If we deny this, will we be debating? Just a thought.
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.)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?
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.Ha! No. It's safe to deny it.
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?
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?
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'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.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.
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.
No, I don't see what you did. Would you mind explaining?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.)
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.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.
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.
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...
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.â€
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
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".No, I don't see what you did. Would you mind explaining?
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.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.
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.
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.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.