[INTP] Baffling argument with INTP

[Orangey]

I always thought INTPs were stereotypically the annoying semantics arguers...

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

This is why the English Language sucks. In other languages, Spanish for example, there are two separate verbs of 'to be'. Ser and Estar. Estar is a temporary state of being, with no definate beginning or end. Ser is literally, as we would see it in the English language 'are'.

Ser - I AM a woman. You ARE stupid (as a general state of being)
Estar - I AM tired. You ARE stupid (right now)

The only tiny distinction we have in the English language between these two states of 'being' has morphed into the modern use of 'is being _____' (Using the verb itself as a helping verb, making my brain twitch uncomfortably) which implies that it is temporary.

So, to go back to the OP, strictly speaking, if someone 'is stupid', that is interpreted as being their constant state of being, in the past, present and future. It is a permanent characteristic. If someone is 'being stupid', then there is doubt as to whether that is a permanent condition.

If your friend did not intend to say that the person 'is stupid', always with regards to all things, then he was, as technically as you can be wrong in the English language on this... wrong

 

[Costrin]

Basically, stuff.

 

[Wiley45]

I always thought INTPs were stereotypically the annoying semantics arguers...

In this case, I argued semantics because a word he used evoked a negative feeling, not because I thought the word itself needed to be defined to proceed with the discussion. My compassionate side flared up because I didn't think it was right or fair to call someone stupid as a general label. After thinking about it, I'm pretty sure my INTP friend typically argues about the meaning of words when he thinks it is relevant and necessary to the conversation at hand (which is still often annoying.)

This is why the English Language sucks. In other languages, Spanish for example, there are two separate verbs of 'to be'. Ser and Estar. Estar is a temporary state of being, with no definate beginning or end. Ser is literally, as we would see it in the English language 'are'.

Ser - I AM a woman. You ARE stupid (as a general state of being)
Estar - I AM tired. You ARE stupid (right now)

The only tiny distinction we have in the English language between these two states of 'being' has morphed into the modern use of 'is being _____' (Using the verb itself as a helping verb, making my brain twitch uncomfortably) which implies that it is temporary.

Yes! That is exactly what I was trying to say to my friend, only you said it much more clearly. (I am still at fault, though, for messing up the conversation by getting sidetracked from our topic. Whether the "stupid person" is 100% stupid or situationally stupid is a completely different discussion from the one we were initially having.)

 

[digesthisickness]

your friend was arguing semantics just as much as you were. he was just frustrated and used that as an attempt to 'win' and put an end to it.

as far as this post:

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.

i was in complete agreement before reading the bolded part. FFS, do NOT accuse any NT of arguing or thinking anything because of their FEELINGS. that'll just piss them off even more. best thing to do is learn to let things go at least sometimes and simply say, "we'll have to agree to disagree on this one."

I like to think that we're not as attached to our arguments as other types tend to be. I don't get mad or really annoyed when I argue with friends.

I have a good INFP friend and I think he sometimes interprets me caring more about the issue than I do, while he sometimes gets very involved.

i've noticed this too. worse is that if you attempt to explain how wrong they are, the more right they think they are because they conclude your doing so means you give a shit.

 

[Orangey]

(I am still at fault, though, for messing up the conversation by getting sidetracked from our topic. Whether the "stupid person" is 100% stupid or situationally stupid is a completely different discussion from the one we were initially having.)

It's not a fault issue. There are no rules governing where conversations should and shouldn't go. If you felt like talking about that particular angle, then there is nothing in the world to stop you from doing it. It's not wrong because it swayed from the direction that he perhaps intended the conversation to go. Conversations are supposed to be dynamic.

 

[Aleph-One]

Yes, there are rules. Equivocation and obfuscation are always wrong, and irrelevance is a distraction. They're squid-ink style defenses.

 

[Wiley45]

It's not a fault issue. There are no rules governing where conversations should and shouldn't go. If you felt like talking about that particular angle, then there is nothing in the world to stop you from doing it. It's not wrong because it swayed from the direction that he perhaps intended the conversation to go. Conversations are supposed to be dynamic.

If it were an everyday conversation about the weather, I suppose I'd agree, but we were debating the merits of a particular belief, so it was slightly more formal. Wouldn't it drive you nuts if you were having a debate and somebody kept bouncing around on unrelated subjects?

 

[Lett]

Wouldn't it drive you nuts if you were having a debate and somebody kept bouncing around on unrelated subjects?

Not asking me but I'll answer anyway.

No. I'd effing love that. I can bounce around all night long with a smile.

Your subject hopping is something I might have picked out to get angry about when I was younger and more intent on attempting to dominate people intellectually to cover up for my own fears in other areas. Or today if particularly inebriated, in a terrible mood, or lacking caffeine.

Of course your friend could be a serious, mature, grownup that simply has strict personal rules about conversation flow that must be obeyed. It's your call if you want to adapt to that or not.

And yeah, as an INTP I would have called him out on that point as well, and I think you're on solid footing vis-a-vis stupid vs. being stupid as far as common usage is concerned.

/intrusion

 

[Costrin]

It's not a fault issue. There are no rules governing where conversations should and shouldn't go. If you felt like talking about that particular angle, then there is nothing in the world to stop you from doing it. It's not wrong because it swayed from the direction that he perhaps intended the conversation to go. Conversations are supposed to be dynamic.

Depends. Sometimes I get attached to one conversation topic, and there's things I want to say about it, points I want to get across, and things I want to hear. Basically, I'm not done with that topic, so things that distract from it get annoying.

Yes, there are rules. Equivocation and obfuscation are always wrong, and irrelevance is a distraction. They're squid-ink style defenses.

How very NTJ. I agree of course, when there's some specific thing that I want to accomplish with the conversation. Otherwise, everything is fair game.

 

[nanook]

according to the rules, the basic accomplishment of a dialog is: authentic display of your position in relation to the position of your proponent. if whatever you want accomplish is something else, its not a dialog anymore, hence a violation of the rules. basic Fe/Te understanding.

 

[Wiley45]

Your subject hopping is something I might have picked out to get angry about when I was younger and more intent on attempting to dominate people intellectually to cover up for my own fears in other areas.

Sounds familiar. I have speculated that my friend has insecurities that lead him to be overbearing and argumentative in situations like these. Then again, I don't know what it's like to be an INTP, so I'm hesitant to make any kind of judgement. He looks at every conversation as a win/lose situation and gets competitive about who is right and wrong. If I ever corner him in an argument (which happens rarely, but does happen ) he either won't admit I'm right, or he'll make an excuse like "I'm tired," or "I'm off my game today; I'll give that one to you." I do not believe I'm obnoxious or arrogant in these conversations--it's only the principles themselves and the learning processes that matter to me. I also consistently, genuinely let him know how much I value his insight and intelligence. Therefore, I don't see any reason for him to feel inadequate. I'm never sure whether to chalk it up to his insecurity or his being an INTP. Maybe it's a little of both. I need to remember to pay attention to maturity level.

 

[Costrin]

Sounds familiar. I have speculated that my friend has insecurities that lead him to be overbearing and argumentative in situations like these. Then again, I don't know what it's like to be an INTP, so I'm hesitant to make any kind of judgement. He looks at every conversation as a win/lose situation and gets competitive about who is right and wrong. If I ever corner him in an argument (which happens rarely, but does happen ) he either won't admit I'm right, or he'll make an excuse like "I'm tired," or "I'm off my game today; I'll give that one to you." I do not believe I'm obnoxious or arrogant in these conversations--it's only the principles themselves and the learning processes that matter to me. I also consistently, genuinely let him know how much I value his insight and intelligence. Therefore, I don't see any reason for him to feel inadequate. I'm never sure whether to chalk it up to his insecurity or his being an INTP. Maybe it's a little of both. I need to remember to pay attention to maturity level.

Definitely insecurity. I wouldn't do any of that stuff normally. But occasionally when feeling well... insecure. It happened a lot more when I was younger, also. I normally try and catch myself when I'm doing it though.

He's basically afraid of looking incompetent. He needs to realize that accepting the times when you're wrong makes you look more competent.

 

[Orangey]

Yes, there are rules. Equivocation and obfuscation are always wrong, and irrelevance is a distraction. They're squid-ink style defenses.

Defenses? Um, they weren't having a formal debate. They weren't even arguing in the beginning. There are rules (if you want to call them rules, more like informal guidelines) to argumentation. Casual conversations, however, develop because people make connections between topics and shift the conversation based on those connections. And the connections needn't always be logical ones, either.

I don't know about you, but I won't be calling someone fallacious the next time they shift conversation to a topic that has, at best, a tenuous relationship to the one we were originally talking about.

If it were an everyday conversation about the weather, I suppose I'd agree, but we were debating the merits of a particular belief, so it was slightly more formal. Wouldn't it drive you nuts if you were having a debate and somebody kept bouncing around on unrelated subjects?

Maybe I'm not understanding your situation clearly. I thought that your conversation had started with your INTP friend making the statement that some guy was stupid. Then you decided to be argumentative by picking on the is/being distinction in his language use. Then it blew into a full argument with the end-result of your INTP friend walking away in a huff.

If the above story is correct, then you weren't having a debate to begin with, and I don't see why it was "wrong" for you to bring in the issue of the is/being distinction. I would of course be irritated if someone was bringing in irrelevant information in a debate about a specific issue, but it sounds like the irrelevant ideas that you were "bouncing around" were what started the debate in the first place. Not that you were having a debate already and you brought up something irrelevant. I don't know...maybe I'm missing the whole story.

You at first (in this thread) were wondering if you were right/wrong in your position within the debate that ensued between you and your friend. Then when several people confirmed that your argument had some merit, you were still wondering why your friend would be so angry and concluded that, if it wasn't because of the irrationality of your arguments, then it was because you introduced irrelevant information into the conversation. Now I'm saying that since, from my understanding, you weren't having a "more formal" debate to begin with, I don't see why taking the conversation in a relatively tangential direction is wrong anyway. The point being that your INTP friend was being a bit of an irrational butthead, and that you don't need to worry about how to please him or assume that you were responsible for the deterioration of the debate.

He doesn't have the default upper hand on rationality merely because he's INTP.

 

[Wiley45]

Maybe I'm not understanding your situation clearly. I thought that your conversation had started with your INTP friend making the statement that some guy was stupid. Then you decided to be argumentative by picking on the is/being distinction in his language use. Then it blew into a full argument with the end-result of your INTP friend walking away in a huff.

I think I left out some pertinent information in my original post because I was trying not to be wordy. Let me explain more clearly.

1. An INTJ friend of mine believes something that I find to be strange and incorrect.
2. I ask the INTP what he thinks about the INTJ's belief. (The INTP does not know the INTJ.)
3. The INTP and I discuss this belief briefly. He knows I agree with him but I'm playing the devil's advocate for sake of exploring the subject. (Nothing new--we do this all the time.)
4. The INTP says the belief is a sweeping judgement that does not take all available information into account. Because of this, the INTP says, the INTJ is "stupid."
4. I correct INTP and say that the INTJ "is being" stupid, but it's not fair or correct to call the INTJ "stupid."
5. The INTP gets annoyed and says "is stupid" and "is being stupid" are the same thing, then reiterates that anyone who makes a sweeping judgement without taking all information into consideration "is stupid."
6. I mention that the INTJ is actually a very intelligent person, and try to re-explain why it's better to say he's "being stupid."
7. The INTP leaves in a huff.

I wanted to understand if the INTP got upset and gave up arguing with me because he was correct and I was somehow missing his logical point. Our conversations often end like this, where he gets annoyed and stops talking. In the past, it's been because I didn't know how to have a proper debate conversation and would use logical fallacies or poor arguing that frustrated the INTP. He didn't feel like giving me lessons on how to argue every time we talked, so he'd just stop talking. Understandable. I just wanted to know who was correct, as well as why I might have frustrated the INTP (so I can improve.)

He doesn't have the default upper hand on rationality merely because he's INTP.

That is a very nice thing to hear. I think sometimes this friend likes me to think he has the default upper hand! I feel really inadequate (ok, downright dumb) when talking to INTP's, but I learn so much from them that I keep coming back for conversations, even when they're less than kind to me. This one calls me an idiot and tells me I'm stupid on a regular basis. If I say he's hurt my feelings, he tells me I'm oversensitive and runs me in mental circles until I give up trying to explain myself. I can't really keep up with him and he's a master at messing with people's heads, even when he doesn't believe what he's convincing someone else to believe. I'm realizing that I've been allowing this behavior and it's probably not so cool. I know other INTP's, but I'm not very close friends with them or we don't get time to talk often, so it will be nice to get some INTP perspectives on this forum instead of talking to one unkind INTP the majority of the time.

 

[Misty_Mountain_Rose]

I wonder sometimes if INTP's weren't put on the planet just to drive others insane...

 

[Fluffywolf]

I wonder sometimes if INTP's weren't put on the planet just to drive others insane...

The irony is that we try our best to do the opposite.

 

[Costrin]

That is a very nice thing to hear. I think sometimes this friend likes me to think he has the default upper hand! I feel really inadequate (ok, downright dumb) when talking to INTP's, but I learn so much from them that I keep coming back for conversations, even when they're less than kind to me. This one calls me an idiot and tells me I'm stupid on a regular basis. If I say he's hurt my feelings, he tells me I'm oversensitive and runs me in mental circles until I give up trying to explain myself. I can't really keep up with him and he's a master at messing with people's heads, even when he doesn't believe what he's convincing someone else to believe. I'm realizing that I've been allowing this behavior and it's probably not so cool. I know other INTP's, but I'm not very close friends with them or we don't get time to talk often, so it will be nice to get some INTP perspectives on this forum instead of talking to one unkind INTP the majority of the time.

Really? He sounds like an immature asshole. I'd get a better INTP.

 

[Wiley45]

Really? He sounds like an immature asshole. I'd get a better INTP.

Am I starting a collection? Lol.

 

[Costrin]

Am I starting a collection? Lol.

Yes, you are.