Ruining the fun for others

[Synthetix]

Being analytical, we notice the flaws and errors made in a persons activities and beliefs. I notice that when a popular idea is evident in certain individuals, I point out the logical or political incorrectness that shows in what ideology they hold on to, by this I mean common myths and rumors and stereotypes.

They happily engage in talking about these, boosting their belief in them... However, enter moi.. I spill out evidence and a series of examples that contradict and disprove what they are so willing to manifest. At first they may be strictly defensive of their views, but over time, with my persistence for proving facts, they soon come to realize the falsities in their views. Them becoming frustrated and exclaiming that I ruined the good nature of their previous state of mind, believing what they had been before. It seems my correct information brings more frowns than smiles.

They say ignorance is bliss... Similar stories?

 

[Moocow]

Sounds like a really poor attempt to rationalize their errors. It's like when you argue with someone about religion and they pull out this morality card, saying the belief in god is the source of their good will and generosity of spirit. Bullshit!

 

[kora]

The world is split into those who would rather have the red pill and those who would rather have the blue pill, stuffing it down their throats may make them angry ^^ (personally I think it's for their own good)

 

[snafupants]

That hits somewhat close to home for me. I've learned with time, though, that other folks are at least attempting to comprehend the world, and that that should be seen as more of a laudable effort and less of a detriment. I usually have to bite my tongue when someone propounds some avant-garde idea about biopsychology, cosmology or ethics. I often see the limitations of their ideas but whenever I tear those ideas apart I feel terribly guilty afterward. Therefore, I have virtually stopped correcting people in the flesh. It's not that I don't care but rather that the effort of the fight is incommensurate with disabusing their beliefs.

 

[Mello]

Maybe, you should try explaining to people how they are wrong.

Do you ask them why they think that way or do you just state that they are wrong?

 

[snafupants]

Maybe, you should try explaining to people how they are wrong.

Do you ask them why they think that way or do you just state that they are wrong?

Well, if you're referring to me, which is maybe a good assumption because you're wont to follow my posts, I let folks fully explain their conjectures before I state the evidence leading to a dissimilar thesis. Like I said though, I've toned down my criticism in everyday conversation. That sounds somewhat resigned but it's seldom worth the effort to argue with folks. In other words, neither party seems to benefit from a screaming match and I'm left emotionally depleted.

 

[Moocow]

@snafupants What about people that have no desire to learn more or develop their views? Surely, you can't feel bad for them.

 

[snafupants]

@snafupants What about people that have no desire to learn more or develop their views? Surely, you can't feel bad for them.

I just wish this world had more open-minded intellectuals, perhaps just in proportion to those on the forum would be acceptable. There is simply too much ignorance and dogma in this world to be disabused without tremendous emotional expenditure, you know?

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

I think there are two kinds of INTPs (and I say this as a broad generalization).

Some--as they go about analyzing, critiquing, and pointing out flaws in their own special INTP way--start to perceive that they are viewed as killjoys, party-poopers, and nit-pickers. In order to avoid becoming social pariahs, they learn to bite their tongues, hold back comments, and squelch a lot of what comes naturally.

And then there are others who let fly and either don't perceive the consequences, or don't care.

There is a third way though. You can say what's on your mind much more freely if you can learn to use softeners.

As much as we wish people operated with pure logic, the human mind is also made up of ego, emotion, and primitive instincts of survival. When you tell people they are wrong or mistaken or in error, there is usually a defense reflex. It is a similar feeling when you feel your body tense up if you perceive a physical threat. When you challenge someone's world view, it is almost like raising your fist as though to strike a blow.

No one likes to feel in error (especially INTP's). As Higs pointed out, people don't want to take the red pill, because the red pill is also a bitter pill. But in the wise words of Mary Poppins, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

So when you feel compelled to tell someone their thinking is error, avoid using confrontational words and phrases.

"Here is where you are mistaken..."
"Your idea is absurd because..."
"Let me tell you where I think you've gone wrong..."
"I think what you're saying is silly because..."
"I have to disagree with you because..."

Instead, soften the blow, and make it easier to take.

"You know, what you're saying is very interesting. Another thing that is interesting about it is..."

"There are many ways of thinking about something. Have you considered them all? For instance, you might notice that..."

"It sounds like you've got a good start on this issue, but there may be more to consider. For example..."

"I understand why you think that. But it's simply not my cup of tea. Because if everybody liked the same things or thought the same way, it would be a pretty dull world. In my opinion, this idea is..."

---------------------------------
Be obscure clearly.-- E.B. White

 

[Pyropyro]

I usually do not dissect stuff unless its outright wrong or would compromise my plans or the other person's well being.

Anyways, if I have no alternative solution to the issue in question or lack enough info to judge accordingly then I just keep silent and observe. Who knows, I might learn something new.

 

[Pyropyro]

I think there are two kinds of INTPs (and I say this as a broad generalization).

Some--as they go about analyzing, critiquing, and pointing out flaws in their own special INTP way--start to perceive that they are viewed as killjoys, party-poopers, and nit-pickers. In order to avoid becoming social pariahs, they learn to bite their tongues, hold back comments, and squelch a lot of what comes naturally.

And then there are others who let fly and either don't perceive the consequences, or don't care.

There is a third way though. You can say what's on your mind much more freely if you can learn to use softeners.

As much as we wish people operated with pure logic, the human mind is also made up of ego, emotion, and primitive instincts of survival. When you tell people they are wrong or mistaken or in error, there is usually a defense reflex. It is a similar feeling when you feel your body tense up if you perceive a physical threat. When you challenge someone's world view, it is almost like raising your fist as though to strike a blow.

No one likes to feel in error (especially INTP's). As Higs pointed out, people don't want to take the red pill, because the red pill is also a bitter pill. But in the wise words of Mary Poppins, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

So when you feel compelled to tell someone their thinking is error, avoid using confrontational words and phrases.

"Here is where you are mistaken..."
"Your idea is absurd because..."
"Let me tell you where I think you've gone wrong..."
"I think what you're saying is silly because..."
"I have to disagree with you because..."

Instead, soften the blow, and make it easier to take.

"You know, what you're saying is very interesting. Another thing that is interesting about it is..."

"There are many ways of thinking about something. Have you considered them all? For instance, you might notice that..."

"It sounds like you've got a good start on this issue, but there may be more to consider. For example..."

"I understand why you think that. But it's simply not my cup of tea. Because if everybody liked the same things or thought the same way, it would be a pretty dull world. In my opinion, this idea is..."

---------------------------------
Be obscure clearly.-- E.B. White

Ah, I guess I need to master this art.

 

[Minuend]

I sometimes question people when I think something is contradictory. But I don't push it, because one; There is no reason my perspective should be more valid than theirs regardless of religion and political views. Two; it's not my job to raise other people.

Often, they will continue to think what they already thought. Which is fair enough, one shouldn't trust what random people says to be a fact.

People usually don't get upset, though. I can't at this time recall someone being upset by what I said. At least not to such a degree I noticed it.

 

[Roran]

Some--as they go about analyzing, critiquing, and pointing out flaws in their own special INTP way--start to perceive that they are viewed as killjoys, party-poopers, and nit-pickers. In order to avoid becoming social pariahs, they learn to bite their tongues, hold back comments, and squelch a lot of what comes naturally.

People really do not like it when you shove their flaws (be they in themselves or in their reasoning) in their faces, regardless of your intent. This is the main reason I don't bother to correct people anymore, and don't bother with people in general.

 

[Yet]

curiosity might have killed the cat ... but know-it-all definitely kills the inner-scientist.

I only point out sometimes when some reasoning is a bit 'funny', not founded. But it is more interresting to question peoples thoughts (Socrates questioning) and let them be to make their own mind up.
Questions have a lot more impact on the thought trail than blunt big headedness.

(b.t.w. I can enjoy arrogance that is actually justified, it makes me smile, but I do find that rarely so in people).

 

[snafupants]

I think there are two kinds of INTPs (and I say this as a broad generalization).

Some--as they go about analyzing, critiquing, and pointing out flaws in their own special INTP way--start to perceive that they are viewed as killjoys, party-poopers, and nit-pickers. In order to avoid becoming social pariahs, they learn to bite their tongues, hold back comments, and squelch a lot of what comes naturally.

And then there are others who let fly and either don't perceive the consequences, or don't care.

There is a third way though. You can say what's on your mind much more freely if you can learn to use softeners.

As much as we wish people operated with pure logic, the human mind is also made up of ego, emotion, and primitive instincts of survival. When you tell people they are wrong or mistaken or in error, there is usually a defense reflex. It is a similar feeling when you feel your body tense up if you perceive a physical threat. When you challenge someone's world view, it is almost like raising your fist as though to strike a blow.

No one likes to feel in error (especially INTP's). As Higs pointed out, people don't want to take the red pill, because the red pill is also a bitter pill. But in the wise words of Mary Poppins, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

So when you feel compelled to tell someone their thinking is error, avoid using confrontational words and phrases.

"Here is where you are mistaken..."
"Your idea is absurd because..."
"Let me tell you where I think you've gone wrong..."
"I think what you're saying is silly because..."
"I have to disagree with you because..."

Instead, soften the blow, and make it easier to take.

"You know, what you're saying is very interesting. Another thing that is interesting about it is..."

"There are many ways of thinking about something. Have you considered them all? For instance, you might notice that..."

"It sounds like you've got a good start on this issue, but there may be more to consider. For example..."

"I understand why you think that. But it's simply not my cup of tea. Because if everybody liked the same things or thought the same way, it would be a pretty dull world. In my opinion, this idea is..."

---------------------------------
Be obscure clearly.-- E.B. White

Well put. Ego and emotion definitely predate logic. The brain basically developed from back to front, so although we may prefer using advanced noetic structures and logic and our prefrontal/neocortex our vestigial drives cannot be quelled too easily. This has an adaptive benefit but as our society becomes more technologically and intellectually advanced we are also forced to concede the drawbacks. I actually prefer confrontation and polemical dissonance though. Conversation is just a boring monologue, at least for me, barring the other person interjecting and creating intelligent points. I would rather by taught than teach basically. That said, since I rarely come across truly intelligent folk I end up reading more than what's perhaps healthy.

 

[shortbuss]

God do I know this feeling. I just watched the movie Hot Tub Time Machine with some friends, and it was the worst thing I've ever seen! I felt like I was watching another the Hangover or Judd Apatow style bromance. I'm SO sick of that gimmick! I'm so sick of the same characters with the same jokes always calling each other fags! It's fucking annoying. I used to tell my friends what I honestly thought, but I either choose to lie with a subtle hint of sarcasm that only I should be able to recognize if I'm with casual friends, and with other friends I just give a short, vaguely "nice" reply implying that I'm lying through my teeth for their sake, lol. That way I don't have to explain myself to people that want to laugh at the stupid shit they want to laugh at.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

God do I know this feeling. I just watched the movie Hot Tub Time Machine with some friends, and it was the worst thing I've ever seen! I felt like I was watching another the Hangover or Judd Apatow style bromance. I'm SO sick of that gimmick! I'm so sick of the same characters with the same jokes always calling each other fags! It's fucking annoying. I used to tell my friends what I honestly thought, but I either choose to lie with a subtle hint of sarcasm that only I should be able to recognize if I'm with casual friends, and with other friends I just give a short, vaguely "nice" reply implying that I'm lying through my teeth for their sake, lol. That way I don't have to explain myself to people that want to laugh at the stupid shit they want to laugh at.

I love those films. Superbad, Pineapple Express, Role Models, Fanboys etc. Don't group Hangover in with Apatow/Rogen, Hangover was a complete unfunny disgrace.

 

[Amagi82]

I've noticed that I'm useless (as are most people) at trying to change someone's opinion in a 10 minute conversation, but over a few months of exposure to me, sometimes longer, beliefs gradually change. The key is to not be confrontational about it: You simply lead them to the trough of knowledge. I like to find excellent youtube videos/documentaries, and encourage people to watch them, then ask them what they thought.

Good phrases to use:
"Have you considered..."
"How do you think we can..."
"What do you think is the best way to go about..."
"Given (problem x), what do you think is the best course of action?"
"If you could create the best possible (x) from the ground up, how would you go about it?"

You never accuse people of being wrong, in any way. You never accuse. Become a master at asking questions. Let them prove their own theory wrong to themselves.

 

[snafupants]

I love those films. Superbad, Pineapple Express, Role Models, Fanboys etc. Don't group Hangover in with Apatow/Rogen, Hangover was a complete unfunny disgrace.

The only movie you mentioned which I would keep off of the chopping block, for the previous poster's rationale, is Superbad. That movie was sort of unique considering how raunchy and unsafe the dialogue was and how over-the-top the fantasy sequences were. I guess I just ultimately find Superbad funnier than the others. The most epic moment is when the fat kid gets off the bus wearing mothy clothes from the seventies with Motown playing in the background. The violence at the end of Pineapple Express was completely stupid and unnecessary. Maybe they were hoping folks would forget about the bad jokes with enough violence before the credits.

 

[Antediluvian]

I have yet to see Jonah Hill's The Sitter, but Superbad was decent enough. Mclovin was equal parts annoying and entertaining, okay maybe slightly skewed towards annoying.

 

[Peripheral Visionary]

I've noticed that I'm useless (as are most people) at trying to change someone's opinion in a 10 minute conversation, but over a few months of exposure to me, sometimes longer, beliefs gradually change. The key is to not be confrontational about it: You simply lead them to the trough of knowledge. I like to find excellent youtube videos/documentaries, and encourage people to watch them, then ask them what they thought.

Good phrases to use:
"Have you considered..."
"How do you think we can..."
"What do you think is the best way to go about..."
"Given (problem x), what do you think is the best course of action?"
"If you could create the best possible (x) from the ground up, how would you go about it?"

You never accuse people of being wrong, in any way. You never accuse. Become a master at asking questions. Let them prove their own theory wrong to themselves.

You can never go wrong with the Socratic method.