PDA

View Full Version : How do INTJs argue?


iwin
10-15-2007, 11:34 PM
Although I am an INTJ, I tend to end arguing with "because I think so!". It is mainly because I think that there are several truths and one should just choose the one that suit him/her. That is why I have problems dealing with people who try to persuade me that "That is the (one and only)TRUTH!".
But as for factual support of my arguments - I rarely care to bring any, being too lazy most of the times, I usually approach anything intuitively - if it feels right, then I think it's right. That is why my only argument is usually: "It's my point of view, either learn to respect it, or don't expect me to respect you as well".

How do you, guys, usually argue?

Stopharian
10-15-2007, 11:39 PM
This seems like a valid defensive strategy, but what about when you are trying to convince someone else of something?

OneBadMother
10-15-2007, 11:42 PM
Well, not being an INTJ, I argue persuasively, with examples and analysis of my observations. I only really argue when it's something interesting or important. Otherwise I just look on amusedly or throw things into the ring from the outside.

iwin
10-15-2007, 11:46 PM
somehow I never try to convince anybody in anything. Because I think that they should understand it already by themselves, and if not it's not such a big deal to never interact with them.
Say if I convince someone that I am right, what is it going to give me? Another friend, ally? I'm perfectly okay by myself. (I know that it's perhaps again some defensiveness, but I really am more entertained alone, and I am usually bored when with people.. trying to convince them to have somebody to think like me - it doesn't make sense, at least for me).

Stopharian
10-15-2007, 11:55 PM
somehow I never try to convince anybody in anything. Because I think that they should understand it already by themselves, and if not it's not such a big deal to never interact with them.
Say if I convince someone that I am right, what is it going to give me? Another friend, ally? I'm perfectly okay by myself. (I know that it's perhaps again some defensiveness, but I really am more entertained alone, and I am usually bored when with people.. trying to convince them to have somebody to think like me - it doesn't make sense, at least for me).


Okay, I know what your saying. So why argue in the first place then?

thegnat
10-16-2007, 12:00 AM
I argue with facts and logic if I have to argue. I *always* have logic and facts to back up my arguments. I'm terrible at persuasion otherwise. I can't key into people's emotions or anything like that.

Otherwise I don't waste my time with it if possible.

iwin
10-16-2007, 12:01 AM
usually it's not me who starts arguing. :)
But I have a lot of friends and acquiantances that would repeatedly argue on some topic bringing more and more facts to support them, but... it just doesn't work with me.

Why I started this thread (if that's what you wanted to know): to compare INTJs' arguing strategy. to check whether I fit the profile.
(it's just an experiment).

thegnat
10-16-2007, 12:07 AM
usually it's not me who starts arguing. :)
But I have a lot of friends and acquiantances that would repeatedly argue on some topic bringing more and more facts to support them, but... it just doesn't work with me.

Why I started this thread (if that's what you wanted to know): to compare INTJs' arguing strategy. to check whether I fit the profile.
(it's just an experiment).

experiments are awesome.

That's why I joined in.

I suppose my arguing strategy is different than yours.

Of course I don't start arguments I generally hate arguing.

But oh man do I love logic and facts....

iwin
10-16-2007, 12:27 AM
I love logic as well. The thing is that everything can be supported logically. The bottom line is everything is based on some inner axioms, and that usually again ends up with either "one and only truth" supporters or "multiple" truths supporters. But logic can be found in either of them.
The difference is:
1. one and only tryth supporters stand on their "the truth" that is why they defend it with their logic.
2. multiple truth supporters stand on "anything can be logically supported and proved, so why bother" point of view.
either of them can be logic and either of them can bring facts... it's just the difference in the core.

mind_wander
10-16-2007, 12:28 AM
usually it's not me who starts arguing. :)
But I have a lot of friends and acquiantances that would repeatedly argue on some topic bringing more and more facts to support them, but... it just doesn't work with me.

Why I started this thread (if that's what you wanted to know): to compare INTJs' arguing strategy. to check whether I fit the profile.
(it's just an experiment).
Well, when arguements starts up in your direction of an INTJ. Really people are testing to see, if you can hold your stand in being more extroverted. Stupid, I know but this is what people is going after you for. See, if you can break the ice. As you said, I pretty much do the samething, expect find something solid first to refute, then work your way down.

deicruxified
10-16-2007, 03:58 AM
i don't argue most of the time... but if someone went overboard of too nonsensical claims and bashes everyone with his or her solipsistic views i come in defense of people... especially if i got a retort like this ...

"The Bible doesn't limit us, at all.
And the Bible is the word of God... According to over 2 billion people on this earth, including myself."

"I have. I was a narcissitic little bitch like you when I was your age, but with time I grew more and more intelligent and I found the truth."

...most of the time i just observe and be an adjudicator coz most of the time, both sides have points if the arguements are crafted well and i might even buy an idea if i see it sensical.

rwyatt365
10-16-2007, 08:22 AM
Although I am an INTJ, I tend to end arguing with "because I think so!". It is mainly because I think that there are several truths and one should just choose the one that suit him/her. That is why I have problems dealing with people who try to persuade me that "That is the (one and only)TRUTH!".
But as for factual support of my arguments - I rarely care to bring any, being too lazy most of the times, I usually approach anything intuitively - if it feels right, then I think it's right. That is why my only argument is usually: "It's my point of view, either learn to respect it, or don't expect me to respect you as well".

How do you, guys, usually argue?
Generally, I don't argue – I debate. I consider arguing to be an ill-natured exchange of emotional energy for the most part devoid of logic or reason. I don’t engage in those kinds of exchanges because I am not good in that arena. When it comes to emotional outbursts, shouting matches and grandstanding I simply disengage and wait for the fireworks to subside and then attempt to return to a rational exchange. That tends to make people think that I am passively sitting by when I actually am silently saying, "C'mon, enough with all of this crap! Let me know when you REALLY have something to say". BTW – that drives my wife crazy!!

Max T
10-16-2007, 10:00 AM
Although I am an INTJ, I tend to end arguing with "because I think so!". *It is mainly because I think that there are several truths and one should just choose the one that suit him/her. *That is why I have problems dealing with people who try to persuade me that "That is the (one and only)TRUTH!".
But as for factual support of my arguments - I rarely care to bring any, being too lazy most of the times, I usually approach anything intuitively - if it feels right, then I think it's right. That is why my only argument is usually: "It's my point of view, either learn to respect it, or don't expect me to respect you as well".

How do you, guys, usually argue?
Generally, I don't argue – I debate. I consider arguing to be an ill-natured exchange of emotional energy for the most part devoid of logic or reason. I don’t engage in those kinds of exchanges because I am not good in that arena. When it comes to emotional outbursts, shouting matches and grandstanding I simply disengage and wait for the fireworks to subside and then attempt to return to a rational exchange. That tends to make people think that I am passively sitting by when I actually am silently saying, "C'mon, enough with all of this crap! Let me know when you REALLY have something to say". BTW – that drives my wife crazy!!

Yes- I prefer to debate rather than argue.

Sometimes it's nice to actually contribute to their perspective, followed quickly by showing how their view could be wrong or that there are more factors in favour of another view than theirs. *
i.e. saying "lets not get heated- I appreciate your view- but follow me and I'll show you it's pitfalls/ counterclaims".

I find arguments exhausting because I tend to absorb their energy and even pacify them, whilst trying to maintain cool myself to keep rational. :scared:

iwin
10-16-2007, 06:44 PM
sorry for being hard to understand.
I was using word 'argue' in the following senses:

*give reasons for something: to give reasons for an opinion in order to support it

*persuade somebody: to persuade somebody to do something by giving reasons

*provide evidence for something: to be evidence or a sign of something
MicrosoftR EncartaR 2007. c 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Evalis
10-16-2007, 09:02 PM
Usually with sharp objects and martial arts. After I have throughly defeated my vicitim, I scream in triumph that I was right!, until I can't breath anymore. Then I go home and make waffles.

mind_wander
10-16-2007, 09:39 PM
Great question you might ask. Here is a great examples of 2 INTJ's clashing with each other, wow 6 pgs too. Topic "Getting Angry, Taking Things Personal over the Internet" by Mysterious X. Check it out: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, Mysterious X is indeed and INTJ; I gave him the myer-brigg test. The only thing I have to argue is that only ethnicity difference; he Japanese and me Asian, what made us come together as a final conclusion destroy the ethnic barrier "Same Personality types."

We don't argue much.

iwin
10-16-2007, 10:49 PM
Great question you might ask. Here is a great examples of 2 INTJ's clashing with each other, wow 6 pgs too. Topic "Getting Angry, Taking Things Personal over the Internet" by Mysterious X. Check it out: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, Mysterious X is indeed and INTJ; I gave him the myer-brigg test. The only thing I have to argue is that only ethnicity difference; he Japanese and me Asian, what made us come together as a final conclusion destroy the ethnic barrier "Same Personality types."

We don't argue much.


OMG, that is sick!!! I remember one guy who was also so persistent in proving his position over the Internet, he would post something like "you s*ck, f**k off", make sure that I read that, and then when I answer in the same manner, would edit his post to something like "I will not go down to your level"... so that everyone around would think that it's me who's being inadequate. well, it worked. and well, I don't care. But if I meet him offline I make everything I can to make his life more miserable in legally acceptable ways. I do hold grudges. Forever. :) And actually there's a chance I'll meet him... It's a small world.

Not that I feel something about that guy, it's just that sometimes it's fun to prove that it's better never mess with me. And to prove I'm right in mediEVIL manner.

Oops, I must have sounded intimidating. No, I'm not that wicked. Only when it endangers my career in any way (like reputation for example), I can get very dangerous, but not 'outlaw' dangerous. So I'd say it's not that scary.

mind_wander
10-16-2007, 11:15 PM
Well he is the mastermind, we both understand each other so nothing to hide here. Make hiding from another INTJ is rather sad, if you can't open up toward another INTJ. Too me, he is trying to prove who is better; thats all. You know its hard to understand an INTJ type; so you can see the frustration.

iwin
10-16-2007, 11:25 PM
Well he is the mastermind, we both understand each other so nothing to hide here. Make hiding from another INTJ is rather sad, if you can't open up toward another INTJ. Too me, he is trying to prove who is better; thats all. You know its hard to understand an INTJ type; so you can see the frustration.

I know that this must make some sense, and I believe it is making. But please clarify, so I could understand what you mean:
1. Hiding is sad? What do you mean by that? Does it make you feel bad to hide something or something?
2. What are you implying by "rather sad, if you can't open up toward another INTJ" - is it like all INTJ understand each other, because they are all connected through some kinda way?
3. He's an INTJ, and he's trying to prove who's better. Say it was me he was arguing with. I am an INTJ as well, I don't need anybody trying to prove me that he is better than me, because being an INTJ I know that I am the best one. :) What's the point?
4. It's hard to understand an INTJ, but why "we both understand each other" (referring that we both are INTJs as well)?
5. "so you can see the frustration". What frustration? whose frustration?

Just don't get this personally, I am just trying to understand you better. Give me a chance, an please, explain.

mind_wander
10-16-2007, 11:33 PM
My bad, sorry. What I mean is INTJ can understand each other very well; there is nothing to hide from another INTJ. Lol, enjoying this mastermind thing confusing people. But yeah, thats what I originally mean. In most cases, more people open up to me more than I opened up to others.

iwin
10-16-2007, 11:39 PM
haha, I just wonder if nobody can understand our strange (fuzzy) logic, why do we expect people to follow our logic? (and are the facts we bring as evidence that disconnected as well for that matter?)

and that brings me back to my original question, so how do INTJs argue?

mind_wander
10-16-2007, 11:55 PM
In reality, its a draw; ideas is the same. Its like having the same player with the same characteristics/stamina who can hit a ping-pong ball at the same time. Who will win? God probably, probably give both INTJ's a time out. How start raining, logics for INTJ's either get an umberella and ping-pong it out or just go back your bags and go.

iwin
10-17-2007, 12:02 AM
then the bottom line is that both INTJs are right even if they are supporting different points of view. And that proves that I am even more right when arguing that there are several truths and not one and only, and that there's no need in proving anybody anything but simply dismissing them would be even better, because it saves my time. And probably if INTJs are supposedly smarter logically then anybody else (are right most of the time), in their majority they should be like me, i.e. supporters of several truths. Hence, I have things in common with INTJs, and that means that I am fitting the profile. And that's all I wanted to know. Hehe.

mind_wander
10-17-2007, 12:26 AM
Point exactly, I would not say INTJ's are the smartest. Why? because there are other INT's too, you kinda left out; they are also considered smart. They do fit in our category. I see that we are more agreeing than arguing.

iwin
10-17-2007, 12:29 AM
Point exactly, I would not say INTJ's are the smartest. Why? because there are other INT's too, you kinda left out; they are also considered smart. They do fit in our category. I see that we are more agreeing than arguing.

I said smartest logically. Meaning that we must have the undeniable logic.^^ According to profile, which we start to build from childhood and blah blah blah.
To be a mastermind one has to be flawless. To be flawless you have to be sure you can prove anything. To prove anything you've gotta have two things: undeniable logic and ability to stand on any point of view of your choice in the moment (but not like forever).

mind_wander
10-17-2007, 12:34 AM
Thats why we are more adaptive in most situations. Keyword is most, the E / F side well give or take.

deicruxified
10-17-2007, 12:51 AM
OMG, that is sick!!! I remember one guy who was also so persistent in proving his position over the Internet, he would post something like "you s*ck, f**k off", make sure that I read that, and then when I answer in the same manner, would edit his post to something like "I will not go down to your level"... so that everyone around would think that it's me who's being inadequate. well, it worked. and well, I don't care. But if I meet him offline I make everything I can to make his life more miserable in legally acceptable ways. I do hold grudges. Forever. :) And actually there's a chance I'll meet him... It's a small world.
if ever there's something i will never forget in debates is an incident when a school nun hurled a bible at me and my buds (intj and entj)... a classic. she told us we're satanists. now that's a debate where intj's can't use logic anymore. lol. but as i've noticed with fellow intj's if the debate has gone nonsensical, it's either we ignore or play

btw, here's a guy an intj wants to play with... CryLthr8... there are 5 intj's (illogica is an intj shk an intp...in CryLthr8's sig) i know (i posted in the old version) in this forums... intj's and intp's made a signature campaign against this guy "Sick of CryLthr8"... there was a thread before (i think it was already deleted) wherein all intj/p's played with him lol...

political (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) roll call thread

:edit: here's another retort

I live in a prodomently Muslim neighborhood, and it fuckin' sucks.
The majority of them are mean, intense, self-absorbed and I can go on and on.
I've lived with them all my life, a few of them say they support jihad, mostly
the youth. The Arab Christians, nicest people you could meet, but the
Muslims, are toxic.

And just because I won a debate, doesn't mean I'm an asshole.
What got illogical, was my explanination that religion revolves around
faith, not certainty. Besides calling him a moron (which I did early on and
I appologized for) I was very fair in my debate and was very civilized.
So just because I made my Christian point, and just because all your
bands and/or friends say they hate Jesus, it's doesn't make me a dick.
A LOT of times, Athiests are going to lose debates to Christians.
Good reason: The world is made up of 2% Athiest and 33% Christian.
Grow up.

mind_wander
10-17-2007, 12:56 AM
I can easily answer that one. INTJ[intellectual will] and ENTJ[power]= Will Power. Yeah, you don't want to mess with this combination or your gonna get burned.

iwin
10-17-2007, 01:03 AM
yeah, that nun is something.

but she perhaps had her own logic as well. like, for example, if you are not following the word of God hence you are following the word of Satan, hence, you are a satanist. It's their black and white world. I don't know how to reason them as well. I just dismiss them, but if they are in a position of power, I will wait until I am in one as well... to have my point of view accepted (either way).

Although I would go for: you are beating children, you are evil, hence, you are a satanist as well. Let's make friends in our satanic sect! :)

mind_wander
10-17-2007, 12:07 PM
OMG, that is sick!!! I remember one guy who was also so persistent in proving his position over the Internet, he would post something like "you s*ck, f**k off", make sure that I read that, and then when I answer in the same manner, would edit his post to something like "I will not go down to your level"... so that everyone around would think that it's me who's being inadequate. well, it worked. and well, I don't care. But if I meet him offline I make everything I can to make his life more miserable in legally acceptable ways. I do hold grudges. Forever. :) And actually there's a chance I'll meet him... It's a small world.
if ever there's something i will never forget in debates is an incident when a school nun hurled a bible at me and my buds (intj and entj)... a classic. she told us we're satanists. now that's a debate where intj's can't use logic anymore. lol. but as i've noticed with fellow intj's if the debate has gone nonsensical, it's either we ignore or play

btw, here's a guy an intj wants to play with... CryLthr8... there are 5 intj's (illogica is an intj shk an intp...in CryLthr8's sig) i know (i posted in the old version) in this forums... intj's and intp's made a signature campaign against this guy "Sick of CryLthr8"... there was a thread before (i think it was already deleted) wherein all intj/p's played with him lol...

political (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ) roll call thread

:edit: here's another retort

I live in a prodomently Muslim neighborhood, and it fuckin' sucks.
The majority of them are mean, intense, self-absorbed and I can go on and on.
I've lived with them all my life, a few of them say they support jihad, mostly
the youth. The Arab Christians, nicest people you could meet, but the
Muslims, are toxic.

And just because I won a debate, doesn't mean I'm an asshole.
What got illogical, was my explanination that religion revolves around
faith, not certainty. Besides calling him a moron (which I did early on and
I appologized for) I was very fair in my debate and was very civilized.
So just because I made my Christian point, and just because all your
bands and/or friends say they hate Jesus, it's doesn't make me a dick.
A LOT of times, Athiests are going to lose debates to Christians.
Good reason: The world is made up of 2% Athiest and 33% Christian.
Grow up.



Has the debator ever considered thinking about that there is a lack of information on about other cultures and religions in mainstream, before making this comment.

mind_wander
10-17-2007, 12:09 PM
yeah, that nun is something.

but she perhaps had her own logic as well. like, for example, if you are not following the word of God hence you are following the word of Satan, hence, you are a satanist. It's their black and white world. I don't know how to reason them as well. I just dismiss them, but if they are in a position of power, I will wait until I am in one as well... to have my point of view accepted (either way).

Although I would go for: you are beating children, you are evil, hence, you are a satanist as well. Let's make friends in our satanic sect! :)
Same here. I don't go to church, does God punish for me. Not really, as long I've maintain a balanced life in helping others from time to time, is pretty much God's main point. Yeah, I see the big picture; there is good charma, for doing those things. For example, not all the time but I give a $1 to a homeless guy. Then oh crap, I needed that $1 when I gave it to the homeless guy, then out of nowhere I found a $1 on the ground :)

snoogit
10-18-2007, 12:07 AM
Well, not being an INTJ, I argue persuasively, with examples and analysis of my observations. I only really argue when it's something interesting or important. Otherwise I just look on amusedly or throw things into the ring from the outside.

Bingo. One of my favorite past times though is when two people are in the middle of an argument I'll present them with something they never thought of, or give an idea that to them makes no sense, but makes perfect sense to me, followed with them giving me the :suspicious: look.

Makes me giggle every time.

Mendacity
10-18-2007, 01:31 AM
I'm an INTJ raised in a family of lawyers, so arguing is almost second nature to me. :devilish:
When I argue I start with stating my case and my reasons for thinking or feeling that way. I try to stick to things that can be proven by observation, logic, or information from credible sources.
If I'm arguing something that cannot be proven (such as religion or social policy or morality) with someone I respect I do the same and generally question their beliefs and their reasons for believing as they do, but in a respectful manner. I may disagree with them, but it's interesting to exchange viewpoints and poke at different ideas.
If I'm arguing to win and to make my opponent look stupid, foolish or wrong, I still try to remain as polite as possible. Not out of respect, but because that's the way it should be done and they way to achieve the best results. I point out all the logical fallacies, factual errors or other weak points in the argument of my opponent. Often I get them to place all of their argument on one single point and then knock that point out from under them. :devilish:
It is possible for me to lose patience with someone in an argument like that if they are being particularly hostile or rude. But I try to keep my temper. Being able to remain calm in an argument lends a certain amount of credibility to your point.

By the way, I'm new here. Hi, how's it going?

mind_wander
10-18-2007, 01:42 AM
Welcome, interesting we got a lawyer in here, great. So when someone wants to pick a fight with a INTJ, we know who to call; j/k.

Mendacity
10-18-2007, 01:46 AM
Welcome, interesting we got a lawyer in here, great. So when someone wants to pick a fight with a INTJ, we know who to call; j/k.

Ha! I'm not a lawyer myself. But my father, older brother, grandfather and great grandfather all are/were. You should see Thanksgiving dinner at my house. :D

deicruxified
10-18-2007, 04:31 AM
Has the debator ever considered thinking about that there is a lack of information on about other cultures and religions in mainstream, before making this comment.
actually, in that previous topic on religion, he just declared himself as the winner because no one wants to "debate" with him anymore lol. in debates, he does not refute whatever aguement thrown at him, he just tells people they are wrong and evil lol... A LOT of people mentioned it already lol... he's like, "islam is evil.."

mind_wander
10-18-2007, 09:02 AM
Well, I am not going to argue but I stay with my quote like you have there. If we all got the time in the world to study all religion, which one is good and which one is bad; that is endless. Only P
's will have that time, heck no for me. Here is a good question for this person? If all religions bowed down to a "God", when I say God, it means any kinds; however does that means regardless of what kind of God you believed in is considered the samething. The only difference is that we see it at a different context. A God is a God. This is what I learned in my Religion Course.

Ha! I'm not a lawyer myself. But my father, older brother, grandfather and great grandfather all are/were. You should see Thanksgiving dinner at my house. (Mendacity) .
I see, but you do got the necessarily skills. Don't remind me of thanksgiving this semester on this day is called Project paper weeks, and book reports. I probably can eat turkey, but not enough time too much project papers and book reports :( What a way to ruin a great holiday. Alittle jealious right now, sounds like alot of food though Mendacity.

Jennywocky
10-18-2007, 10:57 AM
probably if INTJs are supposedly smarter logically then anybody else (are right most of the time)

Good qualifier. ;)

INTJs are very very smart, generally. (They tend to see through most subterfuge -- their large asset.) And they are very logical.

But I don't think they are as good as making a philosophical case for something as some other types. Pure abstracted logic is simply something to be used as a tool to accomplish a goal, not to "state truth purely and exactly."

Natrushka
10-18-2007, 12:31 PM
But I don't think they are as good as making a philosophical case for something as some other types. Pure abstracted logic is simply something to be used as a tool to accomplish a goal, not to "state truth purely and exactly."


Seriously. If someone is going on and on about something and I can't see the point to it my eyes glaze over and I stop paying attention. I just can't be bothered.

rwyatt365
10-18-2007, 12:40 PM
But I don't think they are as good as making a philosophical case for something as some other types. Pure abstracted logic is simply something to be used as a tool to accomplish a goal, not to "state truth purely and exactly."

That is probably true. I don't think that INTJs are "wired" for philosophical argument - I know that I am not. To me, philosophy is just opinion wrapped up in big words taken to extreme lengths. Most times when I've listened to, or read philosophical treatises I start thinking, "When are they going to get to the point?!" and then begin to lose interest.

justthefacts
10-19-2007, 01:56 AM
I love to argue/debate. It's like playing tennis! I speak my mind (logically and unemotionally, of course) then listen to their viewpoint, wait for my opponent to contradict themselves then WHAMMO! My only problem is being patient enough to wait for them to finish their thoughts :thinking:...I tend to already know where they are headed with the conversation and have my rebuttal ready before they're done speaking.

It has to be a topic I'm interested in or passionate about or Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...ya lost me.

Mendacity
10-19-2007, 01:57 PM
My only problem is being patient enough to wait for them to finish their thoughts :thinking:...I tend to already know where they are headed with the conversation and have my rebuttal ready before they're done speaking.

I do the same thing. It drives people crazy.

rwyatt365
10-19-2007, 02:01 PM
My only problem is being patient enough to wait for them to finish their thoughts :thinking:...I tend to already know where they are headed with the conversation and have my rebuttal ready before they're done speaking.

I do the same thing. It drives people crazy.

It drives my wife crazy! The only problem is that by the time she stops talking (hours later), I'm sleep! :sleeping:

aude
10-19-2007, 02:50 PM
Has any one actually argued with your self during a argument with some one?. Or started to argue like the person you where arguing with just to show how much there wrong?

logan235711
10-20-2007, 04:27 AM
I mostly just argue as a means to discover further depths of ideas etc., not really to prove points (because I have any) or to look correct etc. I suppose it's more interesting to look at someone who seems to say more 'out-there' things and argue to see and just mess with them. It seems a lot of people cited that they supported their arguments with 'facts and logic' or something to that extent, I suppose I enjoy trying different styles out on different people even if it seems it will fail or whatever--perhaps lead somewhere that doesn't seem to benefit much just for exploration sake. So I suppose often I argue with a bit more risk involved to keep things interesting. Which is interesting because it might seem that many people tend to argue with less of a risk mentality in mind when approaching things.

GOD
10-20-2007, 04:56 AM
I argue for fun really.

Generally I like doing it with people that will take the bait and then I have to reel them in.

I used to really enjoy doing this with the feminists at University.. Sure had some fun.

I remember at University making an observation to my Medical flatmate/friend that it seemed that ALL medical students in his year have BLUE EYES. He, went off on one, and went on about master race prejudice, which didn't help when I chucked in the basis that if people from a certain part of the world can sing better than us Europeans then it is perfectly logical to assume that we may be better in temperament for vocations such as medicine. LOL..

Anyway, next day after his medical lectures he arrives back at the flat and says.... Sheeze... you're right, everyone has blue eyes... even the non European minorities. How can that be? To which I replied, it was just my observation of everyone on your course I've met, it doesn't mean they are superior, just that there might be some correlation with temperament like you types might be more cold and emotionless allowing you to be so focused on your coursework. lol.. Which kicked off more debate... ;D

QuickSilver
10-21-2007, 04:54 AM
My only problem is being patient enough to wait for them to finish their thoughts :thinking:...I tend to already know where they are headed with the conversation and have my rebuttal ready before they're done speaking.

I do the same thing. It drives people crazy.

It drives my wife crazy! The only problem is that by the time she stops talking (hours later), I'm sleep! *:sleeping:

Some folks may find it expeditious to skip this post unless they can summon the will to withhold judgement until having completely absorbed that which is offered and given "fuzzy logic" a chance to work... *Those who can achieve the latter may be able to offer some improvements and refinement of whatever concepts they deem salient and germane.

On another forum there arose some fascination about the prospect of a debate between an ENTP and an INTJ (perhaps because ENTP's are know as avid, skillful debaters and INTJ's are known for their meticulously constructed arguments which often encompass more intuition than comparably logical offerings from, for example, ENTJ's). *This culminated in the question: "Who would win in a debate, an ENTP or an INTJ?"

I have no intention of creating an adversarial situation by offering this *FUN* thought experiment in simulated debate, so do not under any circumstances consider any of my findings as a personal challenge, insult or slight. *If you judge them to be disagreeable then ignore them or apply some reason and let me know how you think improvements may be made.

My response to the "who wins" question is pertinent to the topic of this tread so I will offer it here not as an argument from a priori truth, but as a sketch through which I've tried to share some of the experience garnered from hundreds of debates and thousands of hours with the father, brother and 2 good friends in my life who are all INTJ. *(I would love to offer larger sample sizes and other assurances of objectivity, but have not as yet found the need to devise such studies.)

My analysis:

"Consider that the personality types may have less of a directly competitive interaction. It may be more accurate to view them as more complimentary/cooperative or at least independent-niche-filling. *ENTP's and INTJ's seem to get along well enough with one another once they realize that each fills a very distinct role. Each has qualities which are advantageous in specific ways.

ENTP's spend more of their processing time expanding their associative networks and less time grooming out apparently inferior or useless logic and observations. They often do this with an eye toward rapid interaction and engagement on an unknown field of competition because their inherent internal reward systems seem to cause this type of interaction to be most pleasing to them.

Consequently ENTP's seek to build the power to assess and react quickly using realtime intuitive analysis. It would be an error not to consider this intuitive processing a form of thinking [as alleged by some], albeit one which is nonverbal (it appears to derive from visuo-spatial intelligence - see To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). While this type of cognition is less readily verbalized and more difficult to define within a logical context, it can offer lightning-fast insights across disparate inputs with accuracy which beats the odds of "chance" to which a logician must resort when denied sufficient time to perform logical analysis.

While both types have excellent intuitive powers, additional extraversion will have driven the ENTP to develop that connection between intuition and the outside world which runs across the sensory processing systems and related ancillary processing areas devoted to spoken language and emotional perception. This enhances rapid mobilization of primarily intuition resources and secondarily logical resources against anything presented in the outside environment. These traits are sufficient to augur victory over most other types, but the INTJ is a special case.

The INTJ must first overcome an inherent ambivalence toward interaction (often by being enticed by the quality and quantity of novel data being offered for analysis & evaluation - eg: a hungry INTJ may be lured into interaction with the proper bait). Once this has occurred for whatever reason, a key factor is the nature of the arena of competition. Ideally for the INTJ the scenario will be one in which causes and effects can be (or preferably have been) readily defined and analyzed and ideally the situation will be familiar to the INTJ. In such a situation there will be no contest, as the INTJ will most likely have located and mastered the "dominant winning strategy" which can in no case be defeated.

In this we can see the single best quality about the INTJ - superiority in a rational, repeated set-piece competition. ENTP's have a tendency to compound this situation by deliberately choosing a field of competition which is novel to the ENTP (and in which the ENTP has therefore accrued little analytical ammunition). The ENTP, being the more extraverted of the two, is typically the initiator of interactions and may also choose an arena in which the INTJ is a subject matter expert for three reasons:

(1) Because said area is more likely to be an area of interest for the INTJ; this gives the INTJ more incentive to overcome introversion and "come out and play"

(2) Because the INTJ is inherently more risk-averse and demonstrates a tendency not to enter any competition in which victory is not assured, the ENTP choice of an INTJ-friendly arena removes the risk disincentive for the INTJ and facilitates the ENTP goal of interaction.

(3) Many types of interactions serve the ENTP not only as invigorating contests, but also as education venues. It is therefore advantageous to the ENTP to pick an opponent who has something to teach the ENTP.

To the extent that the ENTP desires to win (or appear to win) the engagement, the ENTP must endeavor to inject a degree of uncertainty or ambiguity into the field of competition. This may mean seizing and retaining the initiative to drive the frame of reference continuously onto new and unanalyzed territory, or attempt to deliver a "new take on" or "new insight into" said frame. Both of these tactics focus on keeping the INTJ "off balance" and function to minimize the amount of previously acquired resources which the INTJ can bring to bear upon the current interaction.

This scenario might be envisioned as a match between two boxers with equal height and reach: a lithe, nimble and wiry ENTP who is evasive, quick-striking and durable, and a significantly heavier INTJ who is not as quick but who has immense power and perfect swings which can be incredibly devastating if the INTJ is allowed to deliver them. ENTP dances and jabs at unexpected places, INTJ looks for a chance to deliver a killing blow.

Smaller or more exhaustively studied logical arenas favor the INTJ in that the ENTP has reduced opportunity to evade and fewer unexpected angles from which to strike. Larger & more unfamiliar or ambiguous arenas will challenge INTJ efforts to set up a killing blow and highlight the ENTP's enhanced ability to survey, assess and act quickly and fearlessly upon new terrain.

If given an opportunity to land a blow against an unsuspecting opponent, the INTJ would likely win. ENTP's are however among the most nimble and avid of possible opponents; their mental agility, ability to re-interpret the truth and tendency to manipulate the paradigm of the conversation are well suited to counter-acting an INTJ.

In the end personality type competitions tend to reveal that different types prosper best in different arenas (or, from an evolutionary standpoint, "niches"). Also in many cases there arises the "rock, paper, scissors" dynamic in which there is a proper counter-strategy for any given strategy.

It would be wonderful if some INTJ's and INTP's could share their own insights."

Mendacity
10-21-2007, 12:29 PM
I don't know any ENTPs that I'm aware of. But I can tell you that I enjoy arguing and when I was younger I would seek out debates on the internet or with friends to hone my skills. I can argue points I don't agree with and often I can argue about things I don't know much about with mixed success :) I think of a good (and friendly) argument as a game and I love the feeling of winning (although I don't mind losing either if I can learn something). Perhaps I'm a rare exception to the INTJ debating profile, but the other three INTJs I know are the same way. In my experience, we will happily enter an argument we obviously have a disadvantage in, knowing that it's likely that we'll lose. I do this often (as I said) to learn something, or to hone my skills, or because I want to get to know someone better, or because I'm bored, or because why the hell not.
To me, arguing is like playing a game of tennis or basketball or any game. I play because I enjoy the game itself and have a good time doing it, not because it's that important to me to win. Although winning is nice too. 8-)

Chainsaw Dundee
10-23-2007, 11:44 AM
Rarely do I get into intelligent arguments. When I do, I try to communicate whilst thinking critically, logically, and somewhat ironically in a zany kind of way, just to keep my humour stimulated. It's hard to describe. I'd almost be better off just posting a transcript of an argument.

I tend to get into arguments with ISFP types, with no end. It seems if I'd be better off just amputating my limbs and talking to them in a Sign Language version of Swahili. I'll try to point something out, and address certain points. They will just ignore the point, and use a part of what I was saying to branch off into another(usually unrelated and subjective/fictional) argument.

Sometimes you are better off into leading them to forget about the intellectual argument and please their emotional side, instead of trying to convince them you're right. Give them a false sense(from your perspective) of camaraderie, as most personality types seem to value that immensely. A kind of mutual form of mangled respect and harmony, I guess.

qwerty
10-23-2007, 06:21 PM
QuickSilver....

At the end of the day something that shines through in your post is that ENTP's are looking to milk the knowledge from an INTJ by arguing with them, and I agree it can work well but it's annoying for the INTJ.
I've recently met an ENTP (that's my take on him) and whether it's just the way he is or it's his personality, myself and my friends are growing uneasy around him because it obvious that's what he's doing. That and once you see a person is faking knowledge or doesn't create it themselves then they become a leech in the INTJ's eyes.
Of course it's to my friends benefit(because they are working on a job together) but it appears that the guy plucks what he wants from a conversation and presents it as his own.

Good debater though, between us it comes down to who knows more about a given subject, I can float like a butterfly in a debate too and shoot out a few disarming shots before going for the finisher. That's the trick to fighting right, if your enemy has no arms then not only can he not attack but he is also defenseless.

toonia
10-23-2007, 06:31 PM
I don't care for all out arguing. When there is conflict, I prefer to down-play the emotional dialog as much as possible and focus as objectively as possible. I find it impossible to debate when things get emotional, possibly because i am easily distracted. I also tend to play devil's advocate. I find that when discussing an issue with someone that i don't have a strong opinion on, they tend to respond as though i am taking the opposite position. I am most interested in debating topics in which i don't have a settled opinion as a way to explore the information. This is impossible with most people because the sides are drawn at the outset with great fervor. Sometimes i will find myself in a defensive role and be sorely disappointed in the discussion, in myself for getting caught up, and in the woeful waste of time. The best test for a quality debate is what happens when you admit you are wrong on a point. Does that weaken or strengthen your role as thinker or debater? I prefer when that kind of detachment is valued over social dominance games.

My dream debate is one in which the two people can remove self from the issue at hand and explore every angle, switching roles, trading off playing devil's advocate, something like an intellectual dance.

mind_wander
10-23-2007, 10:04 PM
Toonia, I also used the devil advocate approach, but as an INTJ. I don't used the F side to get the point across besides logic.

QuickSilver,

The answer who will win would be ENTP because ENTP is willing to take up for any challenge, regardless you know the topic or not; regardless, it can be your weakness or strengths. As for INTJ, we can just go into our shell, then get back with some kind of ultimate ammo.

QuickSilver
10-24-2007, 12:19 AM
QuickSilver....

At the end of the day something that shines through in your post is that ENTP's are looking to milk the knowledge from an INTJ by arguing with them, and I agree it can work well but it's annoying for the INTJ.
I've recently met an ENTP (that's my take on him) and whether it's just the way he is or it's his personality, myself and my friends are growing uneasy around him because it obvious that's what he's doing. That and once you see a person is faking knowledge or doesn't create it themselves then they become a leech in the INTJ's eyes.
Of course it's to my friends benefit(because they are working on a job together) but it appears that the guy plucks what he wants from a conversation and presents it as his own.

Good debater though, between us it comes down to who knows more about a given subject, I can float like a butterfly in a debate too and shoot out a few disarming shots before going for the finisher. That's the trick to fighting right, if your enemy has no arms then not only can he not attack but he is also defenseless.

It seems as if QWERTY refers to knowledge creation as a zero sum game, in which an ENTP (who is artless enough to be noticed) can be seen as harvesting knowledge from INTJ's like milk from cows. *This line of reasoning lends itself to the idea that knowledge is a thing which is made by some and taken by others. *It also portrays the INTJ as an exploitable object or resource. *While these may be utilized as constructs through which to view the world, I would suggest that they are at best unkind and at worst quite inaccurate.

It may be inaccurate to think of knowledge as solely the product of introspective thought. *Consider the following example:

There is a brand-new school with 5 classrooms. *In each classroom there are 25 INTJ students and 1 teacher, where no one has met anyone else before.

One day passes, with each class of 25 INTJ students remaining with one same teacher for the duration of the day. *On the second day a new ENTP student arrives and wants to know which class he should join. *The new ENTP student goes around and asks each of the incumbent INTJ students: "Based upon what the INTJ has been able to perceive and the judgments which the INTJ has made, is the teacher in the INTJ's room a good teacher?"

Classroom 1 has 25 positives, zero negatives
Classroom 2 has 20 positives, five negatives
Classroom 3 has 19 positives, 6 negatives
Classroom 4 has 0 positives, 25 negatives
Classroom 5 has no data because none of the students came back for a second day

Based upon these data, the new ENTP student forms the theory that the teacher in Classroom 1 is best and is now in possession of useful new knowledge. *He then tells all of the INTJ students, who tell their parents, who write to the school which in turn promotes teacher #1 and replaces teachers #4 and #5.

This begs the question: At what point did reality become data and when did all of that suddenly transform into "knowledge"?

Princeton defines knowledge as: *"the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning" *-(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). *This would tend to imply that playing a roll in perception, learning (or helping others to learn acting by as an information conduit) and reasoning are all meaningful contributions to the process of knowledge formation.

While the ENTP student did perform some of the learning and reasoning, one must also consider the perceptive, learning and reasoning roles of the INTJ students who, while isolated in their own bubbles, did perform work which was completely vital to formation of the overall conclusion and which was therefore vital to progress.

To the extent that we can improve our perception, learning or reasoning, we can increase or improve our knowledge. *In this way one might consider knowledge not simply as the product of individual introspective mentation, but also as something which we can create in groups (much as is done on massively parallel processing computer systems).

This brings us to the issue of the zero-sum-game (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). *In the above example, one can see that sharing knowledge (individual evaluations of individual teachers) cost very little and created new knowledge (ranking of teachers by quality). *So while each player could have made his own evaluation of the teacher and hoarded that knowledge, it is to the benefit of all players to share knowledge (with the exception of Teacher #4 and Teacher #5, who should be telling their INTJ's never to talk to strangers).

The part of this ecosystem about which QWERTY appears to be complaining is a faulty ENTP who has elected to "steal" the data supplied by the INTJs (by refusing to share credit) and who is failing to return any new data to the INTJs in exchange for their contributions.

This state of affairs is sub-optimal for all involved parties but can become a social trap: (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) if work groups are in a constant state of flux (with people entering and exiting the work group over relatively short periods of time). *Such a situation discourages investment in cooperation (because it is less likely that one will ever see a return on the investment) and encourages cheating (because participants are less likely to realize when cheating is taking place).

-QuickSilver

iwin
10-24-2007, 01:26 AM
QuickSilver....

At the end of the day something that shines through in your post is that ENTP's are looking to milk the knowledge from an INTJ by arguing with them, and I agree it can work well but it's annoying for the INTJ.
I've recently met an ENTP (that's my take on him) and whether it's just the way he is or it's his personality, myself and my friends are growing uneasy around him because it obvious that's what he's doing. That and once you see a person is faking knowledge or doesn't create it themselves then they become a leech in the INTJ's eyes.
Of course it's to my friends benefit(because they are working on a job together) but it appears that the guy plucks what he wants from a conversation and presents it as his own.

Good debater though, between us it comes down to who knows more about a given subject, I can float like a butterfly in a debate too and shoot out a few disarming shots before going for the finisher. That's the trick to fighting right, if your enemy has no arms then not only can he not attack but he is also defenseless.

It seems as if QWERTY refers to knowledge creation as a zero sum game, in which an ENTP (who is artless enough to be noticed) can be seen as harvesting knowledge from INTJ's like milk from cows. *This line of reasoning lends itself to the idea that knowledge is a thing which is made by some and taken by others. *It also portrays the INTJ as an exploitable object or resource. *While these may be utilized as constructs through which to view the world, I would suggest that they are at best unkind and at worst quite inaccurate.

It may be inaccurate to think of knowledge as solely the product of introspective thought. *Consider the following example:

There is a brand-new school with 5 classrooms. *In each classroom there are 25 INTJ students and 1 teacher, where no one has met anyone else before.

One day passes, with each class of 25 INTJ students remaining with one same teacher for the duration of the day. *On the second day a new ENTP student arrives and wants to know which class he should join. *The new ENTP student goes around and asks each of the incumbent INTJ students: "Based upon what the INTJ has been able to perceive and the judgments which the INTJ has made, is the teacher in the INTJ's room a good teacher?"

Classroom 1 has 25 positives, zero negatives
Classroom 2 has 20 positives, five negatives
Classroom 3 has 19 positives, 6 negatives
Classroom 4 has 0 positives, 25 negatives
Classroom 5 has no data because none of the students came back for a second day

Based upon these data, the new ENTP student forms the theory that the teacher in Classroom 1 is best and is now in possession of useful new knowledge. *He then tells all of the INTJ students, who tell their parents, who write to the school which in turn promotes teacher #1 and replaces teachers #4 and #5.

This begs the question: At what point did reality become data and when did all of that suddenly transform into "knowledge"?

Princeton defines knowledge as: *"the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning" *-(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). *This would tend to imply that playing a roll in perception, learning (or helping others to learn acting by as an information conduit) and reasoning are all meaningful contributions to the process of knowledge formation.

While the ENTP student did perform some of the learning and reasoning, one must also consider the perceptive, learning and reasoning roles of the INTJ students who, while isolated in their own bubbles, did perform work which was completely vital to formation of the overall conclusion and which was therefore vital to progress.

To the extent that we can improve our perception, learning or reasoning, we can increase or improve our knowledge. *In this way one might consider knowledge not simply as the product of individual introspective mentation, but also as something which we can create in groups (much as is done on massively parallel processing computer systems).

This brings us to the issue of the zero-sum-game (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). *In the above example, one can see that sharing knowledge (individual evaluations of individual teachers) cost very little and created new knowledge (ranking of teachers by quality). *So while each player could have made his own evaluation of the teacher and hoarded that knowledge, it is to the benefit of all players to share knowledge (with the exception of Teacher #4 and Teacher #5, who should be telling their INTJ's never to talk to strangers).

The part of this ecosystem about which QWERTY appears to be complaining is a faulty ENTP who has elected to "steal" the data supplied by the INTJs (by refusing to share credit) and who is failing to return any new data to the INTJs in exchange for their contributions.

This state of affairs is sub-optimal for all involved parties but can become a social trap: (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) if work groups are in a constant state of flux (with people entering and exiting the work group over relatively short periods of time). *Such a situation discourages investment in cooperation (because it is less likely that one will ever see a return on the investment) and encourages cheating (because participants are less likely to realize when cheating is taking place).

-QuickSilver


This is another reason why I usually dismiss people from the very beginning.
QuickSilver, I think you are very intelligent. Oh no, wait, I know you are very intelligent. You are perhaps more intelligent than I am. I don't mind that assumption. The thing is. There can be and there are people who could scientifically prove the idea which 100% contradicts your statements (say, based on genetics and evolution and stuff). I cannot bring you the evidence here, because 1) I know nothing about genetics, 2) I am too lazy to get into argument with you, 3) I know you are very smart and not going to change your opinion whatever comes, so it doesn't really encourage me to try to prove you anything, 4) you are smarter than me in logical reasoning, etc etc...
But I know also that there are people as smart as you are who could prove the different point of view, and that fact alone gives me the right to dismiss all of your evidences. Although I must admit that I actually support your point of view, because I don't really like sounding like an eugenist for the reasons that it is not really 'profitable' for my reputation, and reputation matters for my career and life...

and I am sorry, I was too lazy to read all of your passages, so perhaps I made premature assumptions.

And for the future: Please, consider your audience! I seriously doubt that the majority of this forum is college graduates. (it's because of your references to Game theory, and if you want someone to find flaws in your arguments, please, find someone who majored in maths or economics. I don't think you are going to find them in here. Might happen but is unlikely. Choose your opponents carefully :)).

qwerty
10-24-2007, 06:51 AM
Excellent Argument, precise and targeting at the audience perfectly, brilliant examples and fantastic backup articles (this is how an argument should be). Do I detect psychological elements to reinforce the concept and perhaps imply dominance? :).

Unfortunately my writing is not nearly as elegant and for that I apologize in advance.

We'll begin dissection firstly with the analogy of milking the cow and relate it to your example of students and make sure I am reading this correctly.
That is one way to see how the system appears to work, the profiteering farmer (ENTP) breeds and cultivates the stock, protects them and in return collects the milk which s/he sells (after processing it and packaging it) in return for money which is invested back into the farm ecosystem.
Then ENTP student enters the system, is able to see how a profit may be made (reputation and respect amongst the INTJ students - as well as fear/admiration from the teachers, former for bad and later for good teachers).
So we look at the situation in both cases and we see that the INTJ/Cow is helpless and unable to do their own dirty work(unable to survive in the wild) in the short term and in order to succeed the ENTP/Farmer must get involved and take care of them.

So we investigate the 'social trap' of me saying that the INTJ's would have achieved a similar result without the ENTP at the cost of time. The obvious answer is to shoot off on a tangent and think that maybe this is a scenario in which instead of learning academically an INTJ in one of the dodgy classes may learn socially and apply the same reasoning as the ENTP; however that is perhaps not where the argument should go.
So instead lets turn to game theory and expand using the min-max technique: Wiki Entry (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). So quickly min max is all about prediction of the best path to take, we apply a heuristic to a tree of possible results and to a certain number of nodes and move down the path that seems to be the best after comparing the min values for all of the final nodes(we use max to trim the number of nodes we look at - min at the end results in the least compromising solution). If my memory serves me Deep Blue beat Kasparov (in a weird sense with modified heuristics between games) using this technique.
At this point we find ourselves in a tricky scenario - the min-max evaluation seems to prove that the ENTP path is correct for the situation and the 'social trap' scenario seems to agree that waiting is not the best answer, zero-sum also points at correcting the situation immediately to be the best answer; but is there some other way to look at the problem?
Lets apply the hill climbing decision making technique here. So our constraints lie on results of zero-sum, min-max, and social trap(which forces our hand to find an upper bound). We find an local-optimal solution to listen to the ENTP. We also decided to factor in other equations to the problem set such as sociology. So lets break the spell and look around

1 * Within a collective of humans no 2 are the same. Likewise within a collective of INTJ's no 2 are the same.
2 * Not all INTJ's are smart (I quite willing to sacrifice myself and others for this)
3 * Educators generally group classes based on intelligence and in some cases learning style
4 * From conditions 1,2&3 we can perhaps conclude that the INTJ's in classes with low teacher feedback are dumb (and do not like school), the learning environment is not suited to the INTJ as a student, There are personality clashes with some INTJ's and the teacher.

The results show a break down of 3 other optima that exist within the solution set irrespective of our first foregone conclusion, not only that but we find that one of our constraints given by the ENTP works against naturally finding these solutions (social traps - and hasty responses to the problem at hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so we have now seen that perhaps sharing of knowledge is not always a good thing as it can produce solutions that work against the optimal solution and Quicksilver has also shown the opposite that sharing knowledge in certain situations can produce the optimal solution as well.
Together I think we've shown through uses of different game theory arguments that perhaps the real solution here is that game theory as a verification tool is limited and contradictory.

Now lets go back to your original analysis of INTJ's vs. INTP's arguments
The INTJ must first overcome an inherent ambivalence toward interaction (often by being enticed by the quality and quantity of novel data being offered for analysis & evaluation - eg: a hungry INTJ may be lured into interaction with the proper bait)..
Ok check you have drawn me out. But I'm happy to give my 2 cents in most situations so don't consider it an overwhelming win.


To the extent that the ENTP desires to win (or appear to win) the engagement, the ENTP must endeavor to inject a degree of uncertainty or ambiguity into the field of competition. This may mean seizing and retaining the initiative to drive the frame of reference continuously onto new and unanalyzed territory, or attempt to deliver a "new take on" or "new insight into" said frame.
The ambiguity is that this is designed to 'trick me' into proving you right by arguing - classic catch 22 - if I win the first argument then I lose the second. If I lose the first argument then I lose both. Your outcome is either a win or a stalemate.

This scenario might be envisioned as a match between two boxers with equal height and reach: a lithe, nimble and wiry ENTP who is evasive, quick-striking and durable, and a significantly heavier INTJ who is not as quick but who has immense power and perfect swings which can be incredibly devastating if the INTJ is allowed to deliver them. ENTP dances and jabs at unexpected places, INTJ looks for a chance to deliver a killing blow.

So at this point I wonder to myself is there a killing blow for this debate? Is it possible for me to turn the tables and win both arguments, at this stage is this at worst a stalemate?
I guess the answer lies in my first statement that my friend and I are content with providing the fuel in return for the reward. My reward is having someone to match me at last and thanks to my nature I have drawn them out without trying or venturing into out of my own comfort zone.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when
using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we
must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we
must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.

:) So do I win iwin?

QuickSilver
10-24-2007, 10:03 AM
Excellent Argument, precise and targeting at the audience perfectly, brilliant examples and fantastic backup articles (this is how an argument should be). Do I detect psychological elements to reinforce the concept and perhaps imply dominance? :).

Unfortunately my writing is not nearly as elegant and for that I apologize in advance.

We'll begin dissection firstly with the analogy of milking the cow and relate it to your example of students and make sure I am reading this correctly.
That is one way to see how the system appears to work, the profiteering farmer (ENTP) breeds and cultivates the stock, protects them and in return collects the milk which s/he sells (after processing it and packaging it) in return for money which is invested back into the farm ecosystem.
Then ENTP student enters the system, is able to see how a profit may be made (reputation and respect amongst the INTJ students - as well as fear/admiration from the teachers, former for bad and later for good teachers).
So we look at the situation in both cases and we see that the INTJ/Cow is helpless and unable to do their own dirty work(unable to survive in the wild) in the short term and in order to succeed the ENTP/Farmer must get involved and take care of them.

So we investigate the 'social trap' of me saying that the INTJ's would have achieved a similar result without the ENTP at the cost of time. The obvious answer is to shoot off on a tangent and think that maybe this is a scenario in which instead of learning academically an INTJ in one of the dodgy classes may learn socially and apply the same reasoning as the ENTP; however that is perhaps not where the argument should go.
So instead lets turn to game theory and expand using the min-max technique: Wiki Entry (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). So quickly min max is all about prediction of the best path to take, we apply a heuristic to a tree of possible results and to a certain number of nodes and move down the path that seems to be the best after comparing the min values for all of the final nodes(we use max to trim the number of nodes we look at - min at the end results in the least compromising solution). If my memory serves me Deep Blue beat Kasparov (in a weird sense with modified heuristics between games) using this technique.
At this point we find ourselves in a tricky scenario - the min-max evaluation seems to prove that the ENTP path is correct for the situation and the 'social trap' scenario seems to agree that waiting is not the best answer, zero-sum also points at correcting the situation immediately to be the best answer; but is there some other way to look at the problem?
Lets apply the hill climbing decision making technique here. So our constraints lie on results of zero-sum, min-max, and social trap(which forces our hand to find an upper bound). We find an local-optimal solution to listen to the ENTP. We also decided to factor in other equations to the problem set such as sociology. So lets break the spell and look around

1 ** Within a collective of humans no 2 are the same. Likewise within a collective of INTJ's no 2 are the same.
2 ** Not all INTJ's are smart (I quite willing to sacrifice myself and others for this)
3 ** Educators generally group classes based on intelligence and in some cases learning style
4 ** From conditions 1,2&3 we can perhaps conclude that the INTJ's in classes with low teacher feedback are dumb (and do not like school), the learning environment is not suited to the INTJ as a student, There are personality clashes with some INTJ's and the teacher.

The results show a break down of 3 other optima that exist within the solution set irrespective of our first foregone conclusion, not only that but we find that one of our constraints given by the ENTP works against naturally finding these solutions (social traps - and hasty responses to the problem at hand).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so we have now seen that perhaps sharing of knowledge is not always a good thing as it can produce solutions that work against the optimal solution and Quicksilver has also shown the opposite that sharing knowledge in certain situations can produce the optimal solution as well.
Together I think we've shown through uses of different game theory arguments that perhaps the real solution here is that game theory as a verification tool is limited and contradictory.

Now lets go back to your original analysis of INTJ's vs. INTP's arguments
The INTJ must first overcome an inherent ambivalence toward interaction (often by being enticed by the quality and quantity of novel data being offered for analysis & evaluation - eg: a hungry INTJ may be lured into interaction with the proper bait)..
Ok check you have drawn me out. But I'm happy to give my 2 cents in most situations so don't consider it an overwhelming win.


To the extent that the ENTP desires to win (or appear to win) the engagement, the ENTP must endeavor to inject a degree of uncertainty or ambiguity into the field of competition. This may mean seizing and retaining the initiative to drive the frame of reference continuously onto new and unanalyzed territory, or attempt to deliver a "new take on" or "new insight into" said frame.
The ambiguity is that this is designed to 'trick me' into proving you right by arguing - classic catch 22 - if I win the first argument then I lose the second. If I lose the first argument then I lose both. Your outcome is either a win or a stalemate.

This scenario might be envisioned as a match between two boxers with equal height and reach: a lithe, nimble and wiry ENTP who is evasive, quick-striking and durable, and a significantly heavier INTJ who is not as quick but who has immense power and perfect swings which can be incredibly devastating if the INTJ is allowed to deliver them. ENTP dances and jabs at unexpected places, INTJ looks for a chance to deliver a killing blow.

So at this point I wonder to myself is there a killing blow for this debate? Is it possible for me to turn the tables and win both arguments, at this stage is this at worst a stalemate?
I guess the answer lies in my first statement that my friend and I are content with providing the fuel in return for the reward. My reward is having someone to match me at last and thanks to my nature I have drawn them out without trying or venturing into out of my own comfort zone.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; *when
using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, *we
must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, *we
must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. *Feign disorder,
and crush him.

:) So do I win iwin?

As I have just made the argument that we should think of the situation as win/win rather than win/lose, it is both logical and pleasing for me to assert that we both win.

Each of us claims an interest in interaction which has been fulfilled and each of our views of the world has been, in my opinion, expanded and improved. *As a token of my esteem for your skill, I offer here something which you might find interesting: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

iwin
10-24-2007, 10:14 AM
you guys are so funny.

I know I must blame my imperfect brain for this, but behind all of this wordly rampage, what was the main idea? What was it all about? Could somebody please explain that more plainly (for lesser mortals like me)?

mind_wander
10-24-2007, 10:18 AM
I have no time to argue. However, quicksilver I'd would like to make a change. What two different classroom settings would be like with just ENTJ's/INTJ's with one INTP professor be like? As for the other, just like you said just 25 INTJ's and one INTP professor?

In a room of just ENTJ's/INTJ's with one INTP professor there is going to be some kind of dialogue going. As compared to 25 INTJ's and one INTP professor there is going to be alot of quiet time for INTJ's, I do know INTP's gonna be frustrated with this.

What's your input on this my dear ENTP? Remember I am not arguing with you, just what is your inputs :)

qwerty
10-24-2007, 03:40 PM
As I have just made the argument that we should think of the situation as win/win rather than win/lose, it is both logical and pleasing for me to assert that we both win.

Each of us claims an interest in interaction which has been fulfilled and each of our views of the world has been, in my opinion, expanded and improved. As a token of my esteem for your skill, I offer here something which you might find interesting: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks for the link, those statistics have been floating around the forum in some of the other threads.
You've forced a stalemate (which appears to be a loss on my behalf). Well done, I admit defeat.


you guys are so funny.

I know I must blame my imperfect brain for this, but behind all of this wordly rampage, what was the main idea? What was it all about? Could somebody please explain that more plainly (for lesser mortals like me)?

The argument was about proving that Quicksilver could argue with an INTJ that because of the differences between INTJ's and ENTP's he would win.

My point was the only way to disprove him was to win the argument about the INTJ and ENTP Students and then attack his original argument and prove he didn't understand INTJ's and therefore was wrong.

But by merely entering the argument he has stacked the deck and forced me to prove that perhaps an INTJ understands less of an ENTP therefore making any of my logical conclusions wrong.
E.g. I have been arguing to win against someone who doesn't need to win therefore I lose.

QuickSilver
10-24-2007, 06:58 PM
As I have just made the argument that we should think of the situation as win/win rather than win/lose, it is both logical and pleasing for me to assert that we both win.

Each of us claims an interest in interaction which has been fulfilled and each of our views of the world has been, in my opinion, expanded and improved. *As a token of my esteem for your skill, I offer here something which you might find interesting: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks for the link, those statistics have been floating around the forum in some of the other threads.
You've forced a stalemate (which appears to be a loss on my behalf). Well done, I admit defeat.


you guys are so funny.

I know I must blame my imperfect brain for this, but behind all of this wordly rampage, what was the main idea? What was it all about? Could somebody please explain that more plainly (for lesser mortals like me)?

The argument was about proving that Quicksilver could argue with an INTJ that because of the differences between INTJ's and ENTP's he would win.

My point was the only way to disprove him was to win the argument about the INTJ and ENTP Students and then attack his original argument and prove he didn't understand INTJ's and therefore was wrong.

But by merely entering the argument he has stacked the deck and forced me to prove that perhaps an INTJ understands less of an ENTP therefore making any of my logical conclusions wrong.
E.g. I have been arguing to win against someone who doesn't need to win therefore I lose.


QWERTY - *I appreciated your analysis of the analogy via the genetic algorithym and hill climbing models *:thumbsup: *Your points are so forcefully logical that I have to go around them :thinking: , or hopefully have influenced the course of debate such that it flows naturally around the opposing points which I expect so that in the end (unlike in Terminator 2) we can both be victorious *:thumbsup: . *That and your description of the events reminded me of the first 55 seconds of this clip: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Don't worry; Arnold wins in the end.

-QuickSilver

qwerty
10-25-2007, 03:56 AM
Quicksilver
:) See this is where you don't understand the INTJ...


An INTJ will give up when he needs too. But I will sacrifice myself to win. I have already set up the Art of War reference of feigning death.

I've just proved that you don't understand INTJ's by your double thanks for the debate. You never need to concile an INTJ.

Now I actually do win. Just kidding, it was fun I will take the stalemate if you want me to.

iwin
10-25-2007, 04:11 AM
that's what I thought it was about. couldn't help but notice sarcasm...
On the other hand, I like QuickSilver. Maybe he's handsome... Am I hitting on him? *:scared:
(don't try to find logic in what I wrote - there ain't any)


*INTJ stands for I need total justice.
*ENTP stands for Everyone needs a T.P. (toilet paper).
Am I nuts? I guess I am

blackout
10-25-2007, 04:23 AM
I use the Chewbacca Defense if i have to argue. :thumbsup:

Seriously though, I don't argue over anything that can't be proved correct (or incorrect) with facts/research. Arguing is a waste of time otherwise, no one ever really changes thier mind.

If Chewbacca is a Wookie on Endor and pilots the Millennium Falcon, than this does not make sense.