[NT] NT and debate vs discussion

[Coriolis]

Do you find that thinking aloud helps, and more importantly, that sometime after the conversation, you are able to have deeper more expansive insights into the subject?

That's how I view INTJs. I think their debate style is actually quite cool and collected, but I can sometimes sense the "uh oh, I didn't see this before" dynamic flowing beneath the surface. I don't think they like to let on to others that they don't fully understand something in the moment and will instead attempt to rework their knowledge to support themselves, whether it involve incorporating the new info or walking around it by sidestepping the topic at hand almost artfully.

Ordinarily I do not find thinking aloud to help much. I prefer to think on my own, and to do research, both to answer specific questions I have and fill in missing information, and initially to get a broad sense of the topic so I even know what questions to ask. I sometimes do have additional insights about a topic after discussion, but these usually relate to tangents or extensions of the topic rather than changes in the perspective I had at the end of the discussion. Sometimes it suggests additional questions or topics to research.

In the kind of discussion I was describing, the other person essentially becomes a source of information. In fact, If I get the sense that they know more about some aspect of the topic than I do, I will start asking them questions to draw this out. Sometimes they do not even realize the relevance of the information until I reassemble the pieces with it included, showing how it is different from what each of us initially thought.

It is rare that I am truly surprised in a discussion. Usually the other person's explanations and reasoning follow a predictable pattern, even if the details are unfamiliar. Or, I go into the discussion well aware of a blind spot or area of personal ignorance, state that as a caveat to my position, and ask if the other person can shed light on that aspect of the issue. I am, of course, capable of the highlighted, but I reserve this for occasions when the other person is being obnoxious or refusing to observe any standards of rational discussion.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Ordinarily I do not find thinking aloud to help much. I prefer to think on my own, and to do research, both to answer specific questions I have and fill in missing information, and initially to get a broad sense of the topic so I even know what questions to ask. I sometimes do have additional insights about a topic after discussion, but these usually relate to tangents or extensions of the topic rather than changes in the perspective I had at the end of the discussion. Sometimes it suggests additional questions or topics to research.

In the kind of discussion I was describing, the other person essentially becomes a source of information. In fact, If I get the sense that they know more about some aspect of the topic than I do, I will start asking them questions to draw this out. Sometimes they do not even realize the relevance of the information until I reassemble the pieces with it included, showing how it is different from what each of us initially thought.

It is rare that I am truly surprised in a discussion. Usually the other person's explanations and reasoning follow a predictable pattern, even if the details are unfamiliar. Or, I go into the discussion well aware of a blind spot or area of personal ignorance, state that as a caveat to my position, and ask if the other person can shed light on that aspect of the issue. I am, of course, capable of the highlighted, but I reserve this for occasions when the other person is being obnoxious or refusing to observe any standards of rational discussion.

I consider you a good example of a mature INTJ.

 

[Lib]

Ordinarily I do not find thinking aloud to help much. I prefer to think on my own, and to do research, both to answer specific questions I have and fill in missing information, and initially to get a broad sense of the topic so I even know what questions to ask. I sometimes do have additional insights about a topic after discussion, but these usually relate to tangents or extensions of the topic rather than changes in the perspective I had at the end of the discussion. Sometimes it suggests additional questions or topics to research.

In the kind of discussion I was describing, the other person essentially becomes a source of information. In fact, If I get the sense that they know more about some aspect of the topic than I do, I will start asking them questions to draw this out. Sometimes they do not even realize the relevance of the information until I reassemble the pieces with it included, showing how it is different from what each of us initially thought.

It is rare that I am truly surprised in a discussion. Usually the other person's explanations and reasoning follow a predictable pattern, even if the details are unfamiliar. Or, I go into the discussion well aware of a blind spot or area of personal ignorance, state that as a caveat to my position, and ask if the other person can shed light on that aspect of the issue. I am, of course, capable of the highlighted, but I reserve this for occasions when the other person is being obnoxious or refusing to observe any standards of rational discussion.

By standards for rational discussion do you mean this?:

 

[Sacrophagus]

During the years of high school and college, I frequented a horde of intellectuals. We had evenings animated by organized debates every now and then.

A topic is chosen, a volunteer comes forth, as does his opponent. I rarely volunteered, unless something really interesting or someone worthy showed themselves.

My debating style was more than an eloquent display of acumen. It was a search for erudition. I sought someone who would inspire me and make me see things I cannot.
I exhibited not only a mastery of the subject from my point of view, but I could make a case for my opponent, articulate it better than they could, and win. I listened to what they had to say, instead of just waiting for my turn to speak. I picked into their brains and summoned patterns that fuel their thinking process and prod at them in a non-judgmental way. It was a way to give them the freedom to rethink the statements they utter, instead of the usual aut vincere aut mori Te arrogant I-Know-The-Truth style of shoving evidence up their asses and be done with it because "my time is so precious and I can't deal with your ignorance".

It was a mix of eloquence, cocky jokes, laughter, and charming dialogue. In these events, it was thankfully I who always sets the tone.

When someone brings up new substantial information, I dissect it, and put it with the other pieces of the puzzle.
When my opponent was a mere insufferable fuckwit who reeked the mephitis of bigotry with all the knowledge he has, I controlled my ego's urge to crush them and antagonize them, and kept it within the lines of civilized dialogue.

When someone of the same species was talking about something I master as if they were the only one given the privilege to access that knowledge, I tamed my ego's need to retort "Tell me something I ignore, motherfucker", and instead changed the frame by validating what they say in a grounded and sagacious manner.

On the other hand, many can't let go of the shrapnel of an argument, persist on proving their point and call the other person names because they don't want to align with their version of concrete knowledge. My loathing for these types of altercations remains.

 

[Coriolis]

By standards for rational discussion do you mean this?:

I had this in mind (in spoiler due to size):

 

[Lib]

I had this in mind (in spoiler due to size):

I couldn't pass the first check

Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?

I like to believe that I can envision anything which could potentially change my mind, but I can't make any promises before I envisioned it.

I'm wondering whether young Einstein could make a cut for a discussion with you. With all his unconventional ideas, he would be expelled mercilessly at point 3, the part that requires evidences.

 

[Yuurei]

Thank you to everyone who replied. I've been in a bit of an experience bubble lately and felt the need to ask the question so I could gather more realistic info.



No, I don't see what you did. Would you mind explaining?


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.

That said, my OP statement falls apart because "not all NTs".

---------------------------------



Questions, even blunt ones, show a willingness to discuss, imo.

---------------------------------



Thanks for helping me clarify my thinking. While it's true that very few people do either strictly, I'm making a distinction between what people do and how they think. I can't know how NTs think unless I ask, and that's much easier on a typology forum than in real life.

---------------------------------



The bolded is along the lines of what I'm asking. It's sport. It's enjoyable. It can be what one defaults to because it's enjoyable. Does your best friend have discussions with you?

*Groans* Personal opinions stated as fact. Thank you for showing exactly why I refuse to debate with people.

Yes.

I had this in mind (in spoiler due to size):

For me there are two main reasons reasons why I do not debate with people; one, as I expressed before, they seem incapable of determining personal opinion from fact.

But the one thing that irks me even more is how so often people will nit-pick any insignificant thing they can and go off on a completely irrelevant side-tangents which have nothing to do with the original topic. For them it is less about the actual issue being discussed and more about "winning" any tiny, insignificant point they can. I don't tolerate that shit and will end it immediately.

 

[Coriolis]

I couldn't pass the first check

I like to believe that I can envision anything which could potentially change my mind, but I can't make any promises before I envisioned it.

I'm wondering whether young Einstein could make a cut for a discussion with you. With all his unconventional ideas, he would be expelled mercilessly at point 3, the part that requires evidences.

Point three references the position that is "more reasonable and has more supporting evidence". Unconventional ideas such as Einstein's may still have had more reason and evidence behind them than the alternatives. His inability to prove any of it was likely balanced by others' inability to disprove it. This ultimately is the goal of science, especially on an experimental level. Had he been unable to support his ideas, I doubt he would have become as successful and respected.

 

[Eilonwy]

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.

I'd like to see some scientific evidence for your first claim of some people being less subject to cognitive illusions and bias; however, I can agree with your second claim of at least more able, and possibly willing to recognize that cognitive illusions and bias exist.

And yes, there is a "right" kind of evidence, or at least evidence varies in how relevant and convincing it is. My previous message included some examples of poor evidence: faulty assumptions, unsupportable generalizations, and debunked facts. You might be surprised how many people rely on such things. Sometimes you almost have to assume or generalize, but at least that can be acknowledged up front, along with what you recognize as the limitations or possible errors involved.

So, regarding debunked facts, here's an issue I have with debate and the assertion of facts. If they were facts and are now debunked, that implies to me that this can happen with facts being touted as true or scientifically verified now. In the future, as we gain knowledge, or learn of research tainted by money, etc., the present-day facts could end up being debunked. (Can we agree to ignore that there are some categories of facts that are pretty solid and will remain facts so that we don't have to complicate this discussion?) Do you keep this in mind when you are debating? Do you say anything that would indicate that you're aware of it or does it all stay inside your head?

 

[Lib]

Point three references the position that is "more reasonable and has more supporting evidence". Unconventional ideas such as Einstein's may still have had more reason and evidence behind them than the alternatives. His inability to prove any of it was likely balanced by others' inability to disprove it. This ultimately is the goal of science, especially on an experimental level. Had he been unable to support his ideas, I doubt he would have become as successful and respected.

His ideas and way of thinking weren't very popular in Zurich Polytechnic to an extend that his professors didn't believe he deserved an academic career. After graduating, he published his first theories and Max Plank recognized his potential. Einstein proved some of them experimentally and mathematically years later. Gravitational waves described by him a hundred years ago were confirmed by researchers from MIT a few years ago. His thought experiment on entanglement in QM was also confirmed. Hypothetically speaking, if he was alive today and writing somewhere in the forums probably most of us would consider him a weirdo

 

[Coriolis]

I'd like to see some scientific evidence for your first claim of some people being less subject to cognitive illusions and bias; however, I can agree with your second claim of at least more able, and possibly willing to recognize that cognitive illusions and bias exist.

This is the first relevant reference that came up: Individual differences in cognitive biases: Evidence against one-factor theory of rationality. The title alone suggests that cognitive bias is not uniform across humankind. The purpose of the paper is to explore correlations between cognitive bias and other factors like intelligence or aspects of personality. The results seem inconclusive on that count, but the overall notion of individuals demonstrating varying degrees of bias seems accepted.

It was only in the late 1990s that researchers became cognizant of the considerable variability across participants on each of the cognitive bias tasks. After Stanovich and West’s (1998, 2000) call for a debate about the role individual differences play in the deviation between the outcomes of cognitive process and those of normative models, a growing body of correlational studies of cognitive biases emerged.

Elsewhere the authors refer to cognitive biases as "experience-based strategies that reduce complex cognitive tasks to simpler mental operations", which hints at something most of us should understand intuitively on some level, namely that many of our biases come from how we are raised. Given the combined influences of nature and nurture, I don't see how anyone logically could conclude that all humans have the same degree of bias, by any measure.

So, regarding debunked facts, here's an issue I have with debate and the assertion of facts. If they were facts and are now debunked, that implies to me that this can happen with facts being touted as true or scientifically verified now. In the future, as we gain knowledge, or learn of research tainted by money, etc., the present-day facts could end up being debunked. (Can we agree to ignore that there are some categories of facts that are pretty solid and will remain facts so that we don't have to complicate this discussion?) Do you keep this in mind when you are debating? Do you say anything that would indicate that you're aware of it or does it all stay inside your head?

Your parenthetical remark is at the heart of this problem. Many people do not accept facts which most of us consider well-established. There are still people out there, for instance, who insist that the Earth is 6,000-some-odd years old, because that is what the generations in the Bible add up to. They claim God fabricated the fossil record to make it look otherwise. If a fact is not well-established, then it is valid to challenge it. If the other person has nothing better, I expect to include it, at least for the sake of discussion.

We must be careful to separate facts from conclusions based upon them, and from opinions. A special category of facts is observation. "There were 313 hurricanes in the past 50 years, and only 266 in the 50 years prior to that," is hard to contest with any credibility. Relating that to global warming is another matter.

As for what I say or keep in my head, well, I keep quite a bit in my head. I tend to say only what is directly relevant, though, in the interests of keeping the discussion on-topic, and not losing sight of the forest for the trees.

His ideas and way of thinking weren't very popular in Zurich Polytechnic to an extend that his professors didn't believe he deserved an academic career. After graduating, he published his first theories and Max Plank recognized his potential. Einstein proved some of them experimentally and mathematically years later. Gravitational waves described by him a hundred years ago were confirmed by researchers from MIT a few years ago. His thought experiment on entanglement in QM was also confirmed. Hypothetically speaking, if he was alive today and writing somewhere in the forums probably most of us would consider him a weirdo

Established scientists can be a hard sell. All it takes is one to give a young fellow a chance, however, and the rest is what he makes of it. I guarantee Einstein wouldn't have gone far without being able to back up his ideas with solid reasoning (mathematics) and what experimental data he could obtain. I would prefer dealing with that kind of "weirdo" than with the kind who believe an Illuminati city lies under the Denver airport, or who will eat only things that are white.

 

[Lib]

I would prefer dealing with that kind of "weirdo" than with the kind who believe an Illuminati city lies under the Denver airport, or who will eat only things that are white.

Now, this would automatically exclude someone as John Nash, for example. I personally don't mind listening to conspiracy or dietary theories. On the contrary, I find it an entertaining exercise for the imagination. But that's my preference. We certainly have very different perspectives on the matter.

 

[Coriolis]

Now, this would automatically exclude someone as John Nash, for example. I personally don't mind listening to conspiracy or dietary theories. On the contrary, I find it an entertaining exercise for the imagination. But that's my preference. We certainly have very different perspectives on the matter.

Only if he were trying to pass off his conspiracy theories as mathematical accomplishments. I suppose some people have trouble keeping the two distinct. If we are looking at pure entertainment value, that's one thing. I do enjoy reading fantasy novels, after all.

 

[Lib]

Only if he were trying to pass off his conspiracy theories as mathematical accomplishments. I suppose some people have trouble keeping the two distinct. If we are looking at pure entertainment value, that's one thing. I do enjoy reading fantasy novels, after all.

It's interesting also from psychological perspective. John Nash could barely make a distinction between the validity of his game theory - which was first only an observation before becoming a structured mathematical model - and his crazy ideas. It's as if his potential was equal in both directions. Paranoid ideas could be quite logical even if highly improbable. It's because they are based on the knowledge that we don't have which gives room to flawed interpretations. But sometimes these interpretations turn out to be correct.

 

[Eilonwy]

This is the first relevant reference that came up: Individual differences in cognitive biases: Evidence against one-factor theory of rationality. The title alone suggests that cognitive bias is not uniform across humankind. The purpose of the paper is to explore correlations between cognitive bias and other factors like intelligence or aspects of personality. The results seem inconclusive on that count, but the overall notion of individuals demonstrating varying degrees of bias seems accepted.

Elsewhere the authors refer to cognitive biases as "experience-based strategies that reduce complex cognitive tasks to simpler mental operations", which hints at something most of us should understand intuitively on some level, namely that many of our biases come from how we are raised. Given the combined influences of nature and nurture, I don't see how anyone logically could conclude that all humans have the same degree of bias, by any measure.

243 undergrad students. How did that affect the results?

Also, let's just assume that anything to do with humans is not uniform across humankind. Bell-curve, spectrum, whatever you want to call it. I would gather that an argument could be made that all of us are snowflakes--each one varying from the others--but that model would probably not be useful for much since it's too complex.

So, okay, I'll accept varying degrees of bias.

But my statement was:

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'm pretty sure that my statement isn't asserting that all humans are subject to the same degree of bias, just that NTs are not immune from brain issues such as bias. And your answer has led to a study of 243 undergrad students, who, I'm assuming since I didn't scan the whole document for this info, are not all NTs. So, from my perspective, what we've agreed upon is that, in the general population of humans, there's varying degrees of bias. I still assert that NTs are subject to brain issues such as memory loss, cognitive illusions, bias, etc. and that makes them vulnerable, just like the rest of us humans, to believing they are logical and factual and will acquiesce to the "right" evidence, when, in reality, they may be just as blinded to the "right" evidence as the rest of us can be.

Your parenthetical remark is at the heart of this problem. Many people do not accept facts which most of us consider well-established. There are still people out there, for instance, who insist that the Earth is 6,000-some-odd years old, because that is what the generations in the Bible add up to. They claim God fabricated the fossil record to make it look otherwise. If a fact is not well-established, then it is valid to challenge it. If the other person has nothing better, I expect to include it, at least for the sake of discussion.

That was an interesting addition to this discussion.

We must be careful to separate facts from conclusions based upon them, and from opinions. A special category of facts is observation. "There were 313 hurricanes in the past 50 years, and only 266 in the 50 years prior to that," is hard to contest with any credibility. Relating that to global warming is another matter.

I learned from this. Thank you for these distinctions.

As for what I say or keep in my head, well, I keep quite a bit in my head. I tend to say only what is directly relevant, though, in the interests of keeping the discussion on-topic, and not losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Do you ever say out loud that you learned something or were mistaken or that the other person has a point? Are those things directly relevant to you? Because I tend to agree with @Peter Deadpan that there's what feels like evasiveness, or a going away to incorporate the new info and then going forward from there, and leaving out any admission of ignorance or whatever you want to label it.

And I'll just reiterate, I know you don't speak for all NTs or even all INTJs.

 

[Coriolis]

243 undergrad students. How did that affect the results?

Also, let's just assume that anything to do with humans is not uniform across humankind. Bell-curve, spectrum, whatever you want to call it. I would gather that an argument could be made that all of us are snowflakes--each one varying from the others--but that model would probably not be useful for much since it's too complex.

So, okay, I'll accept varying degrees of bias.

You asked for evidence of "some people being less subject to cognitive illusions and bias". "Less subject" implies that it is a matter of degree. That is just what the study I linked documented. Since it was a starting assumption of the study and not its conclusion, the nature of the sample set is irrelevant. You can nitpick and wordsmith at it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you basically agreed with my assertion, in the highlighted above.

That was an interesting addition to this discussion.


I learned from this. Thank you for these distinctions.

Good. That is the point, after all.

Do you ever say out loud that you learned something or were mistaken or that the other person has a point? Are those things directly relevant to you? Because I tend to agree with @Peter Deadpan that there's what feels like evasiveness, or a going away to incorporate the new info and then going forward from there, and leaving out any admission of ignorance or whatever you want to label it.

I say these things, or some variant, when they are true and relevant. Often, though, I will be more specific and cut to why something was a good point, as I did when saying that "your parenthetical remark is at the heart of this problem." In practical discussions, I will tell someone when they have a good idea. I will often point out to someone what I agree with in their statement, before taking issue where I disagree. I will usually identify my assumptions, as well as specify when I am purely speculating, or speaking on a topic where my knowledge is limited.

I cannot relate to what you are describing as evasiveness. I can be quite evasive, but reserve that for the infrequent case of someone who is just being a jerk, especially if that involves being nosy or pushy. As for the "going away to incorporate new info", I sometimes will tell someone that I am not yet convinced, but will need to think more on what they have said. I have gone back to such people, sometimes months later to follow up, not necessarily to agree, but to offer new insights on the question.

 

[Yuurei]

Do you ever say out loud that you learned something or were mistaken or that the other person has a point? Are those things directly relevant to you? Because I tend to agree with @Peter Deadpan that there's what feels like evasiveness, or a going away to incorporate the new info and then going forward from there, and leaving out any admission of ignorance or whatever you want to label it.

And I'll just reiterate, I know you don't speak for all NTs or even all INTJs.

(assuming this was more general and not just to Coriolis
Yes, of course. My ego is not so fragile that I see new information or perspective as a failure.

Though, I admit that it is rare. The only time I might debate someone is if it's a topic I'm well-educated on or at least very confident of my knowledge. Then I'm pretty stubborn.

 

[Eilonwy]

You asked for evidence of "some people being less subject to cognitive illusions and bias". "Less subject" implies that it is a matter of degree. That is just what the study I linked documented. Since it was a starting assumption of the study and not its conclusion, the nature of the sample set is irrelevant. You can nitpick and wordsmith at it all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you basically agreed with my assertion, in the highlighted above.

You mean to tell me that you're going to stick with debating this detail of me skipping a step instead of walking you all the way back to my original statement? Do you need that walk-back in order to get the point? I'm asking seriously because there are places where I can't make the leap and I get stuck and can't see what's obvious to other people/types.

And I notice that you left my whole explaining paragraph out of your quote. See, this is where you get away with saying that the "right" evidence wasn't presented to you, so you dismiss it. You find a detail that was sloppy and use it to dismiss my whole argument. From my perspective, that looks like an ego thing. You cherry-pick to your advantage just like the rest of us human beings. And then you make sure to state that I agreed with you, reinforcing that you're the dominant intellect and I'm just the student.

Good. That is the point, after all.

And then you take credit for making a point that I admitted I learned from. Yet I don't see you admitting to learning anything from this. You are reinforcing, once again, that you're the dominant intellect and I'm just the student.

I say these things, or some variant, when they are true and relevant. Often, though, I will be more specific and cut to why something was a good point, as I did when saying that "your parenthetical remark is at the heart of this problem." In practical discussions, I will tell someone when they have a good idea. I will often point out to someone what I agree with in their statement, before taking issue where I disagree. I will usually identify my assumptions, as well as specify when I am purely speculating, or speaking on a topic where my knowledge is limited.

Do the people you're having discourse with agree that you do this? Does their perspective even matter?

I cannot relate to what you are describing as evasiveness. I can be quite evasive, but reserve that for the infrequent case of someone who is just being a jerk, especially if that involves being nosy or pushy. As for the "going away to incorporate new info", I sometimes will tell someone that I am not yet convinced, but will need to think more on what they have said. I have gone back to such people, sometimes months later to follow up, not necessarily to agree, but to offer new insights on the question.

I think the bolded may be a blind spot for you, then.

 

[Eilonwy]

In addition, I'll admit that I was intellectually sloppy in the first place, asking for evidence for your claim of some people being less subject to cognitive illusions and bias, when that was not actually addressing my statement of being "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 gave you the opening to stay with the argument of degree of bias when degree of bias wasn't really in question.

 

[Coriolis]

You mean to tell me that you're going to stick with debating this detail of me skipping a step instead of walking you all the way back to my original statement? Do you need that walk-back in order to get the point? I'm asking seriously because there are places where I can't make the leap and I get stuck and can't see what's obvious to other people/types.

And I notice that you left my whole explaining paragraph out of your quote. See, this is where you get away with saying that the "right" evidence wasn't presented to you, so you dismiss it. You find a detail that was sloppy and use it to dismiss my whole argument. From my perspective, that looks like an ego thing. You cherry-pick to your advantage just like the rest of us human beings. And then you make sure to state that I agreed with you, reinforcing that you're the dominant intellect and I'm just the student.

This portion of the discussion has been a moving target, one I have been doing my best to follow as I try to answer your questions and provide the evidence you justifiably requested. My original point always has been that some types are more subject to bias than others, a point you eventually accepted. To go back to the original question of discussing vs. debating, this suggests that some types will have less (but not no) bias in their stated positions or arguments. It would be interesting to see whether the kinds of bias that most affect someone is type dependent, but neither the article I quoted nor my own knowledge covers that.

NT logic most definitely needs a "reality check" sometimes. IME, though, that happens less often than with other types - though this is more of a T/F distinction than NT vs other temperaments. Type does not equate to proficiency. It does equate to preference, though, and to the extent that we do the things we prefer more often, more consistently, and more attentively, we get more experience/practice with those things. We also value them, so are motivated to develop them. That combination of motivation and practice often does translate into proficiency.

And then you take credit for making a point that I admitted I learned from. Yet I don't see you admitting to learning anything from this. You are reinforcing, once again, that you're the dominant intellect and I'm just the student.

I suspected you would object to my noting that you were demonstrating the validity of your own point on the importance of learning. The only thing I have learned so far in our exchange is what I learned from that paper I linked for you.

Do the people you're having discourse with agree that you do this? Does their perspective even matter?

I admit that when I tell someone, "that's a good idea", I don't check to see how they interpreted my remark. Same with when I say, "I agree with you about A and B, but disagree on C", or "I'm assuming X here, which may be wrong", or "I don't know much about this subject, so this is pure speculation". I guess I am naive enough to expect such statements to be taken at face value, though I am always willing to explain when asked. Life is too short to go around cross-checking everything I say. The other person's perspective matters, to the degree they are willing to share it. I cannot read minds, and prefer not to make assumptions.

I think the bolded may be a blind spot for you, then.

Please explain.