[NT] How do you feel about emotional appeal as a persuasive method?

[Cellmold]

No NT but I can consciously say I claim to dislike it and the implications of using it.

However my actions have definitely made use of it many times. It's hard to avoid emotional appeals, since a large amount of people essentially operate on just that. Plus it's quicker and more effective; lies running faster than truths etc...

Depends strongly on the audience, what you want to achieve and the negative/positive outcomes of using such tactics. Some people will not be convinced with any amount of factual data, but tell them it will help their country, their wallets, their standards of living and so on...and many will jump right in.

 

[anticlimatic]

Uh huh. Yeah, I've felt that way about FeTi, way back when. Ya know, like a tribal system we've outgrown. Fe might've been a good thing for tribal chieftains but Te was the instrument of choice for kings - once we evolved passed the tribal idea into a nation, basically *eats apple*

"Technology and modernism do not make man independent of nature, but rather increase man's dependency on modernism and technology for survival. While technology and society grow old and frail, nature bides its time, unfaltering and immortal strong."

-C.S. Lewis, on the hubris of progressivism.

 

[Amargith]

"Technology and modernism do not make man independent of nature, but rather increase man's dependency on modernism and technology for survival. While technology and society grow old and frail, nature bides its time, unfaltering and immortal strong."

-C.S. Lewis, on the hubris of progressivism.

Interesting counterargument, coming from an NT. You boys certainly know how to use any argument to your advantage, like a true devil's advocate

 

[anticlimatic]

Interesting counterargument, coming from an NT. You boys certainly know how to use any argument to your advantage, like a true devil's advocate

Ti builds its arguments from steel, starting from the ground up. Te is more into slapping duct tape on someone else's ideas after carelessly ripping holes in it for stupid Fi reasons. ;-)

 

[Amargith]

Ti builds its arguments from steel, starting from the ground up. Te is more into slapping duct tape on someone else's ideas after carelessly ripping holes in it for stupid Fi reasons. ;-)

Lol. Ehm *coughs*

I guess you could say that Fi does the same thing, just on an area you could care less about. And thank goodness, coz you're...leaky as shit there, no offence. The same is true for me and Ti though. While I recognise its brilliance, when that acknowledgement is earned, and I recognise the value it can have when wielded by a proficient user at the right time, I usually have no use for it

As for Te...The NTJs I've seen remind me of anything but duck tape, when they go to work

Anycase, you're adorable to spar with, but we should probably either get a room or at the very least stop derailing this thread

 

[Cellmold]

"Technology and modernism do not make man independent of nature, but rather increase man's dependency on modernism and technology for survival. While technology and society grow old and frail, nature bides its time, unfaltering and immortal strong."

-C.S. Lewis, on the hubris of progressivism.

“an abysmal bastard,” a “monstrosity,” a “cheap, awful, miserable, touchy, social-metablessphysical mediocrity,” a “pickpocket of concepts,” and a “God-damn, beaten mystic.” - Ayn Rand on C.S Lewis.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

“an abysmal bastard,” a “monstrosity,” a “cheap, awful, miserable, touchy, social-metablessphysical mediocrity,” a “pickpocket of concepts,” and a “God-damn, beaten mystic.” - Ayn Rand on C.S Lewis.

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves, Ayn." - Jung.

 

[Ivy]

Some posts (some hostile, some just replies to hostility) moved to OT posts.

Can we maybe have nice things? Just maybe?

 

[anticlimatic]

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves, Ayn." - Jung.

Ironic considering Lewis and Rand both end up at social and economic conservatism; one by way of faith in God, one by way of faith in Man.

 

[anticlimatic]

As for Te...The NTJs I've seen remind me of anything but duck tape, when they go to work

Anycase, you're adorable to spar with, but we should probably either get a room or at the very least stop derailing this thread

NTJs are duct tape experts. They will wrap shit up for so long that the work will actually hold out for a week or two, but it's still just duct tape. It only lasts so long. This is the problem with most Te products, like bureaucracies and other complicated and weighty systems that require persistent top-down management and maintenance.

As far as getting a room, I'm afraid I'm an exhibitionist. Hows about we just throw a lasso around this renegade train car here and hitch it back up to the main line? Because while I recognize the problem that we were getting off track, I wouldn't try convincing you to get back on track by mentioning something along the lines of how tert-Te users tend to be my debate soul mates, just to soften you up and appeal to your emotions. Instead I'd lean more on logic, ideally more in the realm of form than content, and apply an appropriate fix.

 

[Cellmold]

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves, Ayn." - Jung.

Hey, at least mine used words that were actually used to describe the attitude towards the person.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Btw I think that today there is too many emotional appeals for them to be effective. Most people are simply tired of them.

 

[Thalassa]

I don't see how anyone can NOT use a value system. We all have values. Caring about the environment is a value, as is wanting to ensure no one goes hungry, or the broader goal of doing no harm. Giving primacy to scientific evidence is a value as well. We can have reasons for holding the values we do, and hopefully we can articulate these when the values come into play in a discussion. This is how we use values in a rational argument. I don't see this as the same as emotion at all, though we often feel emotions when our values are violated, or supported.

Yes I agree, but please allow me to clarify what I meant. A lot of times when people only focus on the animal rights issue they resort constantly to shaming and horrifying pictures of cruelty meant to evoke emotion. I'm hyper aware of this because I can't even watch those Sarah McLaughlin commercials. I feel like my chest is crushing and I want to punch every person who hurts animals. That's emotional manipulation and it turns some people off completely.

So by focusing on health or environment it is possible to present facts, in writing or audio-visual aids, such as documentaries, using values of health and planetary well being and science, but not necessarily emotionally manipulation. Some of these presentations are made by scientists or doctors, and while some still utilize emotional pleas (especially for the environment)...it's definitely possible to do health or environment without emotional manipulation.

That's what I mean.

 

[Thalassa]

Fi uses Fe's very similar cousin Te to accomplish what it needs, which is precisely where SJWs start to flounder. Their solution is always some kind of fascist hivemind that they insist must be adopted by the masses, which Ti users instinctually revolt against the same way Fi users instinctively revolt against collectivist Fe agendas.

Fi and Fe users actually work together as Social Justice Warriors, and I can usually spot the ridiculous irrational Fe stuff from a mile away - such as Amazon.com banning all rebel flags without also getting rid of Nazi memorabilia. I think Ti and Fi are both good at spotting hypocrisy or inconsistencies, because Je is so generalized...and it's that way for a reason, Je is EFFECTIVE.

All the functions work together. I invite you to learn more about JCF, as I said in my rep, I think you need help understanding the details of the theory. All eight functions are higher cognition, including Je, and Fi, and S. Ti is not an "evolved " function...none of the eight functions are implicitly monkey mind. Ti
as explained to me by an ENTP, so he knows both theoretically and personally, that Ti fails when the initial premise is flawed. Like building a house on a sinking mud pit. All introverted functions if left unchecked by extroverted functions, also cause the person to have tunnel vision.

You really need to understand by saying Ti builds arguments of steel, you're ironically making a weak emotional argument based in your own bias. A more rational assessment of Ti, is that it works very well and is highly functional paired with Ne or Se...but if the Pe function comes up with a false notion, Ti actually weakens and can fail...just like any other function.

I'm glad we had this talk, even if you hate people like me.

 

[anticlimatic]

Fi and Fe users actually work together as Social Justice Warriors

The Fe types are just there for the bandwagon. Their values hold no loyalty.

You really need to understand by saying Ti builds arguments of steel, you're ironically making a weak emotional argument based in your own bias. A more rational assessment of Ti, is that it works very well and is highly functional paired with Ne or Se...but if the Pe function comes up with a false notion, Ti actually weakens and can fail...just like any other function.

I think your ENTP buddy might just be referring to Ne'ing before he Ti's. Which is his prerogative, of course.
I do concede that "Ti builds arguments made of steel" was not an argument. It was something else, but I'm not telling.

I'm glad we had this talk, even if you hate people like me.

Baby Fe + optimistic disposition = I love everyone all the time...including misguided SJWs.

 

[anticlimatic]

We can have reasons for holding the values we do, and hopefully we can articulate these when the values come into play in a discussion. This is how we use values in a rational argument. I don't see this as the same as emotion at all, though we often feel emotions when our values are violated, or supported.

That's the danger of letting values into arguments. Values are imbued with reason, but not necessarily logic, which can give us a false notion of certainty- like thinking you read the manual, when you actually just glanced at the cover. What is the logic of the reason? What is the framework of its context? Is that framework isomorphic with with all the things that trigger the value?

 

[Thalassa]

The Fe types are just there for the bandwagon. Their values hold no loyalty.



I think your ENTP buddy might just be referring to Ne'ing before he Ti's. Which is his prerogative, of course.
I do concede that "Ti builds arguments made of steel" was not an argument. It was something else, but I'm not telling.



Baby Fe + optimistic disposition = I love everyone all the time...including misguided SJWs.

I'm not misguided, I'm intelligently working for something for the betterment of mankind, and I do have Te to support my Fi. It took time to mature to this place, but I'm certainly not "misguided".


Also your understanding of Fe is typical of TP. FJ who aren't totally sick fucks also believe in their values and are actually sometimes loyal to a fault, like wait this value loyalty is no longer making sense, and they persist in "doing the right thing." Bandwagoneering is less mature and just one of the facets that Fe can possess. If anything some of these FJ get entirely too carried away, and I blame them for the teaming up mentality of "white people bad" or other tribalism in the left that we see today. It was originally something good, fair and balanced, now it's just like "this is the right value! Yes it is!" I think you only see that in an Fi type if they have personally struggled and had bad experiences with Caucasian people they formed a bias against. But you'll see Fe white people doing it.

I know what you meant by "arguments of steel"...you mean once you get started you can go on and on weaving linear logic, likely making you good lawyers as well as philosophers. But people can still detect if there's a flaw in the premise, or if you're selling hot sugared shit. Well some people can.

 

[Coriolis]

Yes I agree, but please allow me to clarify what I meant. A lot of times when people only focus on the animal rights issue they resort constantly to shaming and horrifying pictures of cruelty meant to evoke emotion. I'm hyper aware of this because I can't even watch those Sarah McLaughlin commercials. I feel like my chest is crushing and I want to punch every person who hurts animals. That's emotional manipulation and it turns some people off completely.

So by focusing on health or environment it is possible to present facts, in writing or audio-visual aids, such as documentaries, using values of health and planetary well being and science, but not necessarily emotionally manipulation. Some of these presentations are made by scientists or doctors, and while some still utilize emotional pleas (especially for the environment)...it's definitely possible to do health or environment without emotional manipulation.

That's what I mean.

I see the distinction, but you can make a rather unemotional, values-based argument for animal rights, or an emotion-laden argument for saving the environment or being healthier. It all depends on how you present it and what kinds of information you include.

That's the danger of letting values into arguments. Values are imbued with reason, but not necessarily logic, which can give us a false notion of certainty- like thinking you read the manual, when you actually just glanced at the cover. What is the logic of the reason? What is the framework of its context? Is that framework isomorphic with with all the things that trigger the value?

How can you keep values out of arguments? Values underlie what is important to us, what we think is right and wrong, what we choose to devote our time and attention to. The most we can do is bury them at the bottom of what we are highlighting in the argument so they are not apparent, but they are still there. Better to get them out into the open and explain them. Remember, they are part of a logical process, too, just a more subjective one.

 

[anticlimatic]

How can you keep values out of arguments? Values underlie what is important to us, what we think is right and wrong, what we choose to devote our time and attention to. The most we can do is bury them at the bottom of what we are highlighting in the argument so they are not apparent, but they are still there. Better to get them out into the open and explain them. Remember, they are part of a logical process, too, just a more subjective one.

It's logic, but blind logic, which means that its shape is out of sight. I usually define logic as a kind of tree: "if x, then y. If y, then z." And so on. Unless you know exactly what xy&z is, you don't know if it fits into the context that you think it does. For example: "killing animals = no," as a value. What is the nucleus of this? Is it because you think all life is precious due to the cosmic rarity of the earth's conditions? Is it because you yourself don't want to be killed an therefore think the policy should be implemented as a self defense mechanism? Are there certain types of creatures that can be killed? Is it only innocent creatures because that would be tragic and unfair? Where it begins determines where it ends, and unless you know the process you could find yourself condemning abortion just because you glanced at the manual for self preservation.

 

[Coriolis]

It's logic, but blind logic, which means that its shape is out of sight. I usually define logic as a kind of tree: "if x, then y. If y, then z." And so on. Unless you know exactly what xy&z is, you don't know if it fits into the context that you think it does. For example: "killing animals = no," as a value. What is the nucleus of this? Is it because you think all life is precious due to the cosmic rarity of the earth's conditions? Is it because you yourself don't want to be killed an therefore think the policy should be implemented as a self defense mechanism? Are there certain types of creatures that can be killed? Is it only innocent creatures because that would be tragic and unfair? Where it begins determines where it ends, and unless you know the process you could find yourself condemning abortion just because you glanced at the manual for self preservation.

Exactly. This is the sort of discussion I mean when I speak of explaining one's values. Thinking all life is precious is a value, and different people might hold it for quite different reasons. Just exploring that can make for an interesting and informative discussion. Making assumptions about someone's values, however, can make a conversation much more frustrating.