Boundaries vs Logic

[Crystabelle]

ESFJ here. Trying to understand how to communicate with INTP. After understanding logic was such an important thing (that he didn't simply "feel" what I considered right/wrong) I began trying to argue with logic. To me, that usually means clearly defining cause an effect. X + Y = Z. "Eureka!" I thought. "Now we'll make progress!"

However, it seems like all my X + Y = Z equations still don't carry the weight I thought they would. I'm wondering if you guys value logic secondary to freedom. What I mean is, if I can spell out something that makes logical sense (if you do this then *this* will happen and *this* is what we've both stated we want) but it carries boundaries and rules you must follow, will you likely disregard the logic in order to keep your perceived freedom? Does the logic come at too great a price? Does that mean you will disregard logic at some point?

1 -- what is logic? what does it mean to make logical decisions?

2 -- does freedom trump logic?

 

[Rixus]

It depends on the nature of the logic. Our logic may not resemble your Earth logic - it's much more advanced.

Actually, really, if I am presented with a logical argument, and it must be logical and not emotional, then give me time to go away and consider it. I will then process with information, analyse multiple eventualities and alternative perspectives etc, then if I find I agree with this piece of logic then I will agree.

In the case of INTP's, remember that we may be logical but we will ponder something for hours at a time, even if it seems simple to you. Our logic is not as simple as X + Y = Z, it's an application written in C++ with it's own libraries.

But of course, if you are trying to fight an INTP all the time then they WILL blank you. Constant confrontation is actually painful - and we will avoid it or do whatever is necessary to temporarily placate you in order to maintain the emotional harmony that is peaceful to us.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Freedom from following one's own logic and one's own principles is not freedom, it's just being impulsive (which is nothing other than being slave to one's emotions).

So I would never say "fuck logic because I don't feel like following logic today", but I could say: my earlier assumptions were wrong and I have to revise my conclusions.

 

[Turnevies]

True formal logic is absolute, but it is quite utopic to apply it to real life, many of the assumptions in each step are up to debate, so make sure you agree on this.

Logic can show the way to where you want to be, but then you need to know where you want to be obviously. And having freedom is typically part of the description of the destination. This does not mean everyone (e.g. your husband) is concious about wanting this as part of the destination.

I have a pronounced ESxJ-friend with whom I generally get along well, but sometimes we've had serious fights arise in the past diverging from rather stupid issues. It typically is a matter of him talk-talk-talk in a way I don't even have the chance to consider and formulate a response (though the formulation itself is considered logically by him and this is not entirely untrue either), it pisses me of until I loose my patience and try to make him clear in a merciless outburst that people must learn to think before they talk.

Anyway, generally we don't like others telling us what to do. I'm not saying this stubbornness is never immature.

When attempting to convince him of something, clearly show you have an open mind and interested in his input, that every step of your logic seems the most rational one that you could think of, but that he is very welcome to disagree with you so (everything is up to debate). Now you can have an inspiring open discussion.

 

[Grayman]

Nothing trumps logic. Im not ignoring the laws of gravity when I jump off the plane. You probably hadnt considered that this backpack i am wearing is actually a parachute!

...idk that looked a lot like the backpack i put next to his parachute...

 

[Grayman]

.... a thought...

Logic is useless except to find answer. In otherwords you have a goal that is Z and x + y will get you to Z. Maybe freedom is his Z and [insert goal] is yours. You would need a different value for x and y because your zs are different.

Or in my previous answer one of you is missing a key element in the equation that the other person sees and it isnt being properly communicated.

 

[Seteleechete]

[Silina: it seems like a pretty incomplete equation. If you do X then Y will happen. But why will Y happen because of X? Why should it happen because of X? Why is X true? Why is X the most optimal thing? Why is Y derived from X the most optimal conclusion? It can be pretty obvious that X will lead to Y. But that isn't really the interesting question, the interesting questions are the "why's" and "shoulds" in this particular instance.

And remember any answer that resembles "because it is/that's just how it is" without a properly laid out justification is always a bad answer. So next time you say "Do x otherwise y will happen" also explain why it should happen and justify why it's the most optimal conclusion.]

 

[Crystabelle]

[Silina: it seems like a pretty incomplete equation. If you do X then Y will happen. But why will Y happen because of X? Why should it happen because of X? Why is X true? Why is X the most optimal thing? Why is Y derived from X the most optimal conclusion? It can be pretty obvious that X will lead to Y. But that isn't really the interesting question, the interesting questions are the "why's" and "shoulds" in this particular instance.

And remember any answer that resembles "because it is/that's just how it is" without a properly laid out justification is always a bad answer. So next time you say "Do x otherwise y will happen" also explain why it should happen and justify why it's the most optimal conclusion.]

Thank you for everyone's feedback.

Is this quote above -- way of thinking & processing -- coming from the N or T part of you guys?

 

[Grayman]

@steleechete

Shouldn't the justifaction just be that it solves the problem that led you to formulating solution in the first place? Any further justification is just you trying to 'sell' it so why would I listen to such arguments? I would just ignore your justifications and find my own.

Are these justifications toward your ends or mine? The first tells me more about you and what you seek to obtain and the second is just your assumptions about what you think I want.

 

[Procinogen]

It depends on the nature of the logic. Our logic may not resemble your Earth logic - it's much more advanced.

Actually, really, if I am presented with a logical argument, and it must be logical and not emotional, then give me time to go away and consider it. I will then process with information, analyse multiple eventualities and alternative perspectives etc, then if I find I agree with this piece of logic then I will agree.

In the case of INTP's, remember that we may be logical but we will ponder something for hours at a time, even if it seems simple to you. Our logic is not as simple as X + Y = Z, it's an application written in C++ with it's own libraries.

But of course, if you are trying to fight an INTP all the time then they WILL blank you. Constant confrontation is actually painful - and we will avoid it or do whatever is necessary to temporarily placate you in order to maintain the emotional harmony that is peaceful to us.

Very well said.

 

[Polaris]

I think the problems that often arise when asking for justification for an argument can be that the person who is asked to justify their argument may have a reason that is important to them emotionally. ESFJs, in my experience, tend to value their emotional attachment to issues as a very integral part of the self, or they value the human emotional aspect to issues because ESFJs are guided by what they consider to be their ethical side, which is more often a conventional and traditional type of ethic (contrary to the INTP, who often has a more unconventional idea of ethics as a result of years of debating and questioning issues in their heads - this is the integral aspect of the INTP self).

I think this conflict is often misleadingly considered emotional ranting vs rational logic - when the rational logic is actually just an alternative version to emotional logic, because 'rational' logic constitutes the foundation of INTP ethics.

- Which means if one part has an "emotional reason", this should therefore ideally be respected and considered by the INTP - otherwise the other part may feel emotionally invalidated. Emotional validation here meaning serious consideration of the other person's reasons - not pandering to bouts of hysteria (although this also needs to be understood). If the premise(s) for the ESFJ's logic is considered seriously as part of the ESFJ integral self - the ESFJ then feels validated as a person and may therefore be more open to listening to the INTP.

I have an ESFJ friend who is always very willing and interested in listening to my arguments because we do not abruptly dismiss each other's beliefs/ethics. She is completely thrown and fascinated by some of my ideas, in a very genuine and curious way. Likewise, I am equally intrigued by her sheer ability to give such an enormous part of herself to causes that she value - I sincerely admire her positive contributions to society and people's lives.

Likewise, if the INTP feels bombarded by the emotional arguments of an ESFJ, this should also be equally respected and considered by the ESFJ, because the INTP may feel equally ignored and rejected. Being bombarded by what INTP consider to be the emotional logic of an ESFJ can feel very similar to emotional invalidation. I had an ESFJ partner who used to get aggressive with me because he interpreted my alternative views as direct attacks on his personal beliefs. He would get angry and call me names, and then storm off to polish his car - and the issue could not be discussed again, ever This was frustrating for me, because I felt rejected on the basis of a severe misunderstanding that left me looking like a very bad person, when all I intended to offer was an alternative viewpoint.

 

[Crystabelle]

Can somebody shed some light on this:

It's very normal for me to share my thoughts & feelings with my INTP husband and him have no response. It usually happens via text or email. It used to really upset me when I open my heart and become vulnerable to only feel totally disregarded. In latter years, I've mostly come to accept it and I usually don't expect a response when I'm sharing anything emotional or relationship related. I'd still like a response of course, but it's just the way things are.

Can anyone tell me what might be going on in his INTP head? As an ESFJ, if I ignored somebody, it would likely be because A) what they were saying was annoying the crap out of me, or B) I was already upset with them.

EX: The last two instances I've texted him, I've apologized for some of my past behavior and I've shared a little of what I've learned. Both instances, not a single response. I'm only assuming he's gotten the texts because in between these "relationship texts" I also texted him concerning our kid & he responded to the kid-related texts.

 

[Jennywocky]

Freedom from following one's own logic and one's own principles is not freedom, it's just being impulsive (which is nothing other than being slave to one's emotions).

So I would never say "fuck logic because I don't feel like following logic today", but I could say: my earlier assumptions were wrong and I have to revise my conclusions.

^^ That.

Maybe for an ESFJ, a similar question would be, "does freedom trump your values and/or emotions?" You can always choose to act against them, but what person chooses to act against the things they hold as a priority in life? (If they choose something else, then they have a different priority.)

Or to couch it in other terms, to an INTP, logic IS a deeply held value even if experienced impersonally. It's the judgment process used to evaluate everything in life. Like Serac says, ignoring it is simply to be impulsive and Id-like. Why would an INTP do that?

Can somebody shed some light on this:

It's very normal for me to share my thoughts & feelings with my INTP husband and him have no response. It usually happens via text or email. It used to really upset me when I open my heart and become vulnerable to only feel totally disregarded. In latter years, I've mostly come to accept it and I usually don't expect a response when I'm sharing anything emotional or relationship related. I'd still like a response of course, but it's just the way things are.

Can anyone tell me what might be going on in his INTP head? As an ESFJ, if I ignored somebody, it would likely be because A) what they were saying was annoying the crap out of me, or B) I was already upset with them.

EX: The last two instances I've texted him, I've apologized for some of my past behavior and I've shared a little of what I've learned. Both instances, not a single response. I'm only assuming he's gotten the texts because in between these "relationship texts" I also texted him concerning our kid & he responded to the kid-related texts.

Answering this in the other thread... but yeah... since he can respond so quickly to the kid-related text (which might have been a more "practical" issue), obviously there is a difference between the two, so the difference must be unearthed.

 

[Crystabelle]

^^ That.

Maybe for an ESFJ, a similar question would be, "does freedom trump your values and/or emotions?" You can always choose to act against them, but what person chooses to act against the things they hold as a priority in life? (If they choose something else, then they have a different priority.)

Or to couch it in other terms, to an INTP, logic IS a deeply held value even if experienced impersonally. It's the judgment process used to evaluate everything in life. Like Serac says, ignoring it is simply to be impulsive and Id-like. Why would an INTP do that?

Freedom would likely never trump my values and probably rarely ever trump my feelings. Freedom seems to be a very "feeling" thing so that analogy gets a little tricky in my mind but the freedom vs. values -- yeah. Thanks for putting it in ESFJ language.

So I would never say "fuck logic because I don't feel like following logic today", but I could say: my earlier assumptions were wrong and I have to revise my conclusions.

Very helpful. From past comments he's made, I *think* this (revising) is what he's doing.

I have a pronounced ESxJ-friend with whom I generally get along well, but sometimes we've had serious fights arise in the past diverging from rather stupid issues. It typically is a matter of him talk-talk-talk in a way I don't even have the chance to consider and formulate a response (though the formulation itself is considered logically by him and this is not entirely untrue either), it pisses me of until I loose my patience and try to make him clear in a merciless outburst that people must learn to think before they talk.

Guilty.

When attempting to convince him of something, clearly show you have an open mind and interested in his input, that every step of your logic seems the most rational one that you could think of, but that he is very welcome to disagree with you so (everything is up to debate). Now you can have an inspiring open discussion.

I'm thinking about printing this off to be my "Discussion Template." (= Maybe if I'm literally holding it in front of me, I'll be able to adhere to the guidelines.... maybe. /= Sigh. At least I'd try. I'm not totally without logic. I regularly ask myself, "Was that effective?" When relying on Feelings (especially when interacting with my husband) the answer is almost always, "No." Maybe in a million more years, I'll actually get good at this.

[Silina: it seems like a pretty incomplete equation. If you do X then Y will happen. But why will Y happen because of X? Why should it happen because of X? Why is X true? Why is X the most optimal thing? Why is Y derived from X the most optimal conclusion? It can be pretty obvious that X will lead to Y. But that isn't really the interesting question, the interesting questions are the "why's" and "shoulds" in this particular instance.

And remember any answer that resembles "because it is/that's just how it is" without a properly laid out justification is always a bad answer. So next time you say "Do x otherwise y will happen" also explain why it should happen and justify why it's the most optimal conclusion.]

I'll add this to my "Discussion Template."

 

[Grayman]

EX: The last two instances I've texted him, I've apologized for some of my past behavior and I've shared a little of what I've learned. Both instances, not a single response. I'm only assuming he's gotten the texts because in between these "relationship texts" I also texted him concerning our kid & he responded to the kid-related texts.

I recieved a positive intimate text from my wife the other day and I took the whole day to consider a reply back. Sometimes I get texts from people that are positive as well and never reply because I procrastinated and thought about the proper response so long that I never actually got to responding. If the text requires a more logical response related to something I understand well i can respond instantly. The more complicated the answer the more I spend considering it and I am more likely to not respond simply because I procrastinated to the extent that I lost all the energy required to firmulate my many thoughts into text.

It is necer because I dont care or am ignoring the person. I always think deepky about what they say and give it much consideration.

 

[Nick85]

Can somebody shed some light on this:

It's very normal for me to share my thoughts & feelings with my INTP husband and him have no response. It usually happens via text or email. It used to really upset me when I open my heart and become vulnerable to only feel totally disregarded. In latter years, I've mostly come to accept it and I usually don't expect a response when I'm sharing anything emotional or relationship related. I'd still like a response of course, but it's just the way things are.

Can anyone tell me what might be going on in his INTP head? As an ESFJ, if I ignored somebody, it would likely be because A) what they were saying was annoying the crap out of me, or B) I was already upset with them.

EX: The last two instances I've texted him, I've apologized for some of my past behavior and I've shared a little of what I've learned. Both instances, not a single response. I'm only assuming he's gotten the texts because in between these "relationship texts" I also texted him concerning our kid & he responded to the kid-related texts.

I think I prefer face to face for that kind of stuff. With text/email I have no idea what the emotion is behind what you said, I don't even get the tone of your voice. For something sensitive like that, I'd be afraid to misinterpret what you said and bothered at not knowing your expression when you react to my response. That being said... even in person we might not know how to respond right away (although you'd still get at least a subdued facial expression from me), and then it might be awkward to respond later. And I can also definitely see INTPs saying those sorts of things in text/email instead of in person if they're afraid of a negative emotional response.