Yes, I agree 100%...only it struck me that the NTJ used the term "debate" whereas you're talking about a "discussion"...
Nice catch.
I don't know if it's the Informative vs Directing thing here.
I think ENTPs like debates in general too.
Maybe the I (vs E) drops it back another notch?
I do not like debates/arguments, the emotional intensity rattles me and I also sense the goal seems to be "to win" rather than to "share information" and so I back out, because I just don't care much for it. The more something becomes a debate, the more it disturbs my inner equanimity; and I feel myself swayed to "win" rather than listen and learn, thus violating my inner thinking values.
The idea that you're willing to change "if shown that you're wrong" sometimes sounds like a cop-out because it often seems impossible to convince an INTP that he's wrong, once he's made up his mind about something.
It can seem that way and even sometimes operates that way. I hope that I merely gave you another view of it... that maybe it's not as self-serving as you think and actually is part of maintaining a framework with integrity.
Let me stress again, though, that you seem much more flexible and open to non-Ti ideas than do most INTPs, and that I didn't have you in mind when I wrote my criticisms of them.
Np. Note that I was more that way (a lot more) in my past, and basically as I got into various life situations, I realized that context determines which "frame" is most appropriate to approach a situation in, and that other frames have legitimacy... thus logically it makes sense for Ti to step back and let other frames rule in their areas of importance and relevance.
(So in a sense, Ti is still in charge... sort of like the Queen who instead of imposing her rational values on the entire court session instead uses those rational values to make sure that the most appropriate framework is being given voice to in a situation.)
NTJs tend to criticize our models by insisting (because they don't apply universally) that they're completely worthless, instead of asking how we might adjust them if conditions were to change. You guys rarely make it clear why you're criticizing the model; you just lecture us for not taking other interpretations into account.
Which is annoying because we have a different set of rules for each different interpretation; we just like to work on one at a time and define it precisely before we worry about what might happen under a different set of conditions.
NTP: But this model does describe effectively what would happen in situation x, right?
NTJ: Who cares about situation x? Bring me a model that describes all situations, or you're wasting my time.
Interesting.
I haven't thought through it all yet, but it definitely voices why I've had difficulties with INTJs and bristle with the criticism. Two different approaches,; and yes, definitely, why I can't speak for INTJs, I'm following the typical NTP script.
Models apply to clarified contexts; set the widest boundaries at which the model is relevant; outside those bounds, the model has to be tweaked to accommodate the new limits.
This isn't just the process, it's intuitive and unconscious and I just sort of assumed everyone else did the same... and so when the criticism comes, it feels petty. I defined the boundaries; the model works within the boundaries; I never suggested or thought it WOULD work outside the boundaries.
Drag MBTI into it and it's the same thing; all of my "type logic and analysis" occurs within particular boundaries, but I suppose if you are just judging the type system without ANY boundaries, then your criticism is valid. I just find it more useful to have SOME theory that describes particular cases within the boundaries, rather than having NO theory because people refuse to define relevant boundaries at all.