Tendency to disprove

[cheese]

I do it without even noticing, although only with people I'm close with. People do tend to take it as an assholish thing, and the funny thing is, I do too. I think it's because any opposition appears to rely on the assumption that you haven't thought things through clearly enough, and that can be offensive, especially when you're just looking for some place to vent about your own experiences (and presumably you have more first-hand knowledge than your ventee, with all his counter-arguments, could ever have). I understand this, in the abstract, and it's annoying when it happens to me, but I find myself doing it so often (and people get annoyed fairly often as well) so it's something I'd like to change. At the same time though, I hate to hear someone denigrated because of a lack of information or perspective, and if I can provide alternate possibilities to explain their alleged villainy, why not... But perhaps that's not an appropriate role for me to give myself. I don't know.

 

[Words]

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?

Because it could be better? But since time is an issue and one can only deal with so many possibilities, it is more "reasonable" to argue based on such restrictions.

My question: Is the annoyance from the lack of "rationality" [resulting from the conflict of actually heading to the theater(doing something) and the presenting options] or more of an innate opinion that there is "too much clarification" and said "excessive clarification" is subjectively undesirable?

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.

You are talking about pure opinion based topics? With that, I don't even see the need for an argument. And since it is understood as subjective, I don't see how one would feel annoyed. The argument can simply be ended with "I inherently like it."

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.

Stating truths is 'assholish' when it disrupts emotional stability? I cannot relate to this vulnerability...

[

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

Certainty is desirable even if illogical? Is it an inherent human psychological condition?

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.

I am trying to understand this...

Social connection is done through subjective "synching"(opinions, humor, interests etc.) and objective synching( background, race, age etc.) Without similarities, there is no social connection? Difference in subjective and objective factors represents antagonism towards persons' opinion. On the other hand, continuous emphasis on differentiating opinions is perceived as antagonism not towards belief but already towards person.

Beliefs are attached to persons therefore excessive disagreeing subtly implies antagonism towards person.

On another note, disagreement is "anti-connection" because it directly represents antagonism to person's belief therefore, presenting an indirect antagonism towards person.

What is the relation of this with certainty? Certainty is the "material" that connects belief and self?

----

It makes me think about discrimination and how "diversity" is generally undesirable.

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 see...

Attacking certainty of person is attacking the person(?) Attacking certainty is done by antagonism towards belief(?) Antagonism towards belief attacks certainty of person[which attacks person] and excessive antagonism socially implies antagonism[which can be simple dislike or question of competence]towards person.

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

A "underhanded" attack? And there is a an "almost universal" human understanding of what is an "attack" and what is not?

I think it's because any opposition appears to rely on the assumption that you haven't thought things through clearly enough.

Incompetence.

 

[KazeCraven]

Certainty is desirable even if illogical? Is it an inherent human psychological condition?

Within the human mind, the difference between a real truth and a belief assumed to be true is nonexistent. It becomes apparent if applied to the real world, but they're often not tested anyway. The typical INTP truth-seeking is the same thing, only INTP's tend to doubt their ideas automatically and wish to verify their ideas to remove that doubt. I'm not certain that Peirce's argument is psychologically verified; however, most people do place comfort and happiness over truth. Doubt often helps the latter, but certainly not the former.

Social connection is done through subjective "synching"(opinions, humor, interests etc.) and objective synching( background, race, age etc.) Without similarities, there is no social connection?

Not necessarily, though people prefer to be around others that are similar to them . In short, close friendships are rare without similarities (subjective) or at least complementary personalities. This fact has been more or less verified by social sciences, as it was taught in my Interpersonal Communications class.

Difference in subjective and objective factors represents antagonism towards persons' opinion. On the other hand, continuous emphasis on differentiating opinions is perceived as antagonism not towards belief but already towards person.

That's my point, essentially. You'd be surprised at how much people mix their identity with their beliefs. In fact, many people find it disconcerting when someone presents a viewpoint, argues for it, then subsequently states that he or she doesn't believe it.

What is the relation of this with certainty? Certainty is the "material" that connects belief and self?

No, but that's an interesting idea. Certainty is a desirable state to be in. Why do you think people rigorously adhere to their religion, ignoring seemingly conflicting evidence rather than refuting it or explaining why it is irrelevant? Why do people applaud and support prominent figures who support their own position? Don't tell me they don't, for it is quite common.

A "underhanded" attack? And there is a an "almost universal" human understanding of what is an "attack" and what is not?

Actually, I'd go so far to say that the understanding of "attack" varies drastically from person to person. This makes discussion a bit confusing, as people have their own (often logically inconsistent) views of what constitutes an attack and what doesn't based on their own experiences. That being said, there are general rules of thumb about what is open for discussion and for knowing when you've crossed the line and upset someone. Seems to me that a well-developed Fe would help here in describing what these rules of thumb are, though it could even be hard for social experts to explain.

In short, remove most of the question marks and you've got something I think many (if not most) people believe. Though I feel obliged to add that your idea of debate/discussion and what I imagine you would argue doesn't seem assholish to me, whereas the opening post, without further analysis of it, brought up associations of assholishness. I'm trying to understand that initial feeling, but the more I analyze it, the less valid it seems.

Which sucks because I'm almost certain many would argue for my initial point.

 

[Fallenman]

Excessive clarification is undesirable, and arguments over opinions are moot.

I think of a particular friend who argues constantly with people. Often times he argues with people who could very much use the intellectual stimulation he provides by giving them an opposing viewpoint, but it annoys when he argues with me, almost in the way that cheese supposes. It supposes that I haven't considered both sides of the argument or what have you, but often times i am just as informed if not more than him and so what he ends up having to do is come up with absurd arguments that while plausible are completely improbable. When he starts speculating about things like this i know hes just arguing to be contrary and then i feel like hes wasting my time, if not being an ass =P.

We last got in an argument over shutter island, he wanted to make the argument that the actor was right and the asylum was a conspiracy to lock up Leonardo, as opposed to Leonardo actually being insane and in an asylum feigning his insanity in the last scene (my interpretation). On the last scene I could see it in my friends face that he was about to go into one of his moments and I had already contemplated his entire view point before he even got into it with me. I know he doesn't actually believe his version of the ending, he just wanted to argue with me to battle wit against wit lol. Either way it was amusing but annoying nonetheless.

 

[Lobstrich]

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

I'm suggesting what it is.. Conflict.

Fine you disagree. Don't waste my time though. WHY do you disagree?
See there's the fruits of conflict, you disagree. I will get an answer from you.
Maybe my eyes will open, maybe not. But I certaintly discovered something, didn't I?

 

[baculou]

Wow, I am sort of amazed at the number of replies. (First time posting something.)
As far as motive goes, I don't believe I have one. It is more a reflex then a conscious action. I do believe that part of the reason lies in the fact that I do not know. Part of me hopes that they will provide undeniable proof(an absolute).
Truth. I only know one absolute truth. Something exist everything else is just perception.

 

[KazeCraven]

Ah, I see. Such behavior is not necessarily sufficient for being an INTP, but clearly you do not have the disposition of an asshole. Assuming you are telling the truth.

Topics without a general consensus and are difficult to describe fully tend to be long.

 

[Words]

I'm suggesting what it is.. Conflict.

Fine you disagree. Don't waste my time though. WHY do you disagree?
See there's the fruits of conflict, you disagree. I will get an answer from you.
Maybe my eyes will open, maybe not. But I certaintly discovered something, didn't I?

I think debate is more elaborate than simply "conflict". Part of it is conflict, but conflict as it's prime definition is inaccurate.

Therefore, when you say:

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

You are ignoring debate's own definition.

Also, the "just for the sake of doing it" does not necessarily = slow you down. One example is when you see "speed"(in terms of entertainment or development) in "sake of doing it".

Wow, I am sort of amazed at the number of replies. (First time posting something.)
As far as motive goes, I don't believe I have one. It is more a reflex then a conscious action. I do believe that part of the reason lies in the fact that I do not know. Part of me hopes that they will provide undeniable proof(an absolute).
Truth. I only know one absolute truth. Something exist everything else is just perception.

It's the intuitive process of Ti Ne.

Ah, I see. Such behavior is not necessarily sufficient for being an INTP, but clearly you do not have the disposition of an asshole. Assuming you are telling the truth.

Topics without a general consensus and are difficult to describe fully tend to be long.

Do these results imply that the OP has lesser(by majority) grasp on Fe? Could that be something indirectly correlated with being INTP? (since development is possible)

 

[cheese]

Wow, I am sort of amazed at the number of replies. (First time posting something.)
As far as motive goes, I don't believe I have one. It is more a reflex then a conscious action. I do believe that part of the reason lies in the fact that I do not know. Part of me hopes that they will provide undeniable proof(an absolute).
Truth. I only know one absolute truth. Something exist everything else is just perception.

Yeah!

I forgot to mention that other, very real, very common motivation for my arguing (and I think for many others here too). It's often a sort of plea for indisputable instruction, not the attack it's perceived to be.