of what is slightly irritating. Give them something hypothetical or theoretical to think about and discuss, maybe something that is up their alley in terms of interests. Details that are well known (i.e. grammar) and just a matter of memory aren't that interesting, and I don't care whether I'm right - I just like thinking and coming up with new ideas and ways to view subjects.

Just a thought.

 

[Split_Infinitive]

*rofl*

I think the argument's sort of stupid, and your friend sounds like he's going through typical immature INTP hair-splitting in social situations where his views are being challenged unexpectedly and so he responds in pseudo-rational fashion so that he won't feel like he lost face.

However, he could also think that you are hair-splitting. The deal here: He was upset, his intellectual sensibilities were offended by what this other person had done, and so he was emotionally venting (although it sounded like a rational judgment, because that's how emotions get expressed)... and instead of taking it in that vein, you started hair-splitting with him. (I'm guessing his criticalness irritates you, and so you sort of starting splitting hairs with him as your own way to vent, even if you didn't quite think of it that way.)

This frustrated him even more, and since he had already started this emotional cycle under the guise of pseudo-rationality, and you had followed it up that way in how you challenged him, he now was stuck responding intellectually (while actually just being exasperated) and then got pissed and left.

Next time, if you want to give him what he REALLY wants, you should say something more along the lines of, "It sounds like this person really upset you by how they approached this issue," or some other sort of confirmation of how he's feeling. Or not. Yeah, he might irk you by his complaints and judgments, but if he's your friend, maybe a different approach would be more suitable.

+1 This is just about the coolest post I've read on here so far. It made me laugh and it is probably spot on!

 

[Ectuse]

I am under the impression that it is easier for me as a INFP, to get along with NTs in person, where if not to share ideas I can learn from them. I however somewhat dislike feeding on too much data unless it is for a goal, or to improve a relationship with someone I know. To be honest there is times where I view the internet as more of a curse than a blessing.

 

[mortabunt]

Your friend is being juvenile. I enjoy debates, but I flee from full sized arguements.

 

[Wiley45]

I am actually quite happy that someone wishes to develop their skills in discussing topics in a thought out way, even if it's for arguments.

We do debate more serious ideas, but my INTP friend also seems to thrive on petty arguments like the one I mentioned. (One time he started an argument because I used the phrase "empty calorie," which does not technically exist. ) I'm not really into squabbling, but at the same time, even tiny things like that conversation teach me how to communicate better. I was unable to tell him exactly what I meant by "empty calorie" and had to think through how to explain myself. It was a meaningless topic, but at the same time, I still learned something and developed from that conversation. It's good exercise for me.

The big thing that frustrates me is that he doesn't always help me figure out where I was incorrect before he tires of the conversation. I don't care about being right or wrong as much as I care about knowing why I was right or wrong. That's why I wanted to ask opinions here.

I believe that the main thing when it comes to talks I have with others is that they need to be able to fully explain themselves. I can - and do - think about what I say and have the facts to back it up, so I expect the same... when they take a stance on something they are not sure of, it defeats the purpose of sharing information and learning from each other. Miscommunication is anathema to me.

Very true, and this is a weak point for me. It frustrates me (and amazes me) that the INTP's I know can so easily and concisely convey their ideas.

Also... I think that arguing semantics (i.e., small, minute details that involve accuracy of information but not a lot of original thought) with an INTP - for me, at least - might be part of what is slightly irritating. Give them something hypothetical or theoretical to think about and discuss, maybe something that is up their alley in terms of interests. Details that are well known (i.e. grammar) and just a matter of memory aren't that interesting, and I don't care whether I'm right - I just like thinking and coming up with new ideas and ways to view subjects.

I realize now that I did derail the conversation by getting overly concerned about small details. I perceived the INTP's comments as critical (thank you Jennifer for that insight), and became more focused on that than the original conversation, which was discussing the merit/lack of merit of an idea to which the "stupid" person subscribes.

I appreciate you taking the time to give your perspective on this situation. I have a better grip on what not to do in the future.

 

[Zoom]

We do debate more serious ideas, but my INTP friend also seems to thrive on petty arguments like the one I mentioned. (One time he started an argument because I used the phrase "empty calorie," which does not technically exist. ) I'm not really into squabbling, but at the same time, even tiny things like that conversation teach me how to communicate better. I was unable to tell him exactly what I meant by "empty calorie" and had to think through how to explain myself. It's was a meaningless topic, but at the same time, I still learned something and developed from that conversation. It's good exercise for me.

The big thing that frustrates me is that he doesn't always help me figure out where I was incorrect before he tires of the conversation. I don't care about being right or wrong as much as I care about knowing why I was right or wrong. That's why I wanted to ask opinions here.

Your friend sounds like he all ready has the intelligence down, but development of patience might not be there quite yet. Being direct and tactfully blunt with him might be a good idea, because really - if you ask him "What exactly am I saying that is frustrating? Are you really listening to what I have to say - or are you just waiting for your turn to talk?" (albeit in a slightly less accusatory tone might be best) - you aren't out of line, at all. Half of communication is being quiet and listening.

I realize now that I did derail the conversation by getting overly concerned about small details. I perceived the INTP's comments as critical (thank you Jennifer for that insight), and became more focused on that than the original conversation, which was discussing the merit/lack of merit of an idea to which the "stupid" person subscribes.

Aye, nitpicking is a pet peeve, because it seems obvious to me so if someone is arguing to clarify - yay! - but if it's unnecessary it just feels draining and a little bit depressing.

I think it's possible that when you attack an INTP intellectually (not that you did) it is akin to emotionally lashing out at, say, a very feelings-oriented person. I feel the disinct urge to leave if someone isn't discussing with me, but speaking as if I am already wrong/incorrect and are simply explaining it to enlighten my heathen self... this happens on occasion when they don't realise I have a brain. A big one, that likes playing with numbers and languages and fire.

(That last paragraph was a completely unnecessary aside, but as it is.)

I appreciate you taking the time to give your perspective on this situation. I have a better grip on what not to do in the future.

Ye're welcome.

 

[Wiley45]

... this happens on occasion when they don't realise I have a brain. A big one, that likes playing with numbers and languages and fire.

This is a perfect example of why INTP's rock.

 

[nozflubber]

silly semantics, the content of the information is relatively unchanged, its just what you attribute it to: the person or the particular condition

 

[Wiley45]

silly semantics, the content of the information is relatively unchanged, its just what you attribute it to: the person or the particular condition

Ugh. I have such a hard time with this one. I have looked up the dictionary definition of "semantics" numerous times to understand, but every time this INTP snaps at me for arguing semantics, I'm always thinking, wtf did I do wrong?! I don't get it!

It helps to see Silentium define semantics as "small, minute details that involve accuracy of information but not a lot of original thought," or to read what you wrote above about the content being relatively unchanged. Somehow, that puts it in a perspective I can understand. I can see how my INTP friend would be annoyed, since I was distracting from the conversation at hand. Maybe ten arguments from now I'll have it down...

 

[Costrin]

Ugh. I have such a hard time with this one. I have looked up the dictionary definition of "semantics" numerous times to understand, but every time this INTP snaps at me for arguing semantics, I'm always thinking, wtf did I do wrong?! I don't get it!

It helps to see Silentium define semantics as "small, minute details that involve accuracy of information but not a lot of original thought," or to read what you wrote above about the content being relatively unchanged. Somehow, that puts it in a perspective I can understand. I can see how my INTP friend would be annoyed, since I was distracting from the conversation at hand. Maybe ten arguments from now I'll have it down...

Aye. Only when the precise definition of the terms in use is relevant to the actual debate (and a lot of the times, it is, though) is when to do it. If the definitions proposed by both sides can both cover the required meaning, then it is irrelevant. If it can change the outcome of the debate, than it is relevant.

Or something like that.

 

[Wiley45]

Aye. Only when the precise definition of the terms in use is relevant to the actual debate (and a lot of the times, it is, though) is when to do it. If the definitions proposed by both sides can both cover the required meaning, then it is irrelevant. If it can change the outcome of the debate, than it is relevant.

Or something like that.

The light bulb just went off in my head. This is making so much more sense to me now. Words/phrasings are very important to me (English major). My INTP friend is constantly making a big deal out of phrasings or definitions, so I couldn't figure out why doing the same was getting me in trouble. Now I understand it's because it had nothing to do with the conversation/debate at hand.

Relief! I feel like a dork, but at least this concept is making sense to me now. Hopefully I can practice these ideas in future conversations.