Tendency to disprove

[baculou]

I was wondering if anyone else had a tendency to disprove.
Even if I agree with something I automatically take the opposite stance to someone’s argument.
Is this the trait of an INTP or an asshole?
If I get them to change their stance, I will change mine to their original view.



Confusion is nothing new.

 

[Adymus]

Doubt is an entirely healthy practice, but if you are only doing it for no other reason than to be contrary, then yes, you are being an asshole.

 

[zackp24]

I do have a tendency to play devil's advocate. Sometimes when I'm talking with someone about my views I'll end up presenting multiple opposing viewpoints and testing them against each other, all in one lengthy unbroken monologue. It has a tendency to to end up looking like this:

 

[KazeCraven]

Debate is fun.

That said, I think you are just being an asshole.

 

[citrusbreath95]

I do something similar to this. I think of the exact opposite of what someone says, or try to make an entirely new perspective from the two. I do enjoy playing Devil's advocate. Though, I don't hold it into the conversation if I don't truly believe it, unless I'm suggesting the possibility of the opposite being correct. Yeah, I can be a very confusing debate partner.

 

[Words]

I was wondering if anyone else had a tendency to disprove.
Even if I agree with something I automatically take the opposite stance to someone’s argument.
Is this the trait of an INTP or an asshole?
If I get them to change their stance, I will change mine to their original view.



Confusion is nothing new.

How can you be an asshole when the purpose of debate is truth? Switching stances is an effective method.

 

[Adymus]

How can you be an asshole when the purpose of debate is truth? Switching stances is an effective method.

No it isn't.

All it does is neutralize all participants of certainty, or at least attempts to do so, it is deconstructive, not constructive.

 

[Words]

No it isn't.

All it does is neutralize all participants of certainty, or at least attempts to do so, it is deconstructive, not constructive.

Great. Now, what is a debate? and how do you determine an actions' purpose?

If we follow the definition that it is simply "argument", the purpose of debate, in my opinion, is to further my most accurate understanding(Truth). If we consider that as my purpose, how am I an asshole? I did not have any negative intention.'

If the question was directed on playing "devil's advocate", then, no, defining the weakness of your argument is an essential goal towards a brighter understanding. If the entire argument is invalid, then you would be learning more instead of less.

It is constructive in the form that it benefits greater understanding.

 

[warryer]

I do this if I am trying to gain an understanding of where a person is in their view point. I poke holes in it and see if they have an explanation- if they have a solid one then I am likely to go along with what they say.

If a person says something or does something I disagree with 9/10 times I keep my mouth shut. It's a quick way to get people to not like you if you tell them they are wrong all the time or oppose everything they say.

 

[Excellent]

I don't think you're being an asshole. Although I suppose it depends on your intentions, if you're doing it just to piss them off, then maybe. I do that all the time without thinking about it really. When I'm talking and making my own points or when someone else is talking and trying to make a point, I can't help but see where someone else could disagree, and so I'll point out where I (or they) could be wrong. I end up talking about one thing from many different perspectives. I do this in my head a lot too, I think it's just how I feel I get the best understanding of something. When I do it out loud, I've been told I over explain things or it sounds like I'm arguing with myself. Haha.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

I'm not sure if I'm an INTP or an INFJ at this point, but I usually take the defensive because many times people don't see the whole picture when they state their argument (for example, they didn't listen to the other person's side, or they've taken an illogical stance on the issue). Basically I'm just fighting the ignorant and the stubborn. The topic really doesn't have much to do with it... When the other person beats me in my own game (they know everything I said and more that I don't), I am usually pretty impressed and they get a little more respect from then on.

 

[Adymus]

Great. Now, what is a debate? and how do you determine an actions' purpose?

If we follow the definition that it is simply "argument", the purpose of debate, in my opinion, is to further my most accurate understanding(Truth). If we consider that as my purpose, how am I an asshole? I did not have any negative intention.'

If the question was directed on playing "devil's advocate", then, no, defining the weakness of your argument is an essential goal towards a brighter understanding. If the entire argument is invalid, then you would be learning more instead of less.

It is constructive in the form that it benefits greater understanding.

First of all words, the world is not made of xNTPs, not everyone appreciates having their beliefs attacked, you might think you are doing them a favor, but it is unwelcomed criticism more than often than not.

If all you are doing is running around shooting Ne at people, you are not actually being constructive in any way, because possibilities are infinite. So even if you are speaking the truth, there are still plenty of possibilities that could be said that could make it sound like you are wrong.

In the example the OP provided, he encounters a person who has a belief, so he spits a bunch of other conflicting possibilities at this person until they are no longer confident in this belief. At what point did either of them find truth or understanding? That person might have actually been right in their belief, but now they are not sure if they are right just because some guy told them they might be wrong because of this and that. He did not construct anything at all, he just reduced the playing field to dust.

EDIT: Words, I am not saying there is anything wrong or negative about debate or argument itself, and even devil's advocate has it's proper places. But being contrary for no other reason but to be contrary, is being a dick.

 

[Excellent]

First of all words, the world is not made of xNTPs, not everyone appreciates having their beliefs attacked, you might think you are doing them a favor, but it is unwelcomed criticism more than often than not.

If all you are doing is running around shooting Ne at people, you are not actually being constructive in any way, because possibilities are infinite. So even if you are speaking the truth, there are still plenty of possibilities that could be said that could make it sound like you are wrong.

In the example the OP provided, he encounters a person who has a belief, so he spits a bunch of other conflicting possibilities at this person until they are no longer confident in this belief. At what point did either of them find truth or understanding? That person might have actually been right in their belief, but now they are not sure if they are right just because some guy told them they might be wrong because of this and that. He did not construct anything at all, he just reduced the playing field to dust.

EDIT: Words, I am not saying there is anything wrong or negative about debate or argument itself, and even devil's advocate has it's proper places. But being contrary for no other reason but to be contrary, is being a dick.

I agree, and disagree with you. I think there are definitely times when one should just be quiet, at least with issues they don't really care much about, and let people believe what they want to believe because a lot of people are just content that way.

Also, people tend to get annoyed when someone is constantly pointing out why they are or could be wrong, like someone else said, it's not a good way to make friends. And I agree, being contrary just to be contrary is rather dickish.

However, I think it CAN be constructive to kind of push people to think outside their beliefs and make them doubt what they thought they knew. They could possibly learn something from it.

 

[Iuanes]

First of all words, the world is not made of xNTPs, not everyone appreciates having their beliefs attacked, you might think you are doing them a favor, but it is unwelcomed criticism more than often than not.

If all you are doing is running around shooting Ne at people, you are not actually being constructive in any way, because possibilities are infinite. So even if you are speaking the truth, there are still plenty of possibilities that could be said that could make it sound like you are wrong.

In the example the OP provided, he encounters a person who has a belief, so he spits a bunch of other conflicting possibilities at this person until they are no longer confident in this belief. At what point did either of them find truth or understanding? That person might have actually been right in their belief, but now they are not sure if they are right just because some guy told them they might be wrong because of this and that. He did not construct anything at all, he just reduced the playing field to dust.

Define constructive. If you're building something over quick sand isn't more constructive to let the person know?

If a person's belief is shaken by alternative perspectives was it a worthy belief in the first place? Can the believer become stronger in his beliefs or refine them? Why is certainty inherently 'good' or 'constructive' or more valuable than other things ?

The truth and understanding arrived at in these practices is precisely achieving the vista of multiple and infinite interpretations. Taking into account that one is always building over an abyss. That truth is radical, contradicting.

EDIT: Words, I am not saying there is anything wrong or negative about debate or argument itself, and even devil's advocate has it's proper places. But being contrary for no other reason but to be contrary, is being a dick.

The infinite debate of a perpetual contrarian enacts this truth of truth as a ritual.

If the person who is being contradicted isn't convinced by what the contrarian says then nothing is truly reduced to dust. If they are, then they do it by their own intellects' consent, in sincerity.

I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Adymus]

Define constructive. If you're building something over quick sand isn't more constructive to let the person know?

If a person's belief is shaken by alternative perspectives was it a worthy belief in the first place? Can the believer become stronger in his beliefs or refine them? Why is certainty inherently 'good' or 'constructive' or more valuable than other things ?

The truth and understanding arrived at in these practices is precisely achieving the vista of multiple and infinite interpretations. Taking into account that one is always building over an abyss. That truth is radical, contradicting.





The infinite debate of a perpetual contrarian enacts this truth of truth as a ritual.

If the person who is being contradicted isn't convinced by what the contrarian says then nothing is truly reduced to dust. If they are, then they do it by their own intellects' consent, in sincerity.

I don't see a problem with it.

We don't always know if someone is building on quicksand, when an idea is purely conceptual, there might be something to it, and their might not be. Trying to destroy this idea with opposing arguments is not actually proving or disproving it, because at this point in the idea's lifespan, the perceived weaknesses or contradictions might not even be contradictory. Just because you can come up with a counter arguement, does not mean an idea is falsified. Certainty does actually have inherent value, only with certainty can you begin to build upon a new idea, naturally there is a benefit to uncertainty as well, we might be wrong. However, none of them are inherently valuable when practiced in extremes, pure uncertainty is just as flawed as pure cocksure certainty.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Who says a debate has to be constructive? Just watch any political debate on a news show or campaign and you will easily see the purpose to be destructive. Although destructive can in it's own way be constructive sometimes, it is not in the case of my example.

Debate can be a method of gaining understanding in a search for truth but just as often it is used in an attempt to destroy a belief or an idea. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that.

 

[Words]

First of all words, the world is not made of xNTPs, not everyone appreciates having their beliefs attacked, you might think you are doing them a favor, but it is unwelcomed criticism more than often than not.

It's not about type. It's about people realizing that my purpose of discussion is clearer understanding.

If all you are doing is running around shooting Ne at people, you are not actually being constructive in any way, because possibilities are infinite. So even if you are speaking the truth, there are still plenty of possibilities that could be said that could make it sound like you are wrong.

Possibilities can be "slashed(/)" with reasoning. 1 + 1 =/= infinite. (unless reality is wrong.)

In the example the OP provided, he encounters a person who has a belief, so he spits a bunch of other conflicting possibilities at this person until they are no longer confident in this belief. At what point did either of them find truth or understanding? That person might have actually been right in their belief, but now they are not sure if they are right just because some guy told them they might be wrong because of this and that. He did not construct anything at all, he just reduced the playing field to dust.

On pure opinions, well duh... But on topics that can be clarified wherein X = X, it is constructive. If someone told me 2 + 2 = 3...well...I would think maybe it is! Maybe known mathematics is wrong! But no, it's understood that we are working on a known common reality wherein arguments can actually "construct" something.

If debate wasn't created for this purpose, then what's the sake of having "thoughts"?

Everyday my thoughts argue with themselves and everyday I form a slightly better view of "common reality".

EDIT: Words, I am not saying there is anything wrong or negative about debate or argument itself, and even devil's advocate has it's proper places. But being contrary for no other reason but to be contrary, is being a dick.

You mean: "for no other reason but to be a dick." But how is analyzing subjects "dickish"? People are offended when they're ideas are dissected?

And I agree, being contrary just to be contrary is rather dickish.

Why does one be "contrary just to be contrary"?

We don't always know if someone is building on quicksand, when an idea is purely conceptual, there might be something to it, and their might not be. Trying to destroy this idea with opposing arguments is not actually proving or disproving it, because at this point in the idea's lifespan, the perceived weaknesses or contradictions might not even be contradictory. Just because you can come up with a counter arguement, does not mean an idea is falsified. Certainty does actually have inherent value, only with certainty can you begin to build upon a new idea, naturally there is a benefit to uncertainty as well, we might be wrong. However, none of them are inherently valuable when practiced in extremes, pure uncertainty is just as flawed as pure cocksure certainty.

That is why there are arguments.(in my opinion) To form the understanding of whether something is valid according to a known logic. That said, logic can be wrong therefore argument can be invalid. Nevertheless, I doubt we'd ever reach an argument against 1 + 1 = 2. (or maybe we could but unlikely.)

What I'm trying to say is that you are underestimating the medium of debate---wee have reached science out of debate and we have reached personality types out of debate. "Logic" is fallible but arguments can only be as valid as what is and what is not known. Debate is not an inherent deconstructive concept; It is "thought" itself.

Debate can be a method of gaining understanding in a search for truth but just as often it is used in an attempt to destroy a belief or an idea. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that.

Yes.

 

[KazeCraven]

Why does one be "contrary just to be contrary"?

Several people, myself included, assumed that's just what the OP was being.

OP hasn't replied, so we are none the wiser of OP's motives for being contrary.

And I think, while people are raising good points about the nature of debate, the motive is the core issue (i.e. original purpose) of the thread. Thus if one is being contrary to be contrary, that person (consequences notwithstanding) is being an asshole. It may cause good overall, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Adymus]

It's not about type. It's about people realizing that my purpose of discussion is clearer understanding.

and whether they will realize your contradiction if for clearer understanding or not, will include type as a factor.

Possibilities can be "slashed(/)" with reasoning. 1 + 1 =/= infinite. (unless reality is wrong.)

Sometime they can, but not necessarily, reasoning alone does not make ideas right or wrong. Idea + Reasoning =/= Truth, Idea+Reasoning+Evidence = Truth. Just because an idea makes a lot of sense does not necessarily mean it must be true. In the same way, just because an idea does not make sense does not mean it cannot be true; what if it is our understanding that is off, not the idea?

Kind of reminds me of an Einstein quote: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

 

[Words]

Thus if one is being contrary to be contrary, that person (consequences notwithstanding) is being an asshole.

How do you explain wanting to be contrary for what it is? X is because of X? Is it some playful popularized activity?

It may cause good overall, but that's irrelevant.

Are you talking about "not taking people seriously when they are serious"?

Sometime they can, but not necessarily, reasoning alone does not make ideas right or wrong. Idea + Reasoning =/= Truth, Idea+Reasoning+Evidence = Truth. Just because an idea makes a lot of sense does not necessarily mean it must be true. In the same way, just because an idea does not make sense does not mean it cannot be true; what if it is our understanding that is off, not the idea?

Kind of reminds me of an Einstein quote: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

If our logic has an error, we simply check it. We may arrive at an answer but common usual pattern suggests checking the methods that brought the conclusion.

Another main problem is that the word "Fact" is used inaccurately and inconsistently. Many "facts" are considered as "facts" carelessly and this usually becomes an origin of faulty reasoning.

Therefore, when creating an idea, I suggest not setting things into stone, proceed with mental masturbation and deal with the concepts' "what ifs" more than its "supreme credibility". Evidence may come or may not, but the thought process should be considered as prime motivation as oppose to its practical feasibility. One, it develops you, two, it is still possible.

Also, Am I correctly receiving the notion of "INTP's are vehement unimaginative realists" from you? If so, I present my disagreement.

 

[Adymus]

You missed my point entirely words...

Finding truth is never as simple as only requiring sound logic. You could have completely sound logic and still be wrong because there are pieces to the puzzle that you are missing. You can go back and check that logic and find no problems what so ever, and yet still have an error because there are factors that you did not take into consideration, or you are not seeing it from the right point of view.

Also, Am I correctly receiving the notion of "INTP's are vehement unimaginative realists" from you? If so, I present my disagreement.

No, you aren't. I don't imagine there is very much that you receive from me correctly these days, words...

 

[Words]

You missed my point entirely words...

Finding truth is never as simple as only requiring sound logic. You could have completely sound logic and still be wrong because there are pieces to the puzzle that you are missing.

If it is wrong, it is not "sound" logic.

You can go back and check that logic and find no problems what so ever, and yet still have an error because there are factors that you did not take into consideration, or you are not seeing it from the right point of view.

An "error" is a sign of incorrect and "unsound" logic. The determination of logic validity relies on the level of complexity of the subject and it's relation to reality's basic laws.

 

[Excellent]

Why does one be "contrary just to be contrary?

Maybe saying "Being contrary to make someone mad is rather dickish." Would be more accurate. Sometimes pointing out flaws is unnecessary. If someone is being contrary just to get a reaction out someone, it's not very helpful.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

I was wondering if anyone else had a tendency to disprove.
Even if I agree with something I automatically take the opposite stance to someone’s argument.
Is this the trait of an INTP or an asshole?
If I get them to change their stance, I will change mine to their original view.

intps are good at spotting logical failures.

which makes us good at shutting arguments down.

i dont think you would say you change yours to their original view as much as you are just pointing out more logical errors.

im not sure if you could call this being an asshole, i hope not because i do it often.

 

[asdfasdfasdfsdf]

If it is wrong, it is not "sound" logic.

i think you are still missing the point.
he is saying having sound logic wont grant you a correct answer in all cases.
it may keep you from getting a wrong answer, but it wont always give you everything.

for instance, a detective could have the best logic of any man ever, but without a clue he isnt going to figure out the case.
you need things other than logic alone.
his sound logic would only keep him from falsely accusing others, it isnt going to correctly single out the criminal without allot of things to work off of.

 

[KazeCraven]

@Words: It's almost like being contrary is the end goal. I suppose it might be due to investing one's identity in being contrary. Or maybe being contrary is intrinsically rewarding. Sorta like wanting to be happy because "it is an enjoyable state." Depending on how you define happiness, you could just reword it to say being contrary yields happiness.

@snik: If he's being contrary to point out logical holes, that's one thing. If he's being contrary because he enjoys being contrary, that's another. I assume the latter.

 

[Words]

Maybe saying "Being contrary to make someone mad is rather dickish." Would be more accurate. Sometimes pointing out flaws is unnecessary. If someone is being contrary just to get a reaction out someone, it's not very helpful.

It being not helpful makes it "asslike"? And how do you know it is not "helpful"? Helpful to what?

im not sure if you could call this being an asshole, i hope not because i do it often.

Exactly, and the usual cause of this habit is not out of negative intention.

i think you are still missing the point.
he is saying having sound logic wont grant you a correct answer in all cases.
it may keep you from getting a wrong answer, but it wont always give you everything.

for instance, a detective could have the best logic of any man ever, but without a clue he isnt going to figure out the case.
you need things other than logic alone.
his sound logic would only keep him from falsely accusing others, it isnt going to correctly single out the criminal without allot of things to work off of.

Aren't "facts" part of the logic? If you do not consider "clues", it is not logical.

@Words: It's almost like being contrary is the end goal. I suppose it might be due to investing one's identity in being contrary. Or maybe being contrary is intrinsically rewarding. Sorta like wanting to be happy because "it is an enjoyable state." Depending on how you define happiness, you could just reword it to say being contrary yields happiness.

And because they're goals differs or because e is being deceitful, e is being an "asshole"?

"Tendency to disprove". <---although it may point a lack of something(intention), it does not disprove this absence. Argumentum ad ignorantium.

@snik: If he's being contrary to point out logical holes, that's one thing. If he's being contrary because he enjoys being contrary, that's another. I assume the latter.

And how did you assume the latter?

Mine was INTP = need for clarity = tendency to disprove. Of course, I have no evidence so it's all guesswork.

 

[KazeCraven]

I'm just guessing too, so I'll drop that.

And yes, because of the nature of his goal I am calling him an asshole. He's the one who suggested the alternative. Maybe that's extreme, but he seems to be quite far from seeking clarity. If he is, as you suggest, seeking clarity, then I recant nearly all statements on grounds of invalidated assumption.

However, here's why I doubt he's looking for clarity:

Confusion is nothing new.

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

However, here's why I doubt he's looking for clarity:

Originally Posted by baculou
Confusion is nothing new.

Perhaps the confusion is his own? Without the OP's clarifying we can only assume but in true INTP fashion we are able to take this discussion into our own directions

I think some time ago there was a discussion about the nature of debate on this forum. If so, perhaps it should be revisited and if not, we should have that discussion because it is quite clear that there are differing views on the purpose, meaning and construction of debate. Is it to seek absolute truth? Interpretive truth? Understanding of differing views? Reasoning through logic? To dispel a belief? Reinforce a belief?

It's because most don't realise that another's goal in a debate might be different that causes one party to consider the other an "asshole".

 

[KazeCraven]

I do think such a discussion would be worthwhile. If we're not debating for it's own sake (whatever benefits derive directly from engaging in debate), I don't see why one would immediately switch viewpoints just so the debate can continue.

And even if we are, such declaration of debate should be declared initially (or sometime between the initial argument and the switch). Though when I say "should" I just mean "unless you want to come off as an asshole."

It's the switching that I take issue with.

Edit: Dammit, I'm refining my posts again.

 

[Words]

However, here's why I doubt he's looking for clarity:

confusion is nothing new

Why? What does that sentence mean? Does it mean "*People's* confusion *as a reaction to my inconsistency* is nothing new"? How does that fuel your doubt?

I think some time ago there was a discussion about the nature of debate on this forum. If so, perhaps it should be revisited and if not, we should have that discussion because it is quite clear that there are differing views on the purpose, meaning and construction of debate. Is it to seek absolute truth? Interpretive truth? Understanding of differing views? Reasoning through logic? To dispel a belief? Reinforce a belief?

It's because most don't realise that another's goal in a debate might be different that causes one party to consider the other an "asshole".

Yeah..sure..

I do think such a discussion would be worthwhile. If we're not debating for it's own sake (whatever benefits derive directly from engaging in debate), I don't see why one would immediately switch viewpoints just so the debate can continue.

It's the nonsensical switching that I take issue with.

I don't have any issues with it. And if you do, then pardon my future "insulting inconsistencies".

 

[KazeCraven]

Now I think you're being coy.

All I'm saying is that the OP's post was sufficiently undefined, and saying "confusion is nothing new" implies that he's just doing it to confuse people. Which can be beneficial, but I would think the term "asshole" applies well here.

And on this board I'm specifically looking for debate, so your opinions can't insult me (unless you directly question my character, obviously). But if by "inconsistencies" you mean deliberately changing your opinion to an opposing view, then I think we need to redefine "inconsistencies."

 

[Words]

saying "confusion is nothing new" implies that he's just doing it to confuse people.

Now this, I don't understand. How does it imply "he's just doing it to confuse people"?

But if by "inconsistencies" you mean deliberately changing your opinion to an opposing view, then I think we need to redefine "inconsistencies."

Why?

 

[KazeCraven]

Consider the context. Why would he have added at the end of his post this statement? "Confusion is nothing new."

If he were seeking clarity, I could see him saying "confusion is necessary for truth" or "confusion is helpful." But what could someone mean by "confusion is nothing new" after writing a post about a tendency to disprove? I suppose I should have written "seems to imply" as there's no guaranteed jump from here to there. The overall tone seems to have nothing to do with wanting more knowledge, except perhaps the mentioning of the trait possibly being INTPish.

And as for the inconsistencies, deliberately changing your opinion isn't just about being inconsistent. It's about debate. Deliberately changing your opinion is being inconsistent, but being inconsistent isn't necessarily about deliberately changing your opinion. The problem is that by changing "switch point of view" to "inconsistency" is that it loses the point of the argument, or at least muddles it. I'm concerned about intentions.

Why am I concerned about intentions? Because, in non-debating environments, it is generally considered antagonistic to question people's beliefs and argue with them extensively. Perhaps I took his argument the wrong way, but I don't envision this to be done with a great deal of tact. There's more than one game going on in the social sphere, so if you don't lay out your rules ahead of time, why should we place so much value on the debating game?

Debate is about making yourself right (and others wrong). Why do I say that? Because anyone who is on a debate team isn't seeking truth, they are trying to win. Once they win, they are done, and that's that. Discussion is about truth, and that's collaborative. The opening statement really doesn't fit well with the idea of discussion... Okay, maybe it does work that way, but that's not what you were arguing for. Maybe now I'm just arguing semantics, but whatever. I think that covers all the steps I can think you'll take next, but I'm sure there's more, so I'll be back.

 

[Words]

Consider the context. Why would he have added at the end of his post this statement? "Confusion is nothing new."

If he were seeking clarity, I could see him saying "confusion is necessary for truth" or "confusion is helpful." But what could someone mean by "confusion is nothing new" after writing a post about a tendency to disprove? I suppose I should have written "seems to imply" as there's no guaranteed jump from here to there. The overall tone seems to have nothing to do with wanting more knowledge, except perhaps the mentioning of the trait possibly being INTPish.

I still do not understand. Absence of cause means a focus on being "asslike"? The overall tone suggests "asslike" behavior?

Why am I concerned about intentions? Because, in non-debating environments, it is generally considered antagonistic to question people's beliefs and argue with them extensively.

Even if their beliefs are completely illogical? I tell a man how to drive, and he tells me "you just step on the pedal". And by me correcting him, I am being antagonistic?

Debate is about making yourself right (and others wrong). Why do I say that? Because anyone who is on a debate team isn't seeking truth, they are trying to win. Once they win, they are done, and that's that. Discussion is about truth, and that's collaborative. The opening statement really doesn't fit well with the idea of discussion... Okay, maybe it does work that way, but that's not what you were arguing for. Maybe now I'm just arguing semantics, but whatever. I think that covers all the steps I can think you'll take next, but I'm sure there's more, so I'll be back.

Debate is a form of discussion. In discussion, there is debate within oneself and within the circle of conversation. Or maybe I am wrong with the definition?

 

[Excellent]

It being not helpful makes it "asslike"? And how do you know it is not "helpful"? Helpful to what?

No, that's not what makes it "asslike". That'd depend on the situation.

 

[BigApplePi]

I was wondering if anyone else had a tendency to disprove.
Even if I agree with something I automatically take the opposite stance to someone’s argument.
Is this the trait of an INTP or an asshole?
If I get them to change their stance, I will change mine to their original view.
Confusion is nothing new.

To me a fascinating topic because it goes directly to different temperaments and how they may either clash or harmonize.

Suppose one kind of person is fond of taking the lay of the land. That is, they prefer perception over selection. I'm not addressing why each would go that way at the moment, just that they do. Then when such a perceptive person encounters a selective person, they may naturally wonder why this selection. There are two options:

(1) Go directly to the selection and ask about it
(2) Go outside the selection looking for alternatives.

How to make the choice? Well there are many factors. How aggressive is the perceptive person? If he is aggressive, he will wish to go outside the selection. How resistant is the selective person? If he is resistant, better to inquire the nature of the selection.

Now that I've spoken, anyone dare to challenge this?

 

[Words]

To me a fascinating topic because it goes directly to different temperaments and how they may either clash or harmonize.

I disagree. I can persuade a healthy ESFJ that my aim is simply further understanding and have done so. We have arrived at a conclusion with me switching my position back and forth.

Suppose one kind of person is fond of taking the lay of the land. That is, they prefer perception over selection. I'm not addressing why each would go that way at the moment, just that they do. Then when such a perceptive person encounters a selective person, they may naturally wonder why this selection. There are two options:

(1) Go directly to the selection and ask about it
(2) Go outside the selection looking for alternatives.

How to make the choice? Well there are many factors. How aggressive is the perceptive person? If he is aggressive, he will wish to go outside the selection. How resistant is the selective person? If he is resistant, better to inquire the nature of the selection.

Now that I've spoken, anyone dare to challenge this?

It's interesting how you've connected this..

But why can't it all go to reason? If there is a selection and other selections are available and if time isn't so limited, isn't it more "reasonable" to gauge the rest of the possibilities first?

 

[BigApplePi]

I disagree. I can persuade a healthy ESFJ that my aim is simply further understanding and have done so. We have arrived at a conclusion with me switching my position back and forth.

So you've selected the option of taking up my pronouncements and dared to challenged them, eh? Very well. I disagree with your disagreement.
A healthy ESFJ has the same cognitive functions but with a different priority than an INTP. They are relatively easy to get along with. If you want somebody to not get along with, try an unhealthy ISTJ. Then see if you can bring them around to your POV.

But why can't it all go to reason? If there is a selection and other selections are available and if time isn't so limited, isn't it more "reasonable" to gauge the rest of the possibilities first?

Reason? I'll give you reason. It all depends on whether the selection has already been selected. The selective person has already chosen among the selections and need not listen to yours. It's part of his/her selection process to select two things:

(1) The selected choice
(2) The decision to limit selections.

You do try to get around this by saying, "time isn't so limited." That's valid for the perceptive person whose job is to perceive. Not so for the selective person. Their time is limited as they must choose.

 

[Words]

So you've selected the option of taking up my pronouncements and dared to challenged them, eh? Very well. I disagree with your disagreement.
A healthy ESFJ has the same cognitive functions but with a different priority than an INTP. They are relatively easy to get along with. If you want somebody to not get along with, try an unhealthy ISTJ. Then see if you can bring them around to your POV.

...."understanding of information" might be type related, yet I believe it is an indirect relationship than a direct one.

In conclusion, type matters because of tendencies:

1. Intelligence (Type can factor in determining intelligence?)

2. Values (Type can factor in determining values?)

...but not necessarily in reality?

Reason? I'll give you reason. It all depends on whether the selection has already been selected. The selective person has already chosen among the selections and need not listen to yours. It's part of his/her selection process to select two things:

(1) The selected choice
(2) The decision to limit selections.

You do try to get around this by saying, "time isn't so limited." That's valid for the perceptive person whose job is to perceive. Not so for the selective person. Their time is limited as they must choose.

If there is a time limit and if it is reasonable then simply follow this method:

1. List as much advantage of each random and obviously rational choice as possible.
2. Compare and judge based on what is known.

 

[BigApplePi]

...."understanding of information" might be type related, yet I believe it is an indirect relationship than a direct one.

Agreed. Understanding is subjective anyway, isn't it?

In conclusion, type matters because of tendencies:
1. Intelligence (Type can factor in determining intelligence?)
2. Values (Type can factor in determining values?)
...but not necessarily in reality?

I assume each type has a different kind of intelligence. Values are subjective though, so each type would have to speak up.

If there is a time limit and if it is reasonable then simply follow this method:
1. List as much advantage of each random and obviously rational choice as possible.
2. Compare and judge based on what is known.

A person of perception may have all the time in the world to do their thing, but if they are speaking to a decision maker, best they be concise, direct, clear and waste no time in getting their points across.

 

[Words]

Agreed. Understanding is subjective anyway, isn't it?

I assume each type has a different kind of intelligence. Values are subjective though, so each type would have to speak up.

As much as I'm assuming "type of intelligence" is indirectly correlated with type, values are indirectly connected as well. Fe Dom will tend to value social relationships than Ti Dom. "F types" will tend more "valuing" than "T types".

A person of perception may have all the time in the world to do their thing, but if they are speaking to a decision maker, best they be concise, direct, clear and waste no time in getting their points across.

Because time is limited. Have you watched House M.D.? Have you seen how much they argue and the limited evidence they often have? House often does not follow what is "more likely" correct. He, for some reason, "knows" the true disease and this "lack of logic" creates a rift between him and his colleagues. Although, I might've entirely interpreted the show wrongly.

My point is: Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence(Argument from Ignorance). And because of this "limited time", we will often not make the best possible choice. We can, however, make the best known choices. A "Good" debate can do this.

 

[KazeCraven]

I still do not understand. Absence of cause means a focus on being "asslike"? The overall tone suggests "asslike" behavior?




Even if their beliefs are completely illogical? I tell a man how to drive, and he tells me "you just step on the pedal". And by me correcting him, I am being antagonistic?




Debate is a form of discussion. In discussion, there is debate within oneself and within the circle of conversation. Or maybe I am wrong with the definition?

point 1: Now I'm not so sure. Just at first glance, I get the image of someone saying to me that I'm wrong for such and such reason. Then, upon conceding the point, that person turns around and suggests I should now defend their position having agreed that it was better. If I hadn't had this discussion (debate?) I would have thought the person was messing with me.

point 2: If you correct him, that's not antagonistic. If you "correct" him, then when he takes your suggestion, you "uncorrect" him, that no longer is helpful.

point 3: *shrugs* I mixed up the definitions before I made that comment, so I guess they aren't particularly well-defined in practice.

Dang, now I've forgotten why I thought he was being an asshole. I suppose if it's a subject worthy of debate and you discredit a person's viewpoint without acting like the person was an idiot for holding the original view, then you aren't being assholish. I can imagine some people taking offense, but I'd have to think a bit to see why it's offensive just to discuss or debate something again.

Ah, I have one idea, though it's not my original point. Here's an article by Peirce on doubt: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

The idea is that people dislike being in a state of doubt, in general. Though he argues that ultimately we'll want to find the correct answer through reasoning (typical philosopher argument), many people just want to be in a state of certainty. If you have the answer, that's fine (I guess?), but questioning someone's belief without having a solution just means they're probably going to be taken to an undesirable state only to return to their previous belief.

 

[telepathink]

Its called critical thinking.
And afterall at least you have something to talk about, there is no discussion if everybody agrees
But I guess its really a trait of an INTP.
Any INTP disagree? There must be plenty of them...

 

[BigApplePi]

Its called critical thinking.
And afterall at least you have something to talk about, there is no discussion if everybody agrees
But I guess its really a trait of an INTP.
Any INTP disagree? There must be plenty of them...

What is the likelihood of everyone agreeing to the nth degree? What is the likelihood an INTP will agree with him/herself? That is, have no doubts? In any case if there is agreement, discussion can be continued if there is
(1) application
(2) refinement

Need something real to work on? Present a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is there a solution or is the situation stable and cyclic?

 

[telepathink]

Need something real to work on? Present a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is there a solution or is the situation stable and cyclic?

I fear that the conflict itself is a solution of the power elites. But we digress

In every discussion its good to take the opposite side and argue for the sake of properly analysing the problem. However not to stick to any position you take but just use it to verify all the possible arguments.
And then you can move on satisfied that everything is clear.

 

[Lobstrich]

Conflict breeds creativeness.. But creating conflict just for the sake of doing it, only slows you down.

 

[Words]

point 2: If you correct him, that's not antagonistic. If you "correct" him, then when he takes your suggestion, you "uncorrect" him, that no longer is helpful.

Then it's a matter of whether my "correction" is "correct", not "correction" itself. If my "suggestion" is wrong, am I being antagonistic? I can see how if I intentionally suggested the 'wrong correction', I would be antagonistic but I don't see antagonism in simply stating the known positives and negatives of a selection.

Doesn't this still ultimately rely on "intention" of argument?

Dang, now I've forgotten why I thought he was being an asshole.

I hope you remember.

Ah, I have one idea, though it's not my original point. Here's an article by Peirce on doubt: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

Interesting but tl;dr. Thank you.

The idea is that people dislike being in a state of doubt, in general. Though he argues that ultimately we'll want to find the correct answer through reasoning (typical philosopher argument), many people just want to be in a state of certainty. If you have the answer, that's fine (I guess?), but questioning someone's belief without having a solution just means they're probably going to be taken to an undesirable state only to return to their previous belief.

Then it's better for these people to believe in a lie? For the sake of emotion and value?

Conflict breeds creativeness.. But creating conflict just for the sake of doing it, only slows you down.

If you're suggesting that conflict = debate, then I disagree.

What is the likelihood of everyone agreeing to the nth degree? What is the likelihood an INTP will agree with him/herself? That is, have no doubts? In any case if there is agreement, discussion can be continued if there is
(1) application
(2) refinement

Need something real to work on? Present a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is there a solution or is the situation stable and cyclic?

I'm thinking the larger the scale of the problem(the more important it is), the more "perceiving"(finding possibilities and facts) is needed.

The Arab-Israeli conflict seems like a complicated issue with several political interests, I guess you need to go around all these obstacles...

 

[Fallenman]

Lol I feel as if Word is simply playing the devils advocate.

Well I enjoy applying all concepts to life, and so I've applied this concept to life, or rather I tried to find a surrogate for what the OP, and various commenter's, have described.

I thought of a guy in a group of friends who is constantly arguing with everyone's proposed plan to do anything. Sure we can go to the theaters... but what about x? I think that sometimes arguing just to argue can be fun. I do that from time to time, and get a lot out of it. But to argue every single time.... that gets annoying, cumbersome, old. Especially if you already agree that going to the theaters would be superb. So why bring up x? There are some issues I could use clarification on, like quantum theory or whether or not maryanne really likes me, but if i tell you i like vanilla and you ask me why not chocolate, and i get into this whole argument about why vanilla snuffs chocolate (LIES! CHOCOLATE IS THE NECTAR OF THE GODS!) only to find out that you actually agreed with me that vanilla pwns chocolate (forgive me for i have sinned again) the entire time, then i'm going to be a little annoyed with you.

The point is that unless I gained some deeper appreciation for vanilla (insanity) by expressing my beliefs to you (there is a difference between asking a person why they like vanilla and getting into an argument with them over why chocolate beats vanilla only to say just kidding, i think vanilla beats chocolate) and vigorously defending them in debate, I will accuse you of having wasted my time.

Sometimes being contrary just to be contrary... is just plain annoying.

 

[KazeCraven]

@Fallenman: I thought so too, but I now think Words is getting at something pretty important.

@Words: Excuse me if I rehash something already said, but I'm getting back on track...

In general, I think the problem here is that the argument for assholishness lies on moral relativity. People like to be agreeable, and those who place more value on emotions would, in fact, say that it is better to believe in a lie than get all confused in the chance that they'd discover something new. Someone who disrupts this state of comfortable certainty without offering another comfortable place of certainty is, quite literally, attacking others' emotional well-being. Hence why such a person can be label an asshole. (This argument for moral relativity would also explain why I started seeing a problem with my own position, as I don't believe in moral relativity anymore. But that's not exactly relevant here.)

Btw, if you need me to extract more from Peirce about why certainty is desirable, I can. It is indeed quite long.

This is also why meta-conversation is important before beginning the debate, as someone may perceive the argument as a personal attack to upset them. While being contrary can create a discussion leading to truth, being contrary is also a method of expressing dislike for a person. People use agreement and similarity to connect, so deliberate dissonance is quite easily interpreted as a refusal to connect. A first debate might be seen as trying to correct someone for their own good, but a second argument in the opposite direction is easy to (mis)construe as antagonistic.

Intentionality is important, but without meta-conversation (is that even a word?) all the person has is guesses about your intentions. And they will guess, as socializing is built in with a plethora of assumptions about how we ought to behave. In other words, your intentions, unless explicitly stated, are secondary to what your behavior suggests your intentions are. Depending on the context and how you choose to express your dissenting viewpoint, you will be seen as attacking certainty, if not the competence of the person as well, and therefore emotional comfort.

I suppose then the next question would be, when is someone justified in calling someone else an asshole? Whenever that person feels unfairly attacked?