Hello fellow INTPs and fellow forum browsers! I was recently in an argument about criticism on YouTube. And then that got me thinking... how do my fellow INTPs handle arguments like this? If I were to be friendlier then I would try to use logic and reason to end the argument. If I were to take a more aggressive route, then I would again use logic and reason, but this time to "out-logic" them, this meaning I use superior logic to end to prove their argument wrong, which in most cases works out. So, how do you guys handle these arguments?
Hello fellow INTPs and fellow forum browsers! I was recently in an argument about criticism on YouTube. And then that got me thinking... how do my fellow INTPs handle arguments like this? If I were to be friendlier then I would try to use logic and reason to end the argument. If I were to take a more aggressive route, then I would again use logic and reason, but this time to "out-logic" them, this meaning I use superior logic to end to prove their argument wrong, which in most cases works out. So, how do you guys handle these arguments?
The best way to handle Youtube arguments is not to get into one. The opponent isn't out to learn something in the first place so it's like playing chess with a pigeon.
The best way to handle Youtube arguments is not to get into one. The opponent isn't out to learn something in the first place so it's like playing chess with a pigeon.
Yeah. But I didn't really start the argument. I was really... dragged into it. I really hate arguments. Trying to keep somebody happy while disagreeing with them is a nightmare! (For me, at least.)
Yeah. But I didn't really start the argument. I was really... dragged into it. I really hate arguments. Trying to keep somebody happy while disagreeing with them is a nightmare! (For me, at least.)
... I think nowadays, as an old man (appeal to authority, ageism), I usually avoid arguing with anyone I don't find at least somewhat reasonable and responsive to good points, or keep repeating points that have been acknowledged and either refuted or taken into account. Doesn't mean they have to change their conclusion, but there's no evolution of the argument if one side just ignores the points of the other person and keeps spamming their own over and over.
When I do engage in arguments, I've found I'm now pretty pragmatic in regards to how I do it, because the other person might be best receptive to what I have to say if I package it in x way but might not if I package it in y way. This doesn't work that well with strangers because you don't know them, so its difficult to know how to magic the view you want them to see and consider past whatever bottlenecks of understanding and automated perception self-defense systems they may have.
I usually try to remain "logical" (or, rather, try to not say something that isn't consistent and logically defensible), but its seldom a dry presentation of x and y, therefore z because also 2x and usually mixed with other spell effects like fire, psyduck and the jitter of too much caffeine.
Nvm scratch that, I'm a liar, and you believed when when I said all that, so it works. You should adopt my lying ways.
I lied about that too, I actually just Ad Hominem exept for rap battles where I Ad Eminem, which is the act of repeatedly accusing someone of trying to emulateEminem during the rap battle and saying its a poor impression and asking them why they would want to emulate Eminem anyway and imply its in poor taste, me expressing all this in a way that emulates Eminem, which means I'm basically resorting to Ad Hominem.
I take everything back, I have pointless discussions with strangers on the internet tens of times every month with no real benefit to myself or anyone else stemming from it. Everything is futile. If I had a copy of myself I would maybe dislike arguing with myself too, but I'd still do it.
But yeah... there's no secret sauce. Considering one's audience, thinking about whether there is a way convince that particular person or people. Seems usually futile trying to argue as if one is arguing towards someone who thinks like oneself, by putting things in a structure that one wouldn't be able to deny without using counterarguments that would in turn result in the first oneself getting an upgraded understanding of things. Expecting that to work leads to frustration.
I think the idea of keeping things civil or following "ethical debate rules" or something in an argument is overrated and a martyr attitude. Sometimes, unless its in a community that specifically abhors this, you can just ridicule someone or call someone dense and move on, or just move on. You won't convince that person, but others watching who understands you will get you and might also get a kick out of you dismissing the other person. Of course, if you were wrong in the argument... then that's too bad, but you won't know you're wrong in the argument, maybe because the other person didn't do a good job arguing or maybe you were the dense one. Regardless, still, from your subjective point of view you still threw a grenade at the person and turned around to walk away as explosions rose in your background for all to see (and you're also wearing shades).
But yes, Pyro is right, and also remember, even if you know the rules of chess, you can out-pigeon a pigeon opponent too by disregarding the rules of chess as well, or if not breaking the rules of chess, playing an entirely different game by not making any moves on the (logic) chess board, but just doing other things. Maybe just even walk around the board and beat up that pigeon with a baseball bat.
The best way to handle Youtube arguments is not to get into one. The opponent isn't out to learn something in the first place so it's like playing chess with a pigeon.
In arguments in general, I'm kind of a modern Socrates. I ask endless questions, and with the information they give me, I ask the question that, if all the info they said is true, will ruin the logic of the original statement.
If it's an argument about feelings or petty "life tragedies" (like why are you so cold? or you didn't answer the phone, it could have been a tragedy), I just huff and go away. I tend to leave people talking alone when their reproaches are not interesting.
If it's an argument about topics I don't care (such as the aforementiones, politics, etc), again, I refrain from meddling in the dust cloud of the fight.
In general, I tend to think that most of the people involved try to impose their views to feel good with themselves, so it's more of a social validation experience than one in which one can see all the points of view of all the participants and learn from them (in that case I get into those, because I feel I can learn something from them, and hopefully someone might learn something from me).
Internet arguments are easy, for me, though real life conflicts are a whole different story. I theorise than INTP's are possibly the most ably-equipped individuals to be internet trolls.
10 years ago, the default mode of disagreements / arguments was debate. Trolling (or flaming as it was knew back then) was frowned up, but in 2016? It's rife, with the majority being of relatively poor standards.
Use your most valuable asset; your functional stack.
1) Just turn it into a trolling match. Ask stupid questions, take all that he says out of context. It will annoy him and you get to enjoy a victory-bound smile.
2) Continue to debate him on normal terms, no matter how smart he is or who is right / wrong nothing will change. Most people do NOT change their opinions based on the opinions of another user online.
The former is certainly more appealing, especially when you do your research and are able to undermine his position by making it personal. Sleep well that night, safe in the knowledge that you didn't really give a shit, whilst he won't be sleeping due to this huge frustration bubbling up inside of him
If it seems like a fun/interesting argument I will argue(if I can be bothered), otherwise I will ignore it. I very rarely argue with the purpose of convincing others(don't see the point), I argue to learn/solidify my view/generally have fun/share my thoughts/find inconsistencies.
Hello fellow INTPs and fellow forum browsers! I was recently in an argument about criticism on YouTube. And then that got me thinking... how do my fellow INTPs handle arguments like this? If I were to be friendlier then I would try to use logic and reason to end the argument. If I were to take a more aggressive route, then I would again use logic and reason, but this time to "out-logic" them, this meaning I use superior logic to end to prove their argument wrong, which in most cases works out. So, how do you guys handle these arguments?
whats the difference between the friendly approach and the aggressive approach? you are using logic to out-reason them in both, no? just a matter of tone?
If you want to end arguments quickly without duking it out. Here is the best method I have found so far. Works 60-70% of the time.
1) Agree with their opinion
2) Playback their opinion while slowly inserting your opinion and logic over numerous re-hash's
3) They will sub-consciously conform with your opinion while refuting their own without notice. Essentially you think for them and they believe they had an epiphany.
Hard to imagine I know, but I use to really like to "debate" with people. As I've gotten older, I've burnt out on trying to prove I'm right. The reason for this is a few reasons. 1) I argue in an unorthodox way that is both fair and not strictly logical in the sense of A = B = C, therefore A = C. Typically I think outside the box and think of alternate arguments. This last part leads to 2) creating a complex mess that I am not able to trigger the trap if you will. The trap is set, the person is poised for the downfall and I forget what to say that proves that I am right and they are wrong. The upside to this strategy is if they paint themselves in a corner and I execute, everyone knows they are wrong and they run away with their tail between their legs. This depends on if they are also debating fairly and know when they are beat. I gave up arguing for the most part because of 2 and which leads to 3) I can't keep track of the details so this leads me to believe that the whole thing was pointless.
Most of the time, I don't join in arguments. I keep my impulses in check, because I'm not sure if I want to risk my blood pressure over something stupid. Anyway, if I were to be friendly, I would put in the effort to be extra polite and add in a smiley face. If I were in a pissy mood where IDGAF, I'd be all sarcastic with my points, or just list my points out while being slightly condescending.
On Arguments
I don't have them because I have realized,
that people never change their minds,
so the effective purpose of arguing,
is merely to express one's feelings,
unless one or the other party is purposefully learning,
so that if the other party has something that I want to learn,
I may engage,
but 99% of the time,
whether he is right or not,
I do not care to learn what he knows,
so I let him continue to believe as he wishes,
because I've been alive long enough,
to know that,
I have changed no one's mind,
so why waste the time?
What Pyropyro said, it's best to just avoid the argument. Like the computer in "Wargames," the ultimate conclusion is that the only way to avoid losing is to not play the game.
That being said, I've found it better to nudge people pleasantly rather than bulldoze them. Also, reason and logic simply have no traction when you are dealing with people in the grip of superstition, emotion, and a variety of things that boil down to fervent irrationalism.
Nudge: "You made some good points. I've noticed, though, that blahblahblah."
Rather than "Only an imbecile would say that. You obviously don't know that blahblahblah." Throw them a true bone, it lowers their shields and you can then go to work.
I have a rule about arguments; anything goes as long as it doesn't get personal. I can get quite passionate about arguing with people, it's a lot of fun as long as it stays to arguing your point and not engaging a food fight. This way everybody has a chance to learn something (or not, but at least it's usually interesting). The problem with the Internet is that it inevitably becomes personal.
I either avoid the confrontation altogether, or quit when I've explained my position to my satisfaction, regardless of what my opponent may or may not acknowledge.
I have a rule about arguments; anything goes as long as it doesn't get personal. I can get quite passionate about arguing with people, it's a lot of fun as long as it stays to arguing your point and not engaging a food fight. This way everybody has a chance to learn something (or not, but at least it's usually interesting). The problem with the Internet is that it inevitably becomes personal.
I avoid arguments but I tend to quickly figure out the flaw by asking g them a series of questions and then worming towards a question the shatters their entire argument.
Quick story/example.
I once made such a stink about a Catholic hospital taking over our local hospital (women's rights issues) that they called a public forum. When I got there I found that it was pretty much exclusively for me. I was the only person who spoke from the public. Afterwards one of the board members came down and asked if I had a psychology degree because the way I constructed my questions. I told him I didn't even have a high-school diploma.
It's like mud wrestling a pig. It gets you dirty and the pig likes it.
Internet cesspools are to be avoided. Not only is "slumming it" stupefying, but there can be real life violent consequences. Some of the degenerates will actually offer to come to your front steps, thereby making you worry about whether you're really going to need to exercise your Second Amendment rights. If you have those. At least the pathology of such freaks is rare, but the problem is, the freaks are looking for something to focus on. It's best not to become their focus.
Seek forums where people actually have enough intelligence and rational self-control to be worth your time. My jury's out on whether INTPf is actually worth it or not. Some days I think it is, other days I think a lot of people around here are seriously "amateur hour" compared to the in-person groups I go to in Asheville NC. One justification for continuing, is it keeps my ear to the ground about what semi-warped people think.
Fully warped people are a complete waste of time though. Don't bother. They will shout and scream and all it will teach you is how irrational people behave in groups. Good prep for a riot or the apocalypse but not much else. Might be useful for testing your personal control and bravery in a face-to-face setting, but I've done enough of that professionally, and can say it gets old. Kind of a rush for the 1st year or so though.
Also realize that the degenerate folks feed off of any intellectual resistance you give them. Like vampires. It makes them stronger and more crazy.
Try to identify whether someone's pseudo-rational babble is actually a pile of emotional ideation, that they're using to whip themselves into a froth with, because it feels really good for them to be on that frothing high.
You can really fool yourself, if you think you are a rational individual, arguing rationally with other rational people, thinking that rational argument will convince them of your meritous points. You need to pay attention to the emotional band of communication that's occuring at the same time. Looking at that, it may become obvious to you that someone has really lost it. If they're like that, then what you're actually dealing with is what they're afraid of, what their phobias are, what they're really angry about, the emotional traumas of their life history, etc. It takes awhile to unpack those, and "rational argument" is a clumsy tool in the toolbox for that. They aren't processing the rational stuff at all. Well, except to turn it into highly flammable gas; the whole vampire thing.
That's because the Feelers and/or mental midgets always make it personal. Typically various people are losing an argument, often because you're better at it than they are, or smarter, or better informed in the subject area. Sometimes that's not what's happening, sometimes 2 equally skilled people are just talking past each other, because they have different priorities and don't care to put themselves in the other person's shoes.
What does the inferior type of person do, when he / she is losing? They don't acknowledge the points the other person has made. They concede nothing. Getting that uncomfortable feeling that they're losing, they start looking for ammo. Any ammo. Inevitably, personally hurting ammo. Their uncomfortable feelings about losing, are not attached to any kind of sportsmanship of debate. Nor do they acknowledge superior performance when it's staring them right in the face. Instead, they lash out. They feel like it has become personal, because they're being overwhelmed by their own uncomfortable feelings of inferiority. So they make it personal.
Especially the Feelers. It's the main way you can tell you're in a Thinker vs. Feeler conflict. Although, a Thinker who has completely different princples from your own, and feels they have been violated, may react very much like a Feeler.
This is a huge part of why I'm on INTPf, to be subjected to this sort of inferiority nonsense less frequently. Pity there's no guarantee it won't happen at all. But I can't say I've been diagnosing many Thinker vs. Feeler conflicts since I've been here. It's usually been a different axis of conflict.
BTW Trump on the campaign trail, is a huge example of some inferior dickwad taking things personally. Has to lash out at people "because they attacked him". Hope his new job leaves him no room for that kind of personal indulgence.
I call that "Thanksgiving dinner table persuasion." Like when someone's friend turns out to be a member of the KKK. Never give consent by silence. But, making mention and politely gainsaying is sufficient. Not remotely like an internet debate at all. Very limited goals, at the Thanksgiving dinner table.
Applicable to incidents on the street, with random people you don't know. Also monitor for anyone getting aggro enough to pull weapons. Better to simply make a polite word, if it's even worth your intervention at all. Sometimes we must intervene though, or society will crumble into despotism around us.
I had a debate halfway between those 2 poles, with some Trump supporters after he came to Asheville. I didn't want to automatically alienate them, since the label "liberal" would not accurately portray my independent political views. I wanted to put my ethnography hat on and get some information out of them. Let them talk. Let them demonstrate how they actually think. I did eventually manage to score some points for the plight of the transgendered though. Didn't piss either of them off; think they walked away thinking I was much more friend than enemy.
For the record, these 2 young men were certainly not trying to be bigots, in any overt agenda sense. Their views might have some consequences for groups other than white males, which they seemed very much focused on. They definitely had some heartfelt issues. It was an inkling that there was something more to Trump support than the usual labels. Although, I also thought these 2 could stand some mild education in why some aspects of "PC" are a good idea.
"you know, dorian, your argument is wrong and here is why....."
"screw off faggo, u dumb downs syndrome"
ezpz, but if you face a tough opponent you can always pull out the last night mom argument and the condescending laugh i feel so sorry for you argument, very effective
'Unfortunately' this thread triggered a fair amount of conscious introspection on my part about why am I even here on INTPf arguing with certain people on nasty political subjects? I'm quitting the forum. It's been coming for some time now. Post-election is a significant trigger, now that nobody can be persuaded to vote one way or the other anymore.
Way too much mud wrestling with pigs. Tired of it getting me dirty. Isn't changing anything. Gonna go put my energy into things that matter.
If I take the argument seriously, as rationally as I can.
If I don't take the argument seriously, I just become silly.
If emotion gets attached to the argument, I can be a bit of a loose canon.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
