Handling irrational arguments

[rwyatt365]

How do you approach/continue a "discussion" with someone that puts forward totally illogical arguments? I'm not sure that this has been covered somewhere else – this question is inspired by something that occurred last night between myself and my wife;

Last night my wife and I were watching a TIVO'ed episode of "The Universe" where it was describing how science has come to today's understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe. As the episode was winding up by summarizing the progress of scientific theory on the subject throughout the ages she chimed in with, "That's ridiculous! How can anyone believe that?! That doesn't make any sense!" I knew that this was going to be her reaction because she is an ardent "Creationist" and rejects anything that is contrary to her own peculiar brand of dogma. Of course, my immediate reply was, "It makes perfect sense, it just depends on what you believe.", thinking that separating "belief" from "sense" would be sufficient.

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)

[Pinkie]

O__o

I... refuse to get involved in them, unless it's for the entertainment of ripping them to shreds. If it's someone I care about, I find it irritating, but I walk away. It's just not worth it.

[INTJoe]

Wow, that sounds like a bad sitcom.

Just try to be patient, and slow, and you should be able to explain things to them. It's frustrating as hell, because it's like explaining chemistry to a kindergartner.

[rwyatt365]

Wow, that sounds like a bad sitcom.
Yeah, if only there was a laugh-track.
Just try to be patient, and slow, and you should be able to explain things to them. It's frustrating as hell, because it's like explaining chemistry to a kindergartner.
...the only problem is the interjection of unrelated, irrational side-comments that seem - to me - to be aimed at derailing the "conversation".

[arnsworth1026]

I agree with your wife, but really, she needs to figure out how to debate the point. From what you said she reminds me of my mom saying "because I said so" when asked why. I'll usually egg them on for my own amusement.

[Santana28]

oh this is funny. my husband is quite possibly the most irrational-emotional-nonsensical person ever in arguments. with him, it is never WHAT is actual said - it is HOW the message is delivered that matters. Seeing as how forgetful i am, i am usually not very concerned with waiting for the "proper time" to bring up something because if i do that, i will most certainly forget it and, well.. "there is no better time than now!" But to him, if i say ANYTHING even hinting critical at the wrong time of the day, i'm inviting an irrational argument. Here's a classic mini-fit he had which i blogged about :

Him: "I don't like internet blogs"

Me: "Why's that? They're just online journals?" (side note: he has many journals he keeps)

Him: "I just think they're stupid"

Me: "What is stupid about them? The blogs themselves, or the things written on them?"

Him: "I just don't like the things you write about."

Me: "So it's not that you don't like blogs, you just don't like what i have to say on mine?"

Him: "I told you. I don't like blogs."

In case you didnt get it - he walked in on my blogging and automatically assumed i was writing something negative about him, or talking to someone (anyone!) who he didnt want me talking to. That was our exact conversation, word for word...before he stormed off of course :)

[Kfbr]

I've become a master bullet dodger when it comes to irrational arguments like that, where I can answer questions without usually offending someone who takes themselves way too seriously.

Takes a bit to let go of a little pride but I know I'm right by acknowledging they have a (usually not) valid point that I will definitely (not) take into consideration. Instead of going on the defensive, I go on the offensive and make them question themselves. Usually they end up getting mad, but that can't be avoided most of the time and I come out ahead without specifically answering their questions. Win/win!

[Gonzo]

I have about 0 tolerance for people that fail to use reason, logic or facts to prove their point. If something blips up on my "bull-dar" the words are received, processed, and systematically ignored.

You cant talk sane to a crazy person...
You cant tell the truth to someone in denial...
And you cant reason with irrational people!

Plane and simple! Cause you know what they say? "Insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result"
Just pay it no mind, thats my advice ;)

[rwyatt365]

I agree with your wife, but really, she needs to figure out how to debate the point. From what you said she reminds me of my mom saying "because I said so" when asked why. I'll usually egg them on for my own amusement.
I would welcome a good debate with rational arguments. I'd even be happy to reach an "agree to disagree" impasse, but this "because God says so" conclusion drives me up a wall. I don't deny anyone the right to express their opinion, but when they start using words like ridiculous, stupid and foolish, it is insulting and unnecessary. If someone wishes to attribute all things to a deity then that's their prerogative, but don't denigrate my opinion because the don't agree.
Takes a bit to let go of a little pride but I know I'm right by acknowledging they have a (usually not) valid point that I will definitely (not) take into consideration. Instead of going on the defensive, I go on the offensive and make them question themselves. Usually they end up getting mad, but that can't be avoided most of the time and I come out ahead without specifically answering their questions. Win/win!
The only problem with this (in relation to my wife) is that she's an ISFJ and is certain that what she thinks is "THE TRUTH" – there is no other way but her way. Therefore, an discussion is pointless unless you agree with her, there is no questioning because she is right. And the more you press, the more entrenched she becomes until – as stated above – the definitive rationale becomes, "Because I (or God) said so!"

[deicruxified]

i got some options:

1. walk away. but if the person won't stop
2. still walk away... if he/she insists
3. raise a finger... if he/she is a numbnut...
4. i get my ak47 :D

[Kfbr]

I would welcome a good debate with rational arguments. I'd even be happy to reach an "agree to disagree" impasse, but this "because God says so" conclusion drives me up a wall. I don't deny anyone the right to express their opinion, but when they start using words like ridiculous, stupid and foolish, it is insulting and unnecessary. If someone wishes to attribute all things to a deity then that's their prerogative, but don't denigrate my opinion because the don't agree.

The only problem with this (in relation to my wife) is that she's an ISFJ and is certain that what she thinks is "THE TRUTH" – there is no other way but her way. Therefore, an discussion is pointless unless you agree with her, there is no questioning because she is right. And the more you press, the more entrenched she becomes until – as stated above – the definitive rationale becomes, "Because I (or God) said so!"

Ah, I've dated those types as well.

.. Goodluck buddy :D

[ScottH]

Him: "I don't like internet blogs"

Me: "Why's that? They're just online journals?" (side note: he has many journals he keeps)

Him: "I just think they're stupid"

Me: "What is stupid about them? The blogs themselves, or the things written on them?"

Him: "I just don't like the things you write about."

Me: "So it's not that you don't like blogs, you just don't like what i have to say on mine?"

Him: "I told you. I don't like blogs."




This doesn't look irrational to me at all. It looks like someone trying to express their feelings (based upon some thoughts, which may or may not be irrational), and not doing so well. To some, airing one's laundry publicly can seem like a loss of intimacy, a deliberate pollution of the private space with public interest, even a mild attack.

It may be an "F" thing, but as gregarious as we humans are, I think it's fairly natural.

[Santana28]

This doesn't look irrational to me at all. It looks like someone trying to express their feelings (based upon some thoughts, which may or may not be irrational), and not doing so well. To some, airing one's laundry publicly can seem like a loss of intimacy, a deliberate pollution of the private space with public interest, even a mild attack.

It may be an "F" thing, but as gregarious as we humans are, I think it's fairly natural.

that is true. but his method of expressing himself is irrational - instead of saying exactly what it is specifically that is bothering him (which he is aware of, btw) - he projects the blame onto other things which are not offensive in any way and never addresses the core issue. if he wasnt as emotionally aware of himself as i know for a fact he is, i would understand. but he isn't stupid by any means - yet he chooses to get into relatively stupid off-topic arguments which do nothing to resolve the original issue instead of addressing what is actually bothering him. its difficult to explain. but then again, he's histrionic and likes the attention arguments about nothing bring... so i suppose it's rational in some sense ;)

[INTJoe]

Yeah, if only there was a laugh-track.

...the only problem is the interjection of unrelated, irrational side-comments that seem - to me - to be aimed at derailing the "conversation".

Some people are afraid of the truth, and will do anything to not have to hear it. Derailing the convo is just one of the ways to do so.

[rwyatt365]

Some people are afraid of the truth, and will do anything to not have to hear it. Derailing the convo is just one of the ways to do so.
Hypothetical conversation;
Me: The truth, you can't handle the truth!
Her: I don't need no stinkin' truth!
Me: You talkin' to me? Huh! You talkin' to me?!!

:cool: ;D

[Hdier]

If I manage to stay calm, I tend to sit back with a small smile on my face and be as equally irrational with my argument, while simutaneously defeating their arguments with logic. It tends to annoy and frusturate them untill they either storm away or finally agree to keep the argument rational. It is usually the former.

[Oica]

Heres one...

Him: They live right next to it and they complain about the traffic more than the people that have to drive 300 miles to get there.
Me: How do you know they complain more?
Him: I HAVE MY SOURCES! BET ITS AMAZING TO YOU THAT THERE IS SOMEONE SMARTER THAN YOU!
Me: *Extremely Confused* ...what?
Him: Thats right.

Then I walked away and ranted on paper about what kind of argument he made. :X

[Rick]

[COLOR=black]I would welcome a good debate with rational arguments.

I'm working on this. I am a fundamentalist Christian, an INTJ, and a chemical engineer, so I'm used to the logical.

I want to pursue this, but, my worry is that, with my weird work schedule, I will make a statement then not be able to be back for 3-4 days to respond to responses.

Upfront I will say this...I chose Christianity (or it chose me) because, alone of all the alternatives, it says that I alone am not worthy of redemption. Yet the price of my redemption has been paid by someone more worthy than me. Someone who did not have to pay the price for himself, but he did so because he loved me, despite my inadequacies. I have spent a good part of my life, not completely successfully, of trying to live up to that.

You might say, what of the Quran? The Quran is about achieving salvation through lawfulness. Christianity is above the law, yet the law is a part of it. Love your neighbor is greater than hating your neighbor.

[terencec]

Panic attack, If the person I have to work with and no way I can escape e.g. bosses, coworkers, then very worry/anxious, will I survive? (Self blame, I should have known it when I interviewed. Now, I made a big mistake! Why can't I see it? I am ...) Action: Try to ignore it or agree what they say if necessary, don't show any emotion and look for another boss or another job. Still need to survive in the small industrial!

If I don't have to work for them (included any potential bosses and coworkers), either enjoy the show, ignore it or say something to make them angry.

[DeepPurple]

My mother, sister and friend are all like that. I used to just stay quiet, but then they would mistake my silence for understanding and concurrence. Then they would escalate. I might say something here and there, but most of the time I change the subject without making it obvious. There really is no point in arguing with some people.

Your conversation with your wife reminds me of a conversation I had with my friend a couple of weeks back. She was going on and on about how there was so much stuff wrong with the world and how ugly people were on the inside. I told her that people are only human and asked her what she expects. She kept going on and on. Finally I said something like. "Well maybe god shouldn't have given them feelings or basic instincts if he didn't want them to use it." Then she got pissed and told me that that I can't question god. I started to protest that it wasn't a question, but I dropped the subject.

[Antares]

I completely understand. My mom's an ISFJ and there's just no debating with her. No, it's not about whether I can go to Homecoming next week (in that case, I'll forgive her if she says: Because I'm mom). Most of them are on theology and major controversies. She's very traditional and conservative (while she thought she was being liberal and in sync with today's ways. Forgive me, but I think she's quite out-dated). Don't get me wrong. She doesn't run from debates, but if she's about to lose with nothing to counter my arguments, she rolls her eyes and says: I don't want to argue this with you. If she makes a point, there's no convincing her otherwise. What is right to her is the fundamental truth of the universe and when she's stumped, she would simply shake her head and say: "It's not like that." and leave the debate at that. In her argument, she makes so many first person statements (such as I feel..., I think..., I assume... and I maintain that...). I've made a point to avoid debate with her all together now. Nothing productive comes out of them, only my mother asserting her points repeatedly.

My father (ESFP) doesn't help. He is also just as self-righteous and always seems to be bubbling with some wisdom unknown to all mankind that he's just bursting to share. Points, even valid ones are not good enough to him. Not only does he asserts his own points with fevor, he almost always begins his sentences with 'maybe'. That's really no way to debate, but he seems to think it works. He's not stupid, apparently. His IQ is at least 140, and he can come up with so many arguments in one go that I find it quite tedious to have to memorize them to rebutt them all, so naturally, I miss some of his points and he wins the debate.

My cousin (ESFP) is not much better. When I told him that I'm an evolutionist, he asked me rhetorically: How can you believe something so ridiculous? He gave me a strange look and stalked upstairs. That concluded our 'debate'.

Don't get me wrong. They're my family; and I love them, but they should learn some humility (although I don't know whether it is my place to tell them that, since I'm not all that humble myself).

Hypothetical conversation;
Me: The truth, you can't handle the truth!
Her: I don't need no stinkin' truth!
Me: You talkin' to me? Huh! You talkin' to me?!!

:cool: ;D

Be careful around women though (not to insinuate sexual prejudice in any form)... Most women, especially F's are quite sensitive. You might want to watch your words. Plenty of experience here, coming from a fellow member of the female gender :thumbsup:

[slut poacher]

rwyatt365,dude! better check to see if your wife is a polygamist, i married this exact same chick. you cannot win any kind of argument with this woman that is based on logic,because regardless of who is right she will no doubt pull the:i'll show him bullshit,and make you suffer for an entire week for having the sheer audacity to have called into question the fantasy universe that serves as her reality. oh yeah and on a more positive note:i just scooped a clean 2005 klr650 for next to nothing. should make a solid addition to the fleet.

[rwyatt365]

rwyatt365,dude! better check to see if your wife is a polygamist, i married this exact same chick. you cannot win any kind of argument with this woman that is based on logic,because regardless of who is right she will no doubt pull the:i'll show him bullshit,and make you suffer for an entire week for having the sheer audacity to have called into question the fantasy universe that serves as her reality. oh yeah and on a more positive note:i just scooped a clean 2005 klr650 for next to nothing. should make a solid addition to the fleet.
No way she's a polygamist (that would go against the ISFJ tendency to hold on to traditional belief no matter what) – but maybe a clone? :huh:

I know all about the "punishment" routine – piss her off and you're in the shitter for a week. I once told her that she lives in a fantasy world where things are as she sees them, not as the really are. I'm still paying for that comment!
Be careful around women though (not to insinuate sexual prejudice in any form)... Most women, especially F's are quite sensitive. You might want to watch your words. Plenty of experience here, coming from a fellow member of the female gender
No need to warn me about that! I try to harness my tongue, but sometimes things are said that are so outlandish that I just have to say something. Then, it's back in the doghouse again. :irked:

Oh, and poacher, nice buy! Post up a pic in the Broom Broom (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) thread if you get a chance.

[Antares]

No way she's a polygamist (that would go against the ISFJ tendency to hold on to traditional belief no matter what) – but maybe a clone? :huh:

I know all about the "punishment" routine – piss her off and you're in the shitter for a week. I once told her that she lives in a fantasy world where things are as she sees them, not as the really are. I'm still paying for that comment!

No need to warn me about that! I try to harness my tongue, but sometimes things are said that are so outlandish that I just have to say something.

If she doesn't change her mind, don't handle irrational statements at all, because all that's going to earn you is another week of payment (or in my case, another week of: "Oh! I just remembered! I read xxx and it proved that you were wrong because x@£*..." from my mother):D.That's how I (try to) treat my mother nowadays, who is also an ISFJ. Just nod at what she says. Smile like a clown (make sure to paint your nose red and do the mandatory maniacal-gorilla-like-arm-waving movement) and say: You win! *big round of applause* Ok... I'm probably getting carried away on the clown thing.

[rwyatt365]

If she doesn't change her mind, don't handle irrational statements at all, because all that's going to earn you is another week of payment (or in my case, another week of: "Oh! I just remembered! I read xxx and it proved that you were wrong because x@£*..." from my mother):D.That's how I (try to) treat my mother nowadays, who is also an ISFJ. Just nod at what she says. Smile like a clown (make sure to paint your nose red and do the mandatory maniacal-gorilla-like-arm-waving movement) and say: You win! *big round of applause* Ok... I'm probably getting carried away on the clown thing.
Nah, I think you're spot-on with that (well...maybe not the nose). The problem here is that she can go on for hours and hours, especially if encouraged by agreement. My face starts to hurt after about 30 minutes of smiling insanely. ;D

[Maverick]

How do you approach/continue a "discussion" with someone that puts forward totally illogical arguments? I'm not sure that this has been covered somewhere else – this question is inspired by something that occurred last night between myself and my wife;

Last night my wife and I were watching a TIVO'ed episode of "The Universe" where it was describing how science has come to today's understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe. As the episode was winding up by summarizing the progress of scientific theory on the subject throughout the ages she chimed in with, "That's ridiculous! How can anyone believe that?! That doesn't make any sense!" I knew that this was going to be her reaction because she is an ardent "Creationist" and rejects anything that is contrary to her own peculiar brand of dogma. Of course, my immediate reply was, "It makes perfect sense, it just depends on what you believe.", thinking that separating "belief" from "sense" would be sufficient.

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)

I suggest handling the situation with a little humor:

Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Hahahahahaha...
Her: What?
Me: That's the funniest thing I've ever heard
Her: Oh come on!
Me: You really WANT to believe in creationism heh
Her: No I don't! It's just that it doesn't make any sense
Me: Yeah yeah, you should write a paper and submit it to Science saying that these people are silly and that all this research that has been going on is completely nonsensical - and that they were too stupid to figure it out but that *you* managed to figure it all out
Her: You!!!!! [gets extremely angry]
Me: That's fine honey ;D Everything is going to go alright ;D

[Zilal]

Wow, that's frustrating. But like they said, the only solution is to not get into an argument at all. Pick a simple phrase like "We just disagree on this issue" and keep repeating it no matter what she says, heh.

The urge to want to correct somebody's insane beliefs is strong, but even when it is possible, argument isn't necessarily the way to do it. I tend to lean towards instilling curiosity in people... I usually say a lot less than I want to say. Something like, "Yes, you're completely right. Babies don't walk out of the ocean. You have a better understanding of evolution than you think you do." And then I try to zip my mouth.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to have an irrational/illogical discussion. For me, a discussion that centers more around feelings than well formed opinions is futile. It's like watching two children argue about whether or not there's a santa. Not to say that there is no room for feelings in a discussion, but if logic and reason are abandoned then we are left with whatever each person wants to make up as they go along.

The way that I have dealt with the three F's in my family circle is to let them know right off the bat that I will not accept an opinion that is not well thought out and explained. By that I mean... that I will not engage in a debate with them about an opinion that they have formed that is based on 'a feeling' alone. They still form these opinions (as is the wont of F's), but they know better than to try to get me to discuss it with them, so they don't even try anymore. I have been able to establish this sort of relationship with them by relentlessly questioning the rational of these opinions every time they are brought up. In the face of this relentless questioning they have either gone away and come up with some sort of rational arguement for their opinion or they have learned not to bother talking to me about it.

[Ace1337]

rwyatt365, that woman you've talked to is really stupid. I don't usually get involved in those kinds of arguments with that kind of people, but when I do, if its not someone I care about then I humiliate them using irony or parody to their stupid statements.

[Tokey41]

She is your wife so i'm just going to assume you know her fairly well at this point... if this happens frequently the best thing you can possibly do to avoid situations such as that one would to simply explain BOTH sides, she will be more prone to accepting you believe something different if she sees that you understand (or at least respect) her decision to disagree. You don't have to really respect her decision if you don't want to... but at the very least tell her you do so you guys can co-exist when discussing topics such as this one.

Something like...

Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: That's not how evolution works... just like people just don't appear out of nowhere nowadays because God created them. I can see why you think that way, I really do... but I just wish you could see a different perspective for once instead of attacking it without understanding it fully! (guilt factor, hehe)
Her: But this still doesn't make sense!
Me: I believe in evolution, you believe in creationism. Neither of them definitively disproves the other, theres no way of possibly knowing who's right at this point in time but believe what you want to belive and i'll believe what I want to believe. I'm by no means an expert on the subject but if your really curious you should look up some answers for yourself and maybe you'll change your mind... we have a computer honey.

[interjerator]

I usually sit there with a string (or rubber band) hanging from my mouth. {:>)

[Provoker]

First, what she should have said is that there's evidence of microevolution but not macroevolution. In Darwins theory, the birds with the longer beaks were able to get at the sustainence while the other ones were not. As a result, the ones with shorter beaks died off while the birds with longer beaks continued to reproduce. Evidence of microevolution. But no evidence of macroevolution. Maybe over the years the word evolved: Microevolution-->Miacroevolution-->Macroevolution??? Nahhh. So no empirical evidence of macroevolution.

Second, I'm not sure if your wife was making a satire out of it, with the baby coming out of the ocean, to mock evolution. If so, it's pretty funny. The problem with telling stories online is that things like tone and pitch of voice are left to the imagination. But in real time it's as valid as that which is being said.

[rwyatt365]

She was dead-serious. I understand that she doesn't believe in evolution (micro-, macro-, or otherwise). But she's so dogmatic in her religious beliefs that no other POV is possible.

[slp7]

I was married to an ISFJ myself for 5 years. Not anymore, but we did have some good years. I hope your relationship will last longer than mine. I don’t pretend to be a psychologist, but here are my experiences. ISFJ’s have many good qualities, but intellectual stimulation is not one of them. No matter how intelligent she is, she will never be your equal in this way. You may feel the craving to ponder the universe in all its glory, but she is worried about how many potatoes are in the fridge and whether the trash has been taken out and if the toilet has been cleaned. Correct me if I’m wrong. You are right, and anyone with even a shred of logical comprehension understands that creationism is ridiculous. However, what is it worth to you to be right? It’s best to pick your battles, and you gain nothing by winning an argument like this. Like you said, you’ll be in the shitter for a week if she gets pissed at you. It’s just not worth it. If you can get off the subject, that would be best- say “yes, dear,” and find something else you both enjoy. However, if she persists at you and won’t just agree to disagree, I think you have to appeal to her Feeling nature. Maybe tell her, “Honey, I recognize that you have a belief that is different than mine and you are entitled to it, but it makes me FEEL bad when you criticize me for believing something different. I want you to understand that my opinion is as important to me as yours is to you.” My wife wasn’t religious- thank God. Most religious people, regardless of personality profile, won’t budge on their religious beliefs, so you’re not going to win her over with logic. From what I’ve seen, ISFJ’s will take good care of you, but at their worst they can be very controlling and highly critical. They will ask you for a favor, and then stand in your way as you try to do it for them. ISFJ’s are really good at creating unnecessary feelings of frustration for INTJ’s and seem to seek attention by creating arguments that should not exist. Of course, your mileage may vary- like I say- I’m divorced so maybe I’m not such a freakin’ expert :rolleyes:

P.S. I was just at the beach, taking a nap under an umbrella, and was rudely awakened by the sound of babies crying. I looked up and there they were- thousands of babies crawling in from the surf with their huggies bloated with ocean water. Who would have thought?

[JTG]

Honestly, i have a hard time believing anybody could argue against microevolution. I'm a christian, and even i think that's pretty dense. Tell her that the world changes over the years, and God gave creatures the ability to adapt so they wouldn't die off when their environment/food source/etc changes.

I think some people in the church teach that belief in evolution is Wrong, so some members of the church blindly shun evolution without realizing what the word means.

As far as the molecules > bubbles > single cells > multicellular creatures thing goes (if that's still how the theory speculates) i disagree. My mind can't logically comprehend how something like making the jump from nonliving bubbles to living monerans, or the existence of conscious thought could be random occurrence.

The "science" of it, at least when i heard it explained, said something along the lines of "we think conditions were ideal at that time for such a transition to take place" when speaking about the existence of the first actual living organism. As far as i'm concerned, the idea of an omnipotent being just creating living creatures makes at least as much sense as "bubbles decided they would be alive and that's how single celled organisms were made" so meh...

I totally agree with her on the babies coming out of the ocean thing though. I live a quarter mile from the gulf of mexico and i can honestly say i've never seen it happen.

[rwyatt365]

I was married to an ISFJ myself for 5 years. Not anymore, but we did have some good years. I hope your relationship will last longer than mine. I don’t pretend to be a psychologist, but here are my experiences. ISFJ’s have many good qualities, but intellectual stimulation is not one of them. No matter how intelligent she is, she will never be your equal in this way. You may feel the craving to ponder the universe in all its glory, but she is worried about how many potatoes are in the fridge and whether the trash has been taken out and if the toilet has been cleaned. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I've probably created a pretty bad picture of my wife, so – to her benefit;

She is very bright, and well-versed in several areas. She worked for many years in the medical insurance field and was quite accomplished therein. She has been taking college courses in pursuit of a Bachelors (she didn’t go to college from high-school 'cause she started raising a family at 17 – all by herself). She's a kind and nurturing mother who only wants the best for her family and fights fiercely to make that happen. She is very spiritual and believes deeply in God and what He can and will do for those that are His. She believes that there is a "way that things are supposed to be" and that it is her job to ensure that "the way" is recognized and followed by everyone.

But you hit the nail on the head; we are on completely different "wavelengths". I try to understand where she is at (and often fail), and she is certain that I am "defective" and need her constant guidance to "get right".

However, what is it worth to you to be right? It’s best to pick your battles, and you gain nothing by winning an argument like this. Like you said, you’ll be in the shitter for a week if she gets pissed at you. It’s just not worth it. If you can get off the subject, that would be best- say “yes, dear,” and find something else you both enjoy.
As hard as I try "yes dear" doesn't work. Her goal is to make me think as she thinks – nothing else is acceptable. As long as I persist in my "defective" thinking, there will be battles and I have grown weary of pretending.

However, if she persists at you and won’t just agree to disagree, I think you have to appeal to her Feeling nature. Maybe tell her, “Honey, I recognize that you have a belief that is different than mine and you are entitled to it, but it makes me FEEL bad when you criticize me for believing something different. I want you to understand that my opinion is as important to me as yours is to you.”
Close, but no cigar! Her response is, "Well, if you just recognize that <insert her belief system here>, then we wouldn't think different – there wouldn’t be a problem."

P.S. I was just at the beach, taking a nap under an umbrella, and was rudely awakened by the sound of babies crying. I looked up and there they were- thousands of babies crawling in from the surf with their huggies bloated with ocean water. Who would have thought?
DAMN! She was RIGHT!??

[Antares]

But you hit the nail on the head; we are on completely different "wavelengths". I try to understand where she is at (and often fail), and she is certain that I am "defective" and need her constant guidance to "get right".

I'm half tempted to print out this passage and shove it in my mother's face and laugh. This is exactly what she thinks. She thinks that anything she doesn't believe in is wrong and constantly asks me if I have 'changed my thoughts for the better' after having a looooooong debate with her during which she shoved her points down my throat. However, she is very patient with me because I'm her daughter and I need to be 'corrected', which is exactly what she's doing. :thinking:

I guess ISFJ's have something in common... They are very efficient people, and she's certainly better at managing anything than my father and I put together. We'd screw up somehow and she comes and saves the day and our lives would be boring as anything without her. Can't live with them, can't live without them. Love her to death :laugh:

DAMN! She was RIGHT!??

Nope :D She asserted that babies don't crawl out of the ocean, therefore evolution is not true, but however what slp7 saw contradicts that claim.

[DeadSpace]

This doesn't help most likely...and is purely supposition
Reading through this as it's grown, and more information comes to light. Sounds as if she was looking for reassurance, you've stated she's intelligent, highly so...issues of her mbti type aside, she understood the material contained within the program you watched. Which in her pov attacks her faith, but it's rational material. (remember, i'm ignoring type doesn't seem relevent, faith and human issue) Gave the most outrageous statement and spin to the evolution portion, something which directly affected her faith. Seeking reassurance from you, program raised some doubt. When you did not reinforce her statement in some fashion, in fact contradicted it. Felt abandoned, hence the near ultimatum 'if you're not for me you're against me' (denouncing god).
like i said...doesn't help :( , no real way it could have been avoided...except by not watching the program, or watching it alone. No way to have defused it...except by lying. On the good side...she most likely rationalise everything she saw...and ignore what she can't from the show. It was just at that moment, she hadn't had time to do those things yet. And did a typically human thing, turned to another for support...or to test...

[JTG]

She believes that there is a "way that things are supposed to be" and that it is her job to ensure that "the way" is recognized and followed by everyone.

This sums it up i think. I deal with some similar people, who can take it as a personal attack when we disagree on fundamental issues. I think it's a function of SJs to order and categorize things they see and know. Anything that threatens the order they've created, or even just envisioned, is met with extreme hostility.


I know all about the "punishment" routine – piss her off and you're in the shitter for a week.

Yes. Sadly, yes. :(

[BlueTopaz]

rwyatt365 Let me know if you come up with any sort of solution to this argument (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath). I'm about to become a high school biology teacher in the bible belt south so any heads up would be appreciated.:thinking:

[slp7]

You poor thing. When I took GE biology in college, half the people in the class were offended at the thought of us "coming from monkees." And that wasn't the bible belt- it was Arizona! Hope they don't burn you as a witch :scared:

[Anon722]

30 minutes of irrational argument?

!

Your patience is admirable. A minute is way too much for me.
Usually, I tend to interrupt nonsense before the rant is actually finished, exposing the fault in the logic of what is being said. This drives some people nuts, so if you are not a hardcore discusion-lover ;) , it should be avoided. ( specially with wifes ). At least let them finish, then prove your point, and you are free to go.

Then love for discussion goes until the point is proved. It is only me or, INTJs sometimes just argue with themselves in front of others. ¿Can we discuss without proper feedback, just perfecting our arguments?

[AmINot]

Heres one...

Him: They live right next to it and they complain about the traffic more than the people that have to drive 300 miles to get there.
Me: How do you know they complain more?
Him: I HAVE MY SOURCES! BET ITS AMAZING TO YOU THAT THERE IS SOMEONE SMARTER THAN YOU!
Me: *Extremely Confused* ...what?
Him: Thats right.

Then I walked away and ranted on paper about what kind of argument he made. :X

You hit the nail right on the head!

[Linza]

The conversation should've gone more like this:

Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
You: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
You: ...You're really dumb, huh?


Hope you really love this woman. Seriously.

[darkkodiak]

When I encounter that kind of situation, all I do is smile. For some odd reason it works wonders lol. They either continue with their irrational argument and suddenly stop as if the topic never existed or they stop right after I start smiling.

[Aronnax]

Unless there's some horrible ramification I just agree with them. Some things aren't worth fighting over. I can handle and frequently enjoy a rational arguement, emotional arguments are a waste of my time and energy.

[Genuine]

I just laughed at this computer screen for 30 seconds.

Anyway whenever something like that happens to me, I add in loads of sarcasm, but sometimes it's another thing to laugh about when they don't realize I'm being sarcastic. Fight mindless banter with humor.

[Monte314]

If it is your belief (that is, your FAITH) that comprehensive, consistent knowledge is attainable by rational means (i.e., formal argumentation such as that charcterized by predicate logic), then you are living in a pre-1927 world. In fact, if you think that there is a single version of mathematics that is "true" and all others "not true", then you are living in a pre-1950's world.

Rationalism (c. 1630, Descartes) as a credible system of philosophic thought was thoroughly dead by its 200th birthday. Twentieth century mathematicians (Russel, Godel, et. al.) drove many additional nails into its coffin. It's done, my friends... let's move on.

What I actually think we are discussing in this thread is more along the lines of logical positivism as a grounding for empirical science. It, too, of course, is as dead as Comte, its 19th-century concocter.

Strangely, these facts don't seem to have filtered out of the university to the general public yet... whence cometh threads like this one. I think this is because the ideas are counter-intuitive, and the seminal proofs beyond the capability (and interest) of most folks.

What this all means is, if your goal is comprehensive, consistent knowledge, as I seem to hear you all saying, then you MUST have access to sources of knowledge outside the system under consideration. Faith plays an indispensible role in the search for "truth" that deserves a capital "T". When you dismiss the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, you put comprehensive, consistent knowledge beyond your reach... provably, and forever.

By reference to sources of knowledge outside the system under consideration, faith traditions avoid the logical conundra associated with self-referential reasoning (because as soon as you start "thinking about yourself thinking", you are one syllogism away from a logical train wreck).

It's fine for you to have as your personal FAITH the notion that "faith is irrelevant" (though this would be absurd and manifestly hypocritical)... but in so doing, you guarantee that your potential for knowledge is necessarily less than that of "the faithful".

Here, then, is the choice authentic science has handed you as inhabitants of the 21st century:

1.) Reject the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, and settle instead for consistent knowledge that is forever limited IN PRINCIPLE, without remedy, no matter how much "science" you do, how smart you are, or how much time and effort you expend.

Or,

2.) Be open to the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, thereby throwing off the provably insurmountable inherent limitations of formal systems, and leaving open the possibility of "having it all".

[ChrisnOrbit]

I get pretty irrational when I get upset. I try pretty hard to avoid arguments but it seems like alot of people TRY to argue with you.

[Aronnax]

Leave it to a mathematician to needlessly complicate a topic ;)

This particular thread hinges around dealing with people who are arguing from a dogmatic position and have their feelings confused with logic. It's possible to approach logic in a constructive manner but you can't argue with their feelings; right or wrong is irrelevant in that situation, because they really feel that way.

I believe Wyatt was getting at "How can I minimize strife in this situation?" not "Is transcendental knowledge relevant in a modern discourse?"

[azelismia]

How do you approach/continue a "discussion" with someone that puts forward totally illogical arguments? I'm not sure that this has been covered somewhere else – this question is inspired by something that occurred last night between myself and my wife;

Last night my wife and I were watching a TIVO'ed episode of "The Universe" where it was describing how science has come to today's understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe. As the episode was winding up by summarizing the progress of scientific theory on the subject throughout the ages she chimed in with, "That's ridiculous! How can anyone believe that?! That doesn't make any sense!" I knew that this was going to be her reaction because she is an ardent "Creationist" and rejects anything that is contrary to her own peculiar brand of dogma. Of course, my immediate reply was, "It makes perfect sense, it just depends on what you believe.", thinking that separating "belief" from "sense" would be sufficient.

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)


My condolences. I couldn't handle being in a situation like that. My mom is somewhat like that but in the hippy, I can see your aura, kind of way. I just tell her there are some topics that are off limits when she strays. All it takes is a raised eyebrow and a BLACKCARD and she tends to back off. She's an isfp.

[Monte314]

Aronnax--

Einstein said, "Things should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler."

[Aronnax]

Aronnax--

Einstein said, "Things should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler."

I hope you took that as a joke like I intended, it's hard to place tone in text.

I'm aware of what Einstein said, but there's a significant difference in what a Mathematician perceives as a necessary level of complexity and what nearly any other person will.

My closest friend is a Mathematician, we have interesting conversations but very different perspectives on what's necessary to solve a problem. He's willing to devote any amount of time to work through a difficult problem. On the other hand I'm more inclined to figure out the necessary amount of precision, apply Runge-Cutter and make sure I used enough terms to fall within acceptable tolerances. There are lots of times where "close enough" is perfectly acceptable.

[Monte314]

Yes, you are right. It's my OCD running wild...

[Linza]

Well put, Arronax.

Additionally, Jules Vern is a minor god in the pantheon of Awesome. Rock on.

[ShaiGar]

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)

Divorce Papers. Get Them.





ShaiGar added to this post, 18 minutes and 56 seconds later...

She was dead-serious. I understand that she doesn't believe in evolution (micro-, macro-, or otherwise). But she's so dogmatic in her religious beliefs that no other POV is possible.
MY ISFJ Father is exactly like this when it comes to our discussions on social theory or military and economic alliances. He believes that whatever our government has been doing for a long time is correct, whatever the proven consequences. Whereas I tend to bring up the truth about any situation, call things as they are and then try to create solutions from that.

My problem with my ISFJ Father is that outside of any given argument he'll acknowledge that I am a lot smarter than either he or my mother, however in any given argument he'll discount my points without arguing them. Even though I'm "one of the smartest people he has met". That's what's annoying.

[Serket]

Religious irrationality is the worst kind. All based on subjective 'experiences' and what some other person of dubious intelligence told you was true.

After awhile you get to the stage where you realise you can't argue with them. They don't listen. they don't care. Walk away with your head high in the knowledge that you are right. Even if your current belief is wrong at least you are willing to accept that and change your mind based on new evidence.

I will say the emotional blackmail is the worst. I know an INFJ who was very very smart but acted ditzy and would cry if criticised. I saw through her, but couldn't convince others.

She may win the battle but I will win the war.

[Aronnax]

Yes, you are right. It's my OCD running wild...

Don't worry about it, I think everyone here is a little OCD.

[alone]

1.) Reject the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, and settle instead for consistent knowledge that is forever limited IN PRINCIPLE, without remedy, no matter how much "science" you do, how smart you are, or how much time and effort you expend.

Or,

2.) Be open to the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, thereby throwing off the provably insurmountable inherent limitations of formal systems, and leaving open the possibility of "having it all".

And by transcendent, you seem to mean non-empirical. So in that case, it's not really knowledge, is it? It's either hope or guessing, or something similar. I'll stick with empirical _knowledge_ with a small margin of error allowed, and room for imagination in forming working hypotheses, which are not regarded as 'knowledge'.

[Monte314]

Virtually none of mathematics is "empirical knowledge". The inherent limitations of empiricism are substantial, and well-known. Does this bother you? Why not?

[alone]

Um, you seem to be referring to Godel. If so, no, it doesn't bother me that some propositions are unprovable or even unknowable. We can know what we can empirically know, and what we can logically know, and maybe what we accidentally discover and can verify, but simply are limited to that by reality. Why would I be bothered about the limits of our reality? Did I misunderstand your question?

[Monte314]

I'm not speaking only of formal incompleteness, but the fact that much of what people generally agree is authentic knowledge is not derived from sense experience.

[Beery Swine]

No offense dude, but I could never be intimate and vulnerable with someone like that. I had a bit of witty repartay typed out, but thought I'd better mind my manners.





Beery Swine added to this post, 2 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Maybe try getting her to read The Blind Watchmaker or a Stephen Jay Gould book.

[Uytuun]

Why did you marry her?

And I'm no creationist by any means, but please someone tell me how come monkeys don't evolve into humans anymore...I asked my teacher this when I was 11, but all I got was a vacant "you're a weird child" look.

[antisocial one]

And I'm no creationist by any means, but please someone tell me how come monkeys don't evolve into humans anymore...I asked my teacher this when I was 11, but all I got was a vacant "you're a weird child" look.

Is this a joke?
If it is not I will explain.

[Uytuun]

It's not a joke in that I did ask my teacher that...and in fact I just let it slide and thought up a few answers of my own as to why, but I never really looked it up so I could get confirmation...

[Terian]

It's not a joke in that I did ask my teacher that...and in fact I just let it slide and thought up a few answers of my own as to why, but I never really looked it up so I could get confirmation...
Evolutionists don't think that humans came from chimps. They think that both humans and chimps evolved from the same creature ages upon ages ago.

The way natural selection works is that those fit enough to survive are the ones that do. Take this a tiny bit further and you'll see that those with an advantage in their environment are much more likely to survive than those with a disadvantage.
The theory surrounding humans and chimps is that a species of mammal roughly 85 million years ago split into at least two groups that were able to evolve independently. For some reason, the group our species came from benefited from higher intelligence, walking upright, less hair, etc. than the other group(s).

It is supposed, however, that a human-chimp hybrid could still be produced and carried to term with few drawbacks because our DNA is so similar. There are no laws against this being done in a laboratory, so it's a topic of some concern.


------------
EDIT: And yes, this is the abridged version, but I don't want to go into great detail regarding genetics, DNA recombination, and greater evolutionary theory.

[Uytuun]

That's what I thought...thanks for finally confirming, though. :D So basically we can never go back to the previous node in the taxonomy?

[HAL]

evolution is one of those ideological choke points for some people.
they think the answer is either one thing or the other but not both.
god could have completely said "let there be evolution" and that would have been it. the two ideas can coexist although people don't want to reconcile them. they won't even admit there can be a middle road of ideas.
some people's lack of acceptance of even the possibility is puzzling to me.

[Terian]

evolution is one of those ideological choke points for some people.
they think the answer is either one thing or the other but not both.
god could have completely said "let there be evolution" and that would have been it. the two ideas can coexist although people don't want to reconcile them. they won't even admit there can be a middle road of ideas.
some people's lack of acceptance of even the possibility is puzzling to me.The biggest ideological problem is that death, as interpreted by the fundamentalist church, is a result of sin. So, to believe that God would use death as a key part in his perfect plan seems far-fetched.

However, I think that the line between life and death is not what it seems. Life and death are considered to be opposites, but I think they are far more similar than most people realize.

[Beery Swine]

And I'm no creationist by any means, but please someone tell me how come monkeys don't evolve into humans anymore...I asked my teacher this when I was 11, but all I got was a vacant "you're a weird child" look.

Someone else has already answered this, but I like talking about it, so here I go.

It's alot easier to explain the basics of evolution than it is to explain a specific example. For that, I leave it to the professionals. First, evolution by natural selection takes many, many, many generations for speciation (look that word up). Second, here is basic Dariwinian evolution as how I explain it: evolution by natural selection acting on random mutation. Within any population of a given species there will be some who are better suited to survive than others. As a result, the ones that survive longer tend to have more chances at reproduction, which means their genes get spread to more individuals than the less equiped individuals, and the process carries on like that for millions upon millions of generations until we have all this crazy diversity we see today. So the core answer to your question is that monkeys don't evolve into more human like creatures because they are suited to their environments and because even if they were it wouldn't be noticable for millions of years.

It's also worth noting that evolution is not abiogenesis. We currently don't know what the first self-replicating molecule that retained hereditary differences was, and we may never know.

If you just want some basics wiki probably has good articles on the subject. If you're really interested in evolution, try a book on the basics of it by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould or some other author I can't think of.

[Nameless]

How do you approach/continue a "discussion" with someone that puts forward totally illogical arguments? I'm not sure that this has been covered somewhere else – this question is inspired by something that occurred last night between myself and my wife;

Last night my wife and I were watching a TIVO'ed episode of "The Universe" where it was describing how science has come to today's understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe. As the episode was winding up by summarizing the progress of scientific theory on the subject throughout the ages she chimed in with, "That's ridiculous! How can anyone believe that?! That doesn't make any sense!" I knew that this was going to be her reaction because she is an ardent "Creationist" and rejects anything that is contrary to her own peculiar brand of dogma. Of course, my immediate reply was, "It makes perfect sense, it just depends on what you believe.", thinking that separating "belief" from "sense" would be sufficient.

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)

This is when you get out your guillotine and say "Sayonora, [insert your favorite swear here]."





(obvious /jk tag)

[Firebrand]

How do you approach/continue a "discussion" with someone that puts forward totally illogical arguments? I'm not sure that this has been covered somewhere else – this question is inspired by something that occurred last night between myself and my wife;

Last night my wife and I were watching a TIVO'ed episode of "The Universe" where it was describing how science has come to today's understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe. As the episode was winding up by summarizing the progress of scientific theory on the subject throughout the ages she chimed in with, "That's ridiculous! How can anyone believe that?! That doesn't make any sense!" I knew that this was going to be her reaction because she is an ardent "Creationist" and rejects anything that is contrary to her own peculiar brand of dogma. Of course, my immediate reply was, "It makes perfect sense, it just depends on what you believe.", thinking that separating "belief" from "sense" would be sufficient.

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)

This is the funniest conversation I have ever read. How did you not laugh during this?

[dalidaisy]

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)

I have almost had this exact conversation before. Too funny...

Is it hard to live with someone who's views differ this much from yours? Or, are you religious, but just believe in evolution? I myself could never live or spend a majority of my time with someone religious. Whenever I do spend time with them, conversations similar to this one invariably pop up...

[Firebrand]

Be careful around women though (not to insinuate sexual prejudice in any form)... Most women, especially F's are quite sensitive. You might want to watch your words. Plenty of experience here, coming from a fellow member of the female gender :thumbsup:

People's feelings are their own problem. If comes down to whether or not you care about them. Cause and effect. I think it's time F types start dealing with more factual and consistently-provable information because it is a form of self-betrayal to cave in to them when you know the facts can back up your arguments and it is quite absurd to ask that of anyone.





Firebrand9 added to this post, 2 minutes and 22 seconds later...


I know all about the "punishment" routine – piss her off and you're in the shitter for a week. I once told her that she lives in a fantasy world where things are as she sees them, not as the really are. I'm still paying for that comment! And you married this woman knowing these tendencies?





Firebrand9 added to this post, 1 minutes and 14 seconds later...

If she doesn't change her mind, don't handle irrational statements at all, because all that's going to earn you is another week of payment (or in my case, another week of: "Oh! I just remembered! I read xxx and it proved that you were wrong because x@£*..." from my mother):D.That's how I (try to) treat my mother nowadays, who is also an ISFJ. Just nod at what she says. Smile like a clown (make sure to paint your nose red and do the mandatory maniacal-gorilla-like-arm-waving movement) and say: You win! *big round of applause* Ok... I'm probably getting carried away on the clown thing.

You can't be serious...





Firebrand9 added to this post, 27 minutes and 56 seconds later...


As hard as I try "yes dear" doesn't work. Her goal is to make me think as she thinks – nothing else is acceptable. As long as I persist in my "defective" thinking, there will be battles and I have grown weary of pretending

This is exactly the reason I do not advocate being anything other than honest. Honest can still be respectful but stays true-to-form. It does not bs itself. It does not bs anyone else. Integrity stays intact and so does self-respect.

Changing yourself is only a short-term solution and eventually caves in. Statistically, this is one of the most common causes of relationship failure; trying to change the other person. That's like saying "I love you 75% but I'd love you 100% if ....". Agreeing for the sake of peace is dishonesty. Mature people should (and I say should as I know this is an ideal) be able to communicate without needing to resort to irrational dogmatic statements or demands. Frankly rwyatt365, I don't know how you've managed to cope thus far. I would've checked out of that after more than 1 argument that degraded into such completely ridiculous anti-logic. It's hilarious while reading it but the cold hard reality of being there... I would've burst into hysterical laughter at the "babies coming out of the ocean" comment. You should've asked her if she was watching too much sci-fi or horror as of late as I can just imagine all these grotesque Dagon-Cthulhu babies walking out of the ocean, Innsmouth-style.


(Tangental rant : I think this whole "opposites attract" (especially F with T types and also S with N though that seems to be an easier pill to swallow) cookie fortune wisdom needs to be weighed against the fact that the divorce rate is over 60%. If marriage was a student, we would say he/she failed. Opposites attract but they don't maintain well. That is, unless you like repressing yourself or enjoy conflict. Personally, I could do without them. I know of a few INTJ's with INTPs that have none of these inane arguements)

[Firebrand]

I suggest handling the situation with a little humor:

Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Hahahahahaha...
Her: What?
Me: That's the funniest thing I've ever heard
Her: Oh come on!
Me: You really WANT to believe in creationism heh
Her: No I don't! It's just that it doesn't make any sense
Me: Yeah yeah, you should write a paper and submit it to Science saying that these people are silly and that all this research that has been going on is completely nonsensical - and that they were too stupid to figure it out but that *you* managed to figure it all out
Her: You!!!!! [gets extremely angry]
Me: That's fine honey ;D Everything is going to go alright ;D

This is pretty much how I think I would've handled it.





Firebrand9 added to this post, 5 minutes and 36 seconds later...

Close, but no cigar! Her response is, "Well, if you just recognize that <insert her belief system here>, then we wouldn't think different – there wouldn’t be a problem."
But then you wouldn't be true to yourself and what makes her way of living so much more "correct"? Ask her this. And after she answers with a predictable reply then ask why everyone else in the world hasn't adopted her belief systems yet? Be sure to include other regions and religions. Then sugggest that it may be her that is actually incorrect as there are many intelligent people who would disagree with her. Then go ahead and tell her after she becomes grand dictator of the world and kills off some ethnic or religious group that, then and only then, will you adopt her belief system.





Firebrand9 added to this post, 10 minutes and 43 seconds later...

rwyatt365 Let me know if you come up with any sort of solution to this argument (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath). I'm about to become a high school biology teacher in the bible belt south so any heads up would be appreciated.:thinking:

Become religious. Otherwise be prepared for conflict. Every time a fast food joint goes out of business in the south, they make a church out of it. No, I am not exaggerating...

[Sean O]

The ultimate irrational argument: ESFP vs. ESFP

"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it's not!"
(etc.)

[Firebrand]

Strangely, these facts don't seem to have filtered out of the university to the general public yet... whence cometh threads like this one. I think this is because the ideas are counter-intuitive, and the seminal proofs beyond the capability (and interest) of most folks.

What this all means is, if your goal is comprehensive, consistent knowledge, as I seem to hear you all saying, then you MUST have access to sources of knowledge outside the system under consideration. Faith plays an indispensible role in the search for "truth" that deserves a capital "T". When you dismiss the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, you put comprehensive, consistent knowledge beyond your reach... provably, and forever.

By reference to sources of knowledge outside the system under consideration, faith traditions avoid the logical conundra associated with self-referential reasoning (because as soon as you start "thinking about yourself thinking", you are one syllogism away from a logical train wreck).

It's fine for you to have as your personal FAITH the notion that "faith is irrelevant" (though this would be absurd and manifestly hypocritical)... but in so doing, you guarantee that your potential for knowledge is necessarily less than that of "the faithful".

Here, then, is the choice authentic science has handed you as inhabitants of the 21st century:

1.) Reject the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, and settle instead for consistent knowledge that is forever limited IN PRINCIPLE, without remedy, no matter how much "science" you do, how smart you are, or how much time and effort you expend.

Or,

2.) Be open to the possibility of transcendent sources of knowledge, thereby throwing off the provably insurmountable inherent limitations of formal systems, and leaving open the possibility of "having it all".

No Monte, many of us here just do not agree with them. Just because you cannot prove that God does not exist, does not prove he/she/it/they does exist. Flipping the logic is an syllogistic error from the opposite perspective.

And that's also to say that you must have every last little bit of proof before a logical hypothesis can be formed, which is just plain unrealistic. Just because nothing is absolute and that it's veritably impossible to garner down to the subatomic level of proof is not a good reason to switch to faith as a fallback for failure to close the gap between known and unknown. Most often it's good enough to say that "all signs point to this" or that we sufficiently proved the point of the experiment and to the details that are not proven, we have not proven them yet. Then we can set up experiments in the future if we so choose. Science is not an absolute. Science is a best guess based on all provable means of information present. Just because every layer of the onion peeled back reveals another layer does not mean we will not eventually encounter a core. Give our society time Monte. We waste a lot of time arguing about these sorts of things rather than going out and proving more science correct. If we did the latter, we'd be further along on our path...





Firebrand9 added to this post, 2 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Aronnax--

Einstein said, "Things should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler."
Actually that was Occam originally (Occam's Razor)





Firebrand9 added to this post, 11 minutes and 28 seconds later...

evolution is one of those ideological choke points for some people.
they think the answer is either one thing or the other but not both.
god could have completely said "let there be evolution" and that would have been it. the two ideas can coexist although people don't want to reconcile them. they won't even admit there can be a middle road of ideas.
some people's lack of acceptance of even the possibility is puzzling to me.
This is possible. But, honestly, we just don't know. And I doubt any scientists will step forward to attempt to prove god exists. There's too many easier things to prove like a Unified Theory, for instance... ;)

[MaleVolentworld]

The answer is, you point out how absurd it is and make fun out of it. Just like Bastiat did.

[Harmony]

I think this exact reason is why I loved my Biology teacher in high school. He was full on in favor of evolution. I will never forget the day he asked a very random question....

"Is there anyone in here that doesn't have any wisdom teeth?"

I slowly raise my hand, waiting for others, no one else does....

"Congratulations! Your body has already evolved into what we are likely to see in the future. Less and less people ever getting wisdom teeth because the body evolves and recognizes that they aren't necessary!"

That did it for me. That and other things gave me enough proof to believe evolution over creationism. I have far too many questions regarding whether God even exists let alone if he created everything.... Because then it comes down to... who created God?

Anyway, just thought I'd toss out my little evolution story that certainly opened my eyes to it.

[dogwoodlover]

How do you approach/continue a "discussion" with someone that puts forward totally illogical arguments? I'm not sure that this has been covered somewhere else – this question is inspired by something that occurred last night between myself and my wife;

Last night my wife and I were watching a TIVO'ed episode of "The Universe" where it was describing how science has come to today's understanding of the creation and evolution of the universe. As the episode was winding up by summarizing the progress of scientific theory on the subject throughout the ages she chimed in with, "That's ridiculous! How can anyone believe that?! That doesn't make any sense!" I knew that this was going to be her reaction because she is an ardent "Creationist" and rejects anything that is contrary to her own peculiar brand of dogma. Of course, my immediate reply was, "It makes perfect sense, it just depends on what you believe.", thinking that separating "belief" from "sense" would be sufficient.

The reminder of the "conversation" went something like this;
Her: If that was true, how come I don’t see any babies walking out of the ocean?
Me: Huh??
Her: That's what they said, that people came from bacteria in the ocean. So if that's true, why don't I see babies coming up from the ocean?
Me: That's not what they said at all! They're talking about the process of evolution that takes millions…billions of years to occur.
Her: But if it's happening all of the time then new babies should be popping out of the ocean every day. I haven't ever seen that happen, so it doesn't make sense.
Me: Evolutionary changes are happening every day, but that doesn't mean that new people are being created…besides, I could say that telling me that God created man out of nothing doesn't make sense either, but I don't because that's what you believe and it makes sense to you.
Her: Does that mean that you don't believe that God created man?
Me: No, I don't believe that. I believe that people are the long-term result of evolutionary processes.
Her: Are you denouncing God?
Me: No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in creationism.
Her: Well, you must be denouncing God if you don't believe that he made people.
Me: I'm just disagreeing with what you're saying…
Her: Are you denouncing God?!
Me: I'm not going to respond to that, because that's not what I was talking about…
Her: Just tell me, are you denouncing God?!!
Me: (getting pissed now) What's going to happen if I denounce God?
Her: Just do it and see…
(at that point I just walked away because there was no longer a discussion, just an impending argument – and I had to get up in the morning for work)


Usually remaining very calm and collected during an argument, while making clear, coherent arguments works for me. Often times, my girlfriend (ENFP) who is also an ardent creationist, will get worked up over something and take on a similar attitude as the one you described. I've found though, that if I continually ignore her emotional reactions and just calmly repeat or explain any arguments she doesn't understand that she will calm down too and start handling the discussion in a more constructive manner (perhaps its her Te kicking in).