Why do you argue?

[rara avis]

How common are the circumstances, really, in which you truly care what another person thinks, or about changing their mind? Or, even if you might care, how often is it worth the minimum amount of interaction required to do anything about it?

Or is it just about the opportunity for you to talk about what you think?

[cannotseethe]

Hmm.

At work, quite a bit. I'm often working with a team of people, Especially when a project first begins there are often major differences of opinion. I try to hear what everyone has to say. It can grow tense at times.

In my personal life, not very much at all. I play argument games with a couple of my nerd friends once in awhile (one of us will make up a BS theory of something, and the rest will knock it down while the originator tries to defend it). :embarassed:

But as far as finding a real difference of opinion with someone I know personally, and getting into trying to understand them and then change their mind...I rarely do that. The only times that come to mind had to do with concrete or pragmatic things, like planning a trip, as opposed to more abstract ideas or opinions.

[Nimmirraj]

I really see no point in arguing except when it comes to business. As in, I need to make my direct superior see the pointlessness in certain procedures. Other than that, I keep quiet, and if I disagree, I just keep a tally in my mind and decide whether I want to continue to associate with said people. This goes double for *former* liberals (<RANT>I can respect you if you are a conservative. What I can't respect is someone who is a liberal - receiving money from the government - and after you can no longer get said money, decide to be a conservative. But not just any type of conservative - This is the type of conservative who only reads right wing blogaganda, and only watches Fox News. AND IS COMPLETELY ANTI-ENTITLEMENT! But only after being denied the entitlements they had for over a decade.</RANT>)

I pontificate - but only to my wife (or on internet forums ;) )

[Wtfpeople]

I argue and practice frequently because it help me learn how to speak in a way people can understand. Everyone is different. That's why arguing with as many people as possible, I think is beneficial in helping you "set" their place in the world.

Of course, there are times when you shouldnt argue, but IMO the internet is fair game.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 12:54 PM ----------

I play argument games with a couple of my nerd friends once in awhile (one of us will make up a BS theory of something, and the rest will knock it down while the originator tries to defend it). :embarassed:


Haha, I like this. I do that too, but not everyone in my personal life are willing participants!

[BlackMita]

Or is it just about the opportunity for you to talk about what you think?


Pretty much.

[plotthickens]

Strawman. It's not "changing opponent's mind VS opportunity to pontificate".

I argue to:

learn from other people -- the Peak Oil thread is a good example.
hone my discussion skills. I used to be WAY too wordy and reactionary.
bring up a point that I'm unsure of to let other people bat it around until it either unravels or is validated.

[ATCGs]

It depends. If I'm having a discussion with my SO, then i care what she thinks. If I'm talking about work (to non-science people) the vast majority of my time is spent stamping out ignorance and correcting misunderstandings.

[daydreamer]

How common are the circumstances, really, in which you truly care what another person thinks, or about changing their mind? Or, even if you might care, how often is it worth the minimum amount of interaction required to do anything about it?

Or is it just about the opportunity for you to talk about what you think?

hmm. i don't really think i can change anyone's mind. i guess here on the forums, i argue to point out someone's inconsistency, or to add more information for them to consider or both.

people's inconsistencies - i love to see how people reconcile things. lol i suppose it gives me ideas on how to reconcile my own apparent conflicts. this is when i'm learning from someone, and it's good. on the other hand, of course i do a bit just for the sport of it (especially when it appears to be motivated by the same on the other side) or if the person has just laid a line of bull that i don't think they should get away with - or if they are bullying someone else that i like to read LOL so those are really kind of the silly reasons and i don't usually learn anything but i suppose it is a way to blow off some steam and have a few laughs. make some friends that way too. :)

adding more information for another person to consider, i run into a few people that way that i really end up having a more meaningful conversation with. not always, but it is a really good thing when that happens :)

an oppty to talk about what i think? i cannot type fast enough to keep up with what i think LOL i'm not sure it makes much sense anyway

[Goodday]

It depends. If I'm having a discussion with my SO, then i care what she thinks. If I'm talking about work (to non-science people) the vast majority of my time is spent stamping out ignorance and correcting misunderstandings.

Oh boy, I know how it feels to play that game. Too often though, I get a blank stare. They don't seem to care that they sound like an idiot. I think I should stop correcting them because I look like a pompous ass. Oh well, such is life.

[Exodus]

I argue because I like an engaging conversation

[JeS]

I'm just ornery. I get bored and try to prod people into being interesting. It's a bad habit; counter-productive.

If its something which either I care about, or I think you care about (and I care about what you think), I'd rather just talk then debate or argue. Less chance of getting someone angry at me. I don't like it when I say something and get into a emotionally charged debate for just voicing a passing thought.

As a means of actually sharing info, I think debate is sort of hit and miss. Sometimes I feel like I really get things out of them, a lot of the time, not. Maybe somebody cares too much, just doesn't feel like it, or is trying to win. I know I've been guilty of all three.

[Kisai]

It's me vs. Stupid. I'll not rest until Stupid is dead and I am king.

[Hinun]

Because I feel I need to, because irrationality is a plague and the only cure is rationality...lol but seriously my reasons are usually that it is almost physically unbearable to listen to drivel and expect me to not refute that position.

[zibber]

How common are the circumstances, really, in which you truly care what another person thinks, or about changing their mind? Or, even if you might care, how often is it worth the minimum amount of interaction required to do anything about it?

Or is it just about the opportunity for you to talk about what you think?

I like to argue my views on death at funerals.

Seriously, though.. what you describe sounds more like discussion, no? Whenever I encounter a view I happen to disagree with, and happen to know why I disagree, and estimate that the person would be open to arguments supporting a differing view, I will try and have a discussion.

Do it every wednesday, by the way, selling socialist newspapers on the street (near the university). Get into some interesting discussions!

[gwilendiel]

I like to argue my views on death at funerals.

Seriously, though.. what you describe sounds more like discussion, no? Whenever I encounter a view I happen to disagree with, and happen to know why I disagree, and estimate that the person would be open to arguments supporting a differing view, I will try and have a discussion.

Do it every wednesday, by the way, selling socialist newspapers on the street (near the university). Get into some interesting discussions!

Disagreement and argument are sciences and art forms.

Some people just do petty bitching and pissing at each other. That's another story entirely.
And I realize I am guilty of it as well. But I don't enjoy it.

[rara avis]

Strawman.

Actually, no, it's not. Though this word has been so trendy around here lately. This isn't a misdirection, but an open question, an invitation to explain yourself. Though that response does tell something about why you're inclined to argue.

Personally, 80% of the time that I hear or see Stupid, my instinct is to think, "Wow, shut up," and go about my business. I don't want to engage with stupid.

The other 20%... I'll argue if at the outset it seems that I might have a chance of truly resolving the discrepancy. But I don't have a lot of patience for prolonged interactions like this. I rarely do it for entertainment, and I think a lot of people do- for the sport of it. I'm more likely to say what I think and leave than to settle in to tug-o-war over it. Not interested, not motivated.

I suppose the difference between an argument and a discussion is a blurry line. I think a discussion is more of a mutual exploration, and an argument is really a contest between at least two points of view. To me, an argument often seems more emotionally driven than a discussion. An argument will more often become a contest of wills or volume (rather than facts) than a discussion will.

[stasis]

Actually, no, it's not. Though this word has been so trendy around here lately.
True. I believe "false dichotomy" is the term plotthickens was searching for.

Once again, the droids escape.

[brecia]

I love exchanging ideas.I can see my percpective alters with the new information.But i don't take what i heard,i evaluate and pick what i want to accept.I form my idea.I talk with people who i think has enough brain to think.I'm smart enough to know that you can't change anybody's mind.But you can point out that their idea is wrong.They can see it but they don't have to change it.On the contrary they stick to it even more.I talk with people who can at least understand what i said.I don't take one little part of an issue.I evaluate it as a whole.I talk about concepts.People can't see the difference.Just keep arguing with you.I think i can get along with N types relatively better.They can follow a conversation with me and don't get lost.I also don't talk about religion and politics with anyone.A strict rule.These are dead ends.

[t3hrubikscube]

I rarely argue unless it's about something personal. I don't really like to argue about pointless things that don't matter. I don't care if other people have different opinions. I'm not that interested in changing people's minds.

Personal arguments (you know, something between friends or something) are different, though. I mean, if it directly affects your life or your relationship with somebody, then it's different. I'm okay with arguing over things like that.

I hope that made sense.

[Anhedonic Lake]

How common are the circumstances, really, in which you truly care what another person thinks, or about changing their mind? Or, even if you might care, how often is it worth the minimum amount of interaction required to do anything about it?

Or is it just about the opportunity for you to talk about what you think?

I often wonder do I just do it for an ego boost. I bet a lot of people do it for that,but won't admit it even to themselves.

[DanteFalling]

Why do I argue? Because my fricking ENTP roommate breathes arguing.

[rara avis]

True. I believe "false dichotomy" is the term plotthickens was searching for.

Once again, the droids escape.
:rolleyes: I'm going to call it a "conversation starter."
Apparently I should have wrapped up my OP with a more open ended lead-in.


---------- Post added 12-09-2009 at 11:02 AM ----------

Why do I argue? Because my fricking ENTP roommate breathes arguing.

I would react to someone like that the same way I would to anyone else who constantly invaded my space. Physical violence.

[stasis]

I'm going to call it a "conversation starter."
A fallacious one, apparently! Grrr!

Seriously though, argument is exploration is learning. There's no gulf between the familiar position and the position opposed when these positions regard the same subject. Even an impassioned and categorical dismissal of one side may result in a more nuanced understanding of the subject in question. The syncretic, consensus-building debate results in knowledge. The adversarial, sporting debate results in knowledge. The indifferent devil's advocate engagements result in knowledge too. One may care deeply about changing another's view, or care nothing for the subject altogether - the substance of the exchange itself is much the same in any case. Motive doesn't really matter in this regard.

[rara avis]

Motive doesn't really matter in this regard.

I suppose you're off topic, then, because the OP is discussing motive.

Knowledge and the testing of supposed knowledge is an excellent motive to argue, though. It can certainly exercise several facets of your mind.

My own reticence to engage in argument has made me wonder if I'm not as curious or as confident as I should be, but I think I just prefer to take in data more quietly and evenly. I think the dynamism of actual argument/discussion can be distracting from the knowledge itself.

[stasis]

I suppose you're off topic, then, because the OP is discussing motive.
Then you suppose wrongly. Critiquing an implication of the topic, even (and perhaps especially) where that undermines the meaning of the topic itself, is not off-topic.

stasis: 2
rara avis: 0.5
plotthickens: 0.5


Knowledge and the testing of supposed knowledge is an excellent motive to argue, though.
But what specifically would render that a better motive than enjoying the sound of one's own voice or wanting to whack pesky moles as they pop up? Is the mind more exercised by the ensuing argument when the cause is righteous or ivory or prurient, keeping in mind that none of these motives necessitate any particular sort of exchange?

While I think arguing explicitly to "pursue knowledge" does sound wonderfully noble - at least in a snooty, turtleneck clad Starbucks novelette kind of way - I'd continue to maintain that all argument constitutes an equivalent pursuit of knowledge no matter the intent or the subject. Fundamentally, argument is the contrasting of ideas about a single subject or unified series of subjects. One learns about the opposing view and/or about one's own view, but always about the subject(s). I think that the poverty or wealth of each exchange has a lot more to do with the qualities of the people talking than the reason why they're talking or the manner in which they go about their talking. So much so that I don't see a meaningful distinction amongst the reasons and manner.


My own reticence to engage in argument has made me wonder if I'm not as curious or as confident as I should be, but I think I just prefer to take in data more quietly and evenly. I think the dynamism of actual argument/discussion can be distracting from the knowledge itself.
When you say that you prefer a "quiet" and "even" intake it doesn't sound like you're describing deficits in curiosity or confidence to me. My guess would be that you're averse to volatile exchanges, or something like that. Do you feel anxious when there's verbal conflict going on in your vicinity?

[themuzicman]

How common are the circumstances, really, in which you truly care what another person thinks, or about changing their mind? Or, even if you might care, how often is it worth the minimum amount of interaction required to do anything about it?

Or is it just about the opportunity for you to talk about what you think?

I ask the question about whether what this person is saying will affect me. If you say that government should run all health insurance, that's an opinion that, if implemented, will affect me adversely, and I'm going to point that out and the errors in the way of that thinking.

If you say that black monkeys live in your butt, I'll leave that alone. Doesn't affect me.

[LionsPride]

argument is exploration is learning.

Very much one of the reasons that I appreciate people who challenge some of my opinions from time to time. Every idea that I have that has survived the buffeting of intellectual attack from others over and over again is made stronger and better with each discourse. I have a wake of discarded ideas that never made the grade.

As for challenging other people's ideas, ideas that they may not appreciate the scrutiny on, there is still motive to do so. Engaging in arguments provokes an deeper understanding of who they are while at the same time it hones my persuasive speaking ability as well as teaches me to express my thoughts in manner that can be explained to a large variety of people. Those are benefits that I value a great deal and argument is one of the best methods to address them.

People tend to discount the value of conflict, assuming that two people having different opinions and discussing it in an animated fashion is an ill best avoided. I would argue that false harmony is a truer evil. Not only does it preserve our self images through ignorance, the chance to develop new ideas, new solutions is squandered and we fail to understand the true thoughts of people around us.

[rara avis]

Then you suppose wrongly. Critiquing an implication of the topic, even (and perhaps especially) where that undermines the meaning of the topic itself, is not off-topic.
OK. I'm not even getting into this with you, but I couldn't resist giving it a shot. :)


But what specifically would render that a better motive than enjoying the sound of one's own voice or wanting to whack pesky moles as they pop up? Is the mind more exercised by the ensuing argument when the cause is righteous or ivory or prurient, keeping in mind that none of these motives necessitate any particular sort of exchange?
My intention in this thread is not to impugn anyone's motives or actions. I'm not caring about what's better and what isn't; I'm not arguing that one shouldn't argue. It's all good; I just don't understand, or I don't identify, so I'm asking. I'm mystified sometimes by the debate threads that flower here, or by persons (like yourself) who go after some topics like a terrier on a rat. (That sounded derogatory, but I didn't mean it in a bad way.) I envy that particular kind of energy when it's paired with skill.

[Synamon]

I'm not averse to conflict and the reasons why I argue have already been mentioned by others in the thread. Sometimes I'm trying to inform; sometimes I'm testing myself or the other person. I echo ATCG's comment about stamping out ignorance and LionsPride's post about challenging my own position and learning about others by forcing them to defend theirs. I also admit that I argue for my own amusement, whacking moles is fun. :)

[plotthickens]

I'll have to disagree with both of you, Stasis, RA. I did contemplate 'False Dichotomy', but RA later shows that 'Strawman' is more appropriate.

RA posts:


Why do you argue?

How common are the circumstances, really, in which you truly care what another person thinks, or about changing their mind? Or, even if you might care, how often is it worth the minimum amount of interaction required to do anything about it?

Or is it just about the opportunity for you to talk about what you think?


Where 'argue' is undefined by above post, it (by common usage or definition (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), take yer pick) means all forms of communication where two or more perspectives are shared. RA sets up the dichotomy that reasons for arguing are either truly caring & changing minds VS. opportunity to talk. This is a strawman, diverting attention from either RA's dissatisfaction/curiousity about either

one or more current discussions
with their own/others' argument techniques,
and showing that she is interested in sparking truly candid answers with such an obviously disgruntling strawman. The latter of the two reasons is more likely as is shown in these two subsequent posts:


My own reticence to engage in argument has made me wonder if I'm not as curious or as confident as I should be, but I think I just prefer to take in data more quietly and evenly. I think the dynamism of actual argument/discussion can be distracting from the knowledge itself.


My intention in this thread is not to impugn anyone's motives or actions. I'm not caring about what's better and what isn't; I'm not arguing that one shouldn't argue. It's all good; I just don't understand, or I don't identify, so I'm asking. I'm mystified sometimes by the debate threads that flower here, or by persons (like yourself) who go after some topics like a terrier on a rat. (That sounded derogatory, but I didn't mean it in a bad way.) I envy that particular kind of energy when it's paired with skill.


Since RA was looking for insight on why people discuss so tenaciously, the creation of a false dichotomy (truly caring VS opportunity to talk) was a Strawman created to ignite conversation. And nicely done -- it really brought out quite a few interesting responses.

Kudos, RA. Interesting thread.

[rara avis]

^ Well, thanks. And I'm not taking your bait. :)

People tend to discount the value of conflict, assuming that two people having different opinions and discussing it in an animated fashion is an ill best avoided. I would argue that false harmony is a truer evil. Not only does it preserve our self images through ignorance, the chance to develop new ideas, new solutions is squandered and we fail to understand the true thoughts of people around us.
I don't mind if someone wants to question my idea. Well, honestly, I do mind, but I can take it. I do sometimes have to take a quick moment to shift gears enough to be gracious about it and not embarrass myself with stubborness.

Conflict - in the sense of "disagreement" not "warfare" - I'm OK with that. But I will never be someone who dives into the pigpile whenever a bone of contention is brought to light. And if people pigpile on me, I admit I will probably get righteously mad before I am able to do anything else. Write me a calm and well-considered letter and explain why I'm wrong. I'll probably have fun reading it.

I may also be suspicious of the motives of someone who wants to take me apart in public, struggling to perceive quickly whether they're acting as an enemy or just making conversation. I like to err on the side of pleasant evasiveness when it comes to social nuances.

When you say that you prefer a "quiet" and "even" intake it doesn't sound like you're describing deficits in curiosity or confidence to me. My guess would be that you're averse to volatile exchanges, or something like that. Do you feel anxious when there's verbal conflict going on in your vicinity?
If it's someone else's conversation, no. I'll be OK to listen and think it over and just chuck in two cents or ask a question here and there.

I don't enjoy volatility most of the time, no. I definitely avoid it. Under most circumstances, I don't appreciate aggression, mine or others' - I think it's annoying and gets in the way; I don't like heavy, direct interaction with most people, no way can I think straight, so no way can I win, and if I'm going to not win, I prefer to do that pretty privately.

If I am boxed into a volatile exchange, I will probably perform contortions like you've never seen in order to get out of it, because I know it's not my strongsuit.

[plotthickens]

^ Well, thanks. And I'm not taking your bait. :)

My apologies if you see it as 'bait'. You sparked an interesting read. I think that perhaps the missing part of the equation here is 'testosterone' -- those with it fight, those without it don't like conflict nearly as much.

[stasis]

RA sets up the dichotomy that reasons for arguing are either truly caring & changing minds VS. opportunity to talk.
And it was your contention that the dichotomy is false. The "straw man" fallacy doesn't apply to what you suspect her intent was, it describes a form of argument. The form of argument you took issue with was dichotomous, and the way you took issue with it was by establishing that it was not a true dichotomy because it excluded the reasons you went on to mention. Contesting a false dichotomy while talking of straw men makes very little sense.

And, strictly speaking, it wasn't really a false dichotomy either. There was no fallacy in the OP at all.




It's all good; I just don't understand, or I don't identify, so I'm asking. I'm mystified sometimes by the debate threads that flower here, or by persons (like yourself) who go after some topics like a terrier on a rat.
The answer may be well bound by your analogy. Why does a cat bat a mouse? Why does Germany invade France? Indeed.


I don't like heavy, direct interaction with most people, no way can I think straight
If you were very well prepared ahead of time for that interaction, would you find it less off-putting? I can't find the reference at the moment, but I happened to read something awhile back about planning being a means of minimizing ambiguity. That people inclined to set up plans and routines (like the INTJ Te, supposedly) were expressing a preference for ordering their environment, and that this preference can be instigated by having a low tolerance for ambiguity (for whatever reason). So, if a certain type of argument were something you associated with unpredictability, you might have a lower tolerance for it and therefore tend to dislike it.

But I don't know you very well. You have also previously mentioned something about having a particular appreciation for social etiquette. It's possible that some forms of argument simply chafe that and rub you the wrong way intuitively as a result. Eh?

[plotthickens]

And it was your contention that the dichotomy is false. The "straw man" fallacy doesn't apply to what you suspect her intent was, it describes a form of argument. The form of argument you took issue with was dichotomous, and the way you took issue with it was by establishing that it was not a true dichotomy because it excluded the reasons you went on to mention. Contesting a false dichotomy while talking of straw men makes very little sense.

And, strictly speaking, it wasn't really a false dichotomy either. There was no fallacy in the OP at all.

*blink blink*

Okie dokie. You win.

[vash]

I rarely argue because it takes more energy than I want to expend on a subject. I express my views and others are free to express theirs. I get very turned off when I feel that people are attacking my views just to get some sense of superiority. I ask questions when people say things that seem to lack logic and I welcome it when people ask me the same type of questions. This usually results in a good discussion, which interests me more so than debating (which I do almost as rarely as I argue).

[gwilendiel]

My apologies if you see it as 'bait'. You sparked an interesting read. I think that perhaps the missing part of the equation here is 'testosterone' -- those with it fight, those without it don't like conflict nearly as much.

And some of us don't like conflict because we are frighteningly good at it but don't like to employ it. :thinking:
Like for me, conflict leads me to want to drop 'nukes'. And I think we all know that's a bad plan.
This is a very good thread though.

[rara avis]

And some of us don't like conflict because we are frighteningly good at it but don't like to employ it. :thinking:
Like for me, conflict leads me to want to drop 'nukes'. And I think we all know that's a bad plan.
I think I am like this particularly in terms of "personal" arguments; I will absorb more hits than I deliver, because I know I will injure the other person more than they will me.

I rarely argue unless it's about something personal. I don't really like to argue about pointless things that don't matter. I don't care if other people have different opinions. I'm not that interested in changing people's minds.

Personal arguments (you know, something between friends or something) are different, though. I mean, if it directly affects your life or your relationship with somebody, then it's different. I'm okay with arguing over things like that.

I hope that made sense.
Yes, it makes sense; I will engage when it is worth the effort- ie, with people whose view really matters to me, or directly affects me.


If you say that black monkeys live in your butt, I'll leave that alone. Doesn't affect me.
You are cruel, sir.

I ask questions when people say things that seem to lack logic and I welcome it when people ask me the same type of questions. This usually results in a good discussion, which interests me more so than debating (which I do almost as rarely as I argue).
Yes, I am most likely to interject strategic/leading questions- especially when I need to deal with someone who is more volatile in nature. (An ESF coworker.) I do kind of enjoy waiting and watching for the right time to stick a strategic, calm pin in their balloon. It is satisfying when done right. Even if they do get wound right back up again a second later, make up some fact-like things, and win the argument because they're the boss.

I also like people to ask questions of my ideas, because a) It indicates that they're listening to what I'm saying, and b) They're helping me hone and tailor my ideas. I like that process. I don't respond nearly as well when I make a statement and someone essentially responds right off the bat with, "No" or "You're wrong" or "I'M the expert, here."

If I do need to counter someone's idea at all, I will do so carefully, with the hope of allowing them to warm to my alterations instead of bristling. Maybe because I'm not in it for sport, so much, I come from the angle of winning them over, rather than knocking them down. More profit in it, for me.

---------- Post added 12-09-2009 at 08:21 PM ----------


The answer may be well bound by your analogy. Why does a cat bat a mouse? Why does Germany invade France? Indeed.
Indeed. You NTPs, in particular, can be very much like a cat toying with a Maginot Line.



If you were very well prepared ahead of time for that interaction, would you find it less off-putting? [...] if a certain type of argument were something you associated with unpredictability, you might have a lower tolerance for it and therefore tend to dislike it.
If it's a subject I know chapter and verse, I'll certainly be more comfortable. If I'm extending myself into an area where I'm less confident, or where my view is by nature a subjective one... meh. I'm not particularly good with BSing my way through.

You have also previously mentioned something about having a particular appreciation for social etiquette. It's possible that some forms of argument simply chafe that and rub you the wrong way intuitively as a result. Eh?
Maybe... like I said, I may have a hard time telling immediately whether someone's out to be destructive to me or work me over... and that would make a difference in how I respond to them. But this is because I don't understand the aggressive approach, or because I don't really understand it as a productive one.

[LionsPride]

Conflict - in the sense of "disagreement" not "warfare" - I'm OK with that. But I will never be someone who dives into the pigpile whenever a bone of contention is brought to light. And if people pigpile on me, I admit I will probably get righteously mad before I am able to do anything else. Write me a calm and well-considered letter and explain why I'm wrong. I'll probably have fun reading it.

I admit, I'm not one for the pig pile on most occasions, mostly because I seek balance more often then not. If there is a frenzy going on I'm not usually the one in it. Of course, balance doesn't mean consensus, if there is a bunch of consensus going on I'm just as likely to inject a little conflict to shake things up a bit. I think some of my biggest shit disturber moments started with one person saying something untrue and everyone else nodding. As for when my position is under scrutiny, unless I'm annoyed with the inability of my opponent to understand the argument, I don't get mad even though my points may sound heated. As far as I'm concerned, defending my own position is like taking an idea out for a thorough test drive.

I may also be suspicious of the motives of someone who wants to take me apart in public, struggling to perceive quickly whether they're acting as an enemy or just making conversation. I like to err on the side of pleasant evasiveness when it comes to social nuances.

Take you apart or your position on a topic? I'd say the former is something to be suspicious of, but the latter is definitely not the same thing.

[jcb]

i tend not to argue at all anymore, mostly because they end up in places all too familiar i.e. a person being tied up in knots and resenting me for doing so.

observation related to the thread content - kind of funny/ironic that in a room full of int*'s, there can be one that irritates the rest with their direct, abrasive nature.

[reb]

mostly, i view existence as subjective in its import. the only reason i bother to contend any point is to attempt to make someone look at their basic assumptions about life and the meaning thereof. frankly, nothing i can do is really going to make more than a very minor personal difference, i think. someone who is so totally comfortable in their assumptions as to be 'fixed' about it kind of irritates me, even though i am totally comfortable in my own assumptions in short bursts. phej said somewhere, 'i'm an agitator'; i am, also. gotta pass the time in the pointless forest someway. pissing off the public is fun, actually.

[ranwayslo]

I argue as a way to learn, by arguing for or against a point of view you can better understand the validity a given point of view. Beyond that I argue for fun and profit.

[SShack]

Why do I argue? Because my fricking ENTP roommate breathes arguing.

Arguing is life! Life is arguing!

Seriously though, I actually don't argue as much as a lot of ENTPs. Or rather, I'm more observant about the types of folks I argue with. Once I realize an argument is coming from obvious "talking points" I tend to disengage. Once I realize somebody is just trying to "score points" in an argument rather than actually engage in a real thought process, I disengage. Enough experience with arguing tells me I'm not going to make much headway with those folks.

I also argue with folks to figure out my own position, which tends to confuse some types. Especially when I change my mind in the middle of an argument. Sometimes in the middle of a sentence. Sometimes the entire argument is just me with the other person standing there wondering when I'm going to stop talking.