LightSun
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,180
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- #9
I don't agree with this characterization. We speak of lawyers arguing their cases in court, or that a coworker made a convincing argument to the boss of why a certain policy should be changed. What you describe above seems to be unproductive argument: arguing for the sake of it, and not to persuade someone to real action, or to present the merits of one's case as best one can.
I see this as not unrelated to conflict. Some people are very conflict averse, and will respond to conflict with coping mechanisms that are counterproductive (avoidance, compliance, passive/aggressive responses). But conflict is often necessary for growth and progress. Working through it can improve one's understanding, of both the other person's point of view and your own. This happens best when one remains respectful and actually engages with what the other person is saying, rather than simply dismissing it or shooting it down.
Coriolis I have one further reason for my not taking a choice of using terms like (1) Judgement and (2) Argue. These terms have come under negative connotations. You use them appropriately. I expect no less from a scientific mind. I am coming from a feeler’s universe. Because these two terms carry negative connotations I reframe the terms in much more mild language. This alleviates the concerns of a feelers who may object to these terms.
I also elect to utilize terms as critical thinking and problem solving in lieu of Argue. I find it alleviates disharmony and sometimes aversion in using the terminology. What is more these chosen terms are agreeable and understood by both thinkers and feelers.
In the use of the term Judgement I use critical thinking and judicious problem solving. These words are much more neutral and carry no negative association. What is more it is palatable to both thinkers and feeelers. I did not want a disconnect or aversion with the terms Judgment and Arguement. I know thee terms can be used in a legal setting and indeed a science minded individual.