INFJ- Why So Shitty At Debating Ideas?

[morganelise48]

I've heard it being mentioned several times that we are terrible at debating, and shouldn't even touch it. I agree.
When talking about an idea, one of two things happen,
1: I start talking, the person agree's with me and adds some things. 30 minutes later, I've made 100 new awesome points that I never even thought about before. Pointless in the moment, but good for future reference.. right?
2: I start talking, and the other person apposes my view. I know they're "wrong," and I know I have at least 17 ways to debunk what they just said, but all of the sudden I can't think of anything. As a few moments go by, I remember part of an idea. I start saying it, and then all of the sudden it turns into gibberish. I lost it again. But oh no, now I remember, and start yelling my words... and now I can't remember the other half of the details, along with the point I'm trying to make, and it turns into more gibberish. Now I seem even more stupid than this idiot (lol.) So I just role my eyes, shake my head, and accept my unnecessary defeat.

I would assume that there is a simple reason for this. Ni usually needs isolation and reflection, but then Fe sort of takes control. The more you realize you can't think of anything, the more your Fe is activated. Now you can't tap into Ni or Te at all.

So my question is this. If my reasoning seems fairly correct (though explained as simple as possible), how can you make this NOT happen? Haha. If you think I'm completely left field on the reasoning, then why does this happen? What's the solution? Also, if I'm right, it seems quite obvious that my Fe is still in high mode when the person agrees with my. I'm still shouting and flailing. Is it because I'm focused on the other person now having the upper hand, and that my Fe is now making me look like a lunatic? Then how do I stay objective to the conversation?
Thanks!

 

[Bilateral Entry]

Uh... are you sure your struggles can be extrapolated to the entire INFJ category?

 

[morganelise48]

Nope, not at all. I'm sure a good handful of INFJ's don't struggle with this. Like I said, I have seen a few people (some INFJ, some not) mention it, so it does seem to be a common theme. Though it happens to me often, it doesn't happen all the time. I've never seen anyone explain, however, why or how they are "bad" at it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Develop your Ti.

 

[Forever]

What? We're terrible at debating? Our thinking function isn't even inferior. I don't choose to do debates myself, but I do my best to defend my point unless the other party is completely immature then I just give up. But yes develop your thinking function. Think logically and rationally, try to stay away being "intuitive" about things.

 

[cascadeco]

The two I know are extremely articulate. One I think would be decent at actual debate, the other I'm not sure. I am pretty sure the former got her skills because she was raised Jehovah's Witness and then left it in her late teens, having learned everything about the bible and her church and its rules to be able to stand her ground and assert herself when she did choose to leave. She's also been an electrical engineer for 15+ years now and so has awesome Ti. She has to be able to 'debate' and get her ideas across being in that male-dominated field.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Perhaps it is because INFJs are not dominant rational types (Ni-dom) and their preference for rational thinking (Fe) is possibly the most at odds with the debate style of all the rational functions.

I don't think it is thinking vs feeling, but whether one is a Je/Ji or Pe/Pi dominant. It is not ability even, as you say you can think of good arguments later, but more of the preferred style of interacting. If feeling confronted, then it may be hard to access a non-preferred style. Fe seems pretty opposite of the debate style, which seems more Ti in nature. Ti mentality is still pretty threatening for an INFJ (the tertiary tends to be engaged in situations where we feel "safe", not threatened, and it is still pretty "childlike"). Remember that functions are not thought processes we switch between, but rather different aspects of our whole mentality, and Ti has to be reconciled to an ego dominated by Ni and augmented by Fe. So it's likely more acceptable in, say, writing a paper than engaging in debate.

Regarding rational types being more comfortable with debate, even INTPs often do better in debating than the INTJ, if one is pitted against the another. I've seen debates online where I would say an INTJ is "right", but their argument is not as good as the INTP's. This might be different in person where the two would be speaking (because Te can come across clearer then); but Ne can still aid an NP in mimicking rational reasoning and may quickly find loopholes and come up with clever retorts which sound "right" (I give credit to Vicky Jo, as much as I dislike her, for pointing this out). The same is often true of INFJs & INFPs....INFPs usually make better arguments than INFJs. Many may scoff at this, but time and again, in online debates, the INFJs avoid arguing at all and try to deflect as their tactic. I see other INFPs engage in debate pretty often and do pretty well.

I notice INFJs prefer emotional strategy to guide something/someone to an end they desire as opposed to convincing people with a rational argument (which arguably is Fe acting rationally). That usually works better with people anyway. INxPs aren't extremely persuasive because we naively think you can reason with people.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Develop your Ti.

What does this mean? Do you have any tips or advice for how somebody can do this? I know I don't.

 

[EcK]

What?
INFJs are not shitty debaters at all.

They tend to care about people's feelings and such but are often very articulate. (though for some reason they often believe they aren't, the wierdos)

 

[á´…eparted]

Perhaps it is because INFJs are not dominant rational types (Ni-dom) and their preference for rational thinking (Fe) is possibly the most at odds with the debate style of all the rational functions.

I don't think it is thinking vs feeling, but whether one is a Je/Ji or Pe/Pi dominant. It is not ability even, as you say you can think of good arguments later, but more of the preferred style of interacting. If feeling confronted, then it may be hard to access a non-preferred style. Fe seems pretty opposite of the debate style, which seems more Ti in nature. Ti mentality is still pretty threatening for an INFJ (the tertiary tends to be engaged in situations where we feel "safe", not threatened, and it is still pretty "childlike"). Remember that functions are not thought processes we switch between, but rather different aspects of our whole mentality, and Ti has to be reconciled to an ego dominated by Ni and augmented by Fe. So it's likely more acceptable in, say, writing a paper than engaging in debate.

Regarding rational types being more comfortable with debate, even INTPs often do better in debating than the INTJ, if one is pitted against the another. I've seen debates online where I would say an INTJ is "right", but their argument is not as good as the INTP's. This might be different in person where the two would be speaking (because Te can come across clearer then); but Ne can still aid an NP in mimicking rational reasoning and may quickly find loopholes and come up with clever retorts which sound "right" (I give credit to Vicky Jo, as much as I dislike her, for pointing this out). The same is often true of INFJs & INFPs....INFPs usually make better arguments than INFJs. Many may scoff at this, but time and again, in online debates, the INFJs avoid arguing at all and try to deflect as their tactic. I see other INFPs engage in debate pretty often and do pretty well.

I notice INFJs prefer emotional strategy to guide something/someone to an end they desire as opposed to convincing people with a rational argument (which arguably is Fe acting rationally). That usually works better with people anyway. INxPs aren't extremely persuasive because we naively think you can reason with people.

I actually don't agree with this. For one, I am utter crap at debating (it doesn't help that I hate it).

The ability to debate is not connected to type.

 

[EcK]

Addendum:
if you are debating an ENTP it is only normal you would lose.

Same applies to other types.

sorry.

 

[cascadeco]

Addendum:
if you are debating an ENTP it is only normal you would lose.

Same applies to other types.

sorry.

Well even if you lost, you wouldn't agree you lost, so the debate would switch to that topic and you'd by default win due to never tiring and exhausting the opponent!

 

[EcK]

Well even if you lost, you wouldn't agree you lost, so the debate would switch to that topic and you'd by default win due to never tiring and exhausting the opponent!

So in short: you agree that I would win.

 

[cascadeco]

So in short: you agree that I would win.

bahah

 

[EcK]

I've heard it being mentioned several times that we are terrible at debating, and shouldn't even touch it. I agree.
When talking about an idea, one of two things happen,
1: I start talking, the person agree's with me and adds some things. 30 minutes later, I've made 100 new awesome points that I never even thought about before. Pointless in the moment, but good for future reference.. right?
2: I start talking, and the other person apposes my view. I know they're "wrong," and I know I have at least 17 ways to debunk what they just said, but all of the sudden I can't think of anything. As a few moments go by, I remember part of an idea. I start saying it, and then all of the sudden it turns into gibberish. I lost it again. But oh no, now I remember, and start yelling my words... and now I can't remember the other half of the details, along with the point I'm trying to make, and it turns into more gibberish. Now I seem even more stupid than this idiot (lol.) So I just role my eyes, shake my head, and accept my unnecessary defeat.

Well first off.
Keep in mind that for all you know the person you're talking to has the same issue.
People should be judged as idiots based on the overall structure of their comments rather than their ability to debate. Those are different.
There are very smart people who are shitty at debating (stuttering, posture, tone of voice, don't communicate ideas to audience properly). Though of course, overall, it's still an advantage.

So my question is this. If my reasoning seems fairly correct (though explained as simple as possible), how can you make this NOT happen? Haha. If you think I'm completely left field on the reasoning, then why does this happen? What's the solution? Also, if I'm right, it seems quite obvious that my Fe is still in high mode when the person agrees with my. I'm still shouting and flailing. Is it because I'm focused on the other person now having the upper hand, and that my Fe is now making me look like a lunatic?

Yes, your Fe makes you look like a lunatic. You can't convince smart people by waving and screaming. Though it can and does work pretty well on most of the population if combined with the right verbal and nonverbal queues. So if you're going for quantity rather than quality you're good(though I doubt it)

Then how do I stay objective to the conversation?

As an introvert, you need a bit more time to 'build' an argument than an extrovert. There's not much you can do about that. I guess you should focus on points you are comfortable with rather than trying to make some kind of perfect argument. There are always 1000 things to be said about anything. There are very good debaters who have 5 points in mind and just give these points, and even though they are not as good at 'bouncing back' they'll convince through the strength of these 5 arguments.

You seek harmony/maybe you're a bit shy. Most INFJs don't deal well with conflict - it makes them emotional. If you get emotional your baby Ti is going to get out of whack. Just like I will be 'colder' if I'm focusing on analysis or am facing a 'problem to solve'.
But you should use that. You are who you are, however, you want to define it. Systems like the MBTI are but tools/approximation and don't really fit everyone (esp. people with borderline preferences)

Use emotional appeals if it would work, use logic when it fits the situation. Disengage if there's no point. You can't convince someone who's not willing to listen.
Also, you need to understand that someone disagreeing with you does not make them wrong: only inconsistencies between views and observable facts can make someone 'wrong', everything else is just opinions.

Lastly, it's about identifying your audience. What would appeal to them? INFJs are usually pretty good at catering to their audience in terms of communication style etc. I know how to do that as well, it's just that I don't give a crap. But that's another story.

 

[á´…eparted]

Well even if you lost, you wouldn't agree you lost, so the debate would switch to that topic and you'd by default win due to never tiring and exhausting the opponent!

This is why when I am forced to "debate" ENTP's (or any types like this, but they are frequently xNTP's), I just shut a metaphorical cork in their mouth, refuse to engage further, and set it up so no one else will either. Usually pisses them the hell off, which most of the time I find kinda funny. There comes a time and a place where "debate" crosses a line into useless and distracting.

 

[morganelise48]

Sorry a lot of you don't agree. The funny thing is, I use Ti very often. I actually feel as though I've neglected my Ni before learning about MBTI. I have always thought very rationally about important issues, and issues about other people (personal issues, not so much, however.) It's just talking about it to other people. I can sit down by myself and spit out logic left and right, but put me in front of someone who disagrees that I don't already personally know very well, and I freeze.

 

[morganelise48]

By the way... "Waving and screaming" was an exaggeration! Haha. So was "shouting." Rather, I just speak loud when I'm passionate about something, and use my hands and/or body a lot.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I agree that, everything considered, we're not very good at formulating arguments on the fly- especially when it comes to phrasing things in a way that will hold some mass/universal appeal. We are not mercurial creatures. I'm totally rubbish at improv debate, at any rate.

But when it comes to convincing individuals in a slower, ongoing dialogue- whom we've had a chance to get to know- then I think we can actually be quite good. I'm not sure if what I'm thinking of is really "debate" though. I think we have a tendency to pick up on what other individuals value and/or their belief system- after enough observation, we can pick up on someone else's rules of engagement and work within that system. (That's only where it's worth it to us- it's not always worth putting that much energy into.) The only time I really struggle (again- where there IS motivation and it's worth it to me) is when the person's belief system/rules of engagement feel dogmatically normal to me.

 

[Forever]

I agree that, everything considered, we're not very good at formulating arguments on the fly- especially when it comes to phrasing things in a way that will hold some mass/universal appeal. We are not mercurial creatures. I'm totally rubbish at improv debate, at any rate.

But when it comes to convincing individuals in a slower, ongoing dialogue- whom we've had a chance to get to know- then I think we can actually be quite good. I'm not sure if what I'm thinking of is really "debate" though. I think we have a tendency to pick up on what other individuals value and/or their belief system- after enough observation, we can pick up on someone else's rules of engagement and work within that system. (That's only where it's worth it to us- it's not always worth putting that much energy into.) The only time I really struggle (again- where there IS motivation and it's worth it to me) is when the person's belief system/rules of engagement feel dogmatically normal to me.

^^ Right on the money.