When putting forth an argument, do you make more appeals to logic or to emotion?
Appeals to logic.
Appeals to emotion.
When putting forth an argument...
When putting forth an argument, do you make more appeals to logic or to emotion?
I should have made this a public poll. Everyone will vote "logical," I'm afraid.
I posted this bc when teaching my students I emphasize logos [logical arguments] and very much downplay pathos [emotional appeals]. Some of them, though, insist on making pathos-centered arguments with so little logos that their points are just mush.
I was thinking this might be a Fe vs. Te thing....
What do you teach? Just curious.Originally Posted by songofsappho
Yes for me it's also hard to imagine someone using emotion as an argument. Since discussions are usually verbal fights which have logic as a referee.
You'd be surprised - I have one student [ENFj, and I'm sure he hates me] whose paper I graded this morning, and the whole thing is one emotional appeal after another, with so little evidence for what he's saying [which is controversial and therefore even more important to back up w facts] that it's atrocious.Yes for me it's also hard to imagine someone using emotion as an argument. Since discussions are usually verbal fights which have logic as a referee.
Last edited by female; 12-13-2008 at 02:44 PM. Reason: tmi
Doubt it. And I think the question depends entirely on context. If two people are debating some idea, I highly doubt that one of them—regardless of type—will start making emotional appeals. On the other hand, if two people are arguing over a mistake one of them made, the accused may use emotional appeals (manipulation) to extricate himself from his position. So, to ask, "when putting forth an argument, do you appeal to reason or emotion" is a false dilemma, because it doesn't take the contextual factors into account.
I don't wholly agree with you, but I think you make good points here. I also think I framed this question badly. Or maybe asking it at all was silly; it would be much better to just sit back and observe the ways people actually do go about arguing, rather than asking them how they think they go about it.
Alas.
That's a good idea, actually. You can sort of get a cross-contextual sample of [a few] peoples' argument patterns, and go from there. Maybe select two people from each quadra. I'll keep this in mind...
Cause yeah, who doesn't want to be logical in an argument? It's like asking people how intense they are with a sport or something.
I think I agree with this, some discussions require purely logical input. Some are purely ethical.
Some require a mix to reach a satisfactory outcome.
From what I've read Stalin's logic was sound, but ethically corrupt.
Yep, I've once seen an msn chat with two emotion types argue. One of them an ENFJ girl, the other unknown but equally childish. They don't argue to get to a conclusion, or to get to a truth, they argue to releave emotions that they have inside. It's gotta all come out.
Ugh, I can imagine.
The irony is, they would probably have taken it as a serious insult if you had pointed this out to them.
This isn't to be taken as some hallmark of ENFj's, or "ethical" types in general. My Ni-ENFj could pwn most people in an argument, by sheer intelligence and maintaining a cool head. It's just the ditzy high school girls who give "ethical" types a bad name.
lol you beat me here - I was just returning to make a disclaimer about this.
Obviously ENFj's aren't all incapable of sound logical argument....
Nothing is wrong with it. They can do whatever they want to do; I just prefer not to watch or engage in that kind of debate, personally.
No one said "ethical" types are idiots or that "logical" types are brilliant.
Must every post come with a disclaimer?
IQ isn't type related. Rationalising through our ego rational functions is type related. A T or an F type can reach the same conclusion, but it is likely they will do so by different means.
And thus we have the informal fallacy: the vice of alpha NT's. You can walk through all the deductions and arrive at a logically sound answer...
Essentially.
Here, that always depends on what you're talking about and if someone feels like arguing with you about it. If people are in the mood they'll take anything you say and fuck up it's context enough just to mess with you and get a rise. Apparently it's fun but I've never really figured out why myself.
You could say your favorite color is red and people would argue with you about it if they feel like it. So yes, disclaimers should be used on each and every post covering any and every possible thing just to cover your ass... Unless you feel like arguing with people about it... then do whatever.
If your separating into functions, then Ti, Te etc will do things differently again, but if you're referring to the dichotomies applicability, i'm not quite sure what you mean. For instance: I can't think of any Russian socionists who don't use them, but I can think of a few highly regarded and respected ones that do.
I'm not quite sure why you're calling me an idiot. Maybe you are trying to let off some emotion.
Edit: I quoted these the wrong way round, I can't see the point in swapping them over.
The first thing I thought when I read this was, how good of an argument can someone make without using logic?
I wasn't complaining about emotional [did you mean ethical?] types. I find that generalizations like that generally serve no good purpose. Many ethical types are more intelligent than many logical types; that isn't type-related, and I never said nor implied that it was.
I'm not going to provide a disclaimer just as a special service to people who make blanket assumptions like you seem to be doing here. Read what I wrote again: I was wondering if it was a Fe v Te preference [not [in]ability in one or the other] - Fe, as in Ti-valuing as well as adept at making emotional appeals... not as in "stupid" or whatever you imagine I meant.
Apparently.Here, that always depends on what you're talking about and if someone feels like arguing with you about it. If people are in the mood they'll take anything you say and fuck up it's context enough just to mess with you and get a rise. Apparently it's fun but I've never really figured out why myself.
You could say your favorite color is red and people would argue with you about it if they feel like it. So yes, disclaimers should be used on each and every post covering any and every possible thing just to cover your ass... Unless you feel like arguing with people about it... then do whatever.
An example I was thinking of is this:
It's taken from a global warming-awareness site, and the implicit argument is that polar bears are in danger because of global warming, and therefore we should do something about it. However, logical arguments regarding the existence/nonexistence of global warming, the level of danger actually posed to polar bears, or any other things are generally not presented. [Obviously images like this are usually accompanied by text with some facts, but at the heart of it is an emotional appeal.]
[If you are in an idiotic and/or argumentative mood, please read this DISCLAIMER: In this post I have no intention of making an argument regarding people of specific socionics types, global warming, the cuteness of polar bears, or anything else.]
I know that this technique is a favorite among deltas, but referencing "official" sources does nothing to buttress your argument—as far as its veracity exists (or doesn't). Those E/I, T/F, etc. dichotomies are only extremely general amalgamates of much more important and integral constituent parts that actually pertain to the reality of functions and types.
You secretly like us. You only say such things to get our attention, you cheeky little devil, you!
Yeah. It's a pathetically transparent defense mechanism that people use to avoid confrontation. But boo hoo it's because we're so mean and argumentative.
This is a Socionics forum. If she's going to make a thread and imply things about "logical" and "ethical" types, why shouldn't people argue?
When you potray it as some "fucked up context" thing to "get a rise" for "fun", you're pushing motivations onto people that were never there.
We're not talking about the color red. Apparently it's fun to pull useless, baseless analogies out of thin air, but I've never really figured out why myself.
lol, I wasn't talking about what you posted at all, in fact I didn't even read it... I only was talking about her sentence that I quoted. If my post was out of context, oops... Sue me.
How about you learn the context before you make a post criticizing people for speaking out of context.
Nah, I'd rather not.
You're telling me an Fe-ego type, who has the talent of affecting an audience by making emotional appeals [which I am not saying are devoid of logic as well], is not more likely to make an attempt to do so than a Te-ego type is?
edit: I don't care. Let retards be retards.
I'd rather not.
Ah, good. I'm actually glad you got the message.
While my statement wasn't in context in the thread here so much, it's very much in context in the way this forum as a whole seems to be, imo.
lol, were you afraid I'd ban you for that?
Buffets for all Si valuers.
Nah. It crossed my mind, but then I wrote it. Only a second later to realize that confrontation wouldn't matter, as I just dealt with some similar bullshit with my ESFj mom tonight, and realized that I can't supervise everyone
I wasn't arguing.Then you think they exist.Those E/I, T/F, etc. dichotomies are only extremely general amalgamates of much more important and integral constituent parts that actually pertain to the reality of functions and types.
Oh I think there's much more to this, and I'm the first to admit that I can be a very emotional arguer, but sometimes there is an underlying reason for it.
I'm going to call this a "force connect". I tend to use it when I get frustrated with NTs, although feeling types tend to have a much better idea of what the hell I'm getting at when I do it. What usually happens is that someone pivotal does something hurtful towards either myself or someone in my inner posse, and they seem to not understand the effect they have had. This infuriates me out-of-sight, because when people are hurt that I care about, it is so blatantly obvious to me. So I force them to understand what they have just done in an offensive way, to put them back in their place, I bite back.
I will create a scenario within the argument by any means possible to allow the aggressor to experience to a lesser extent the emotional pain that he/she has just caused in the subject. I will deliberately do this until I get a negative reaction back from them in protest to the situation, then immediately relate it back to what they have just done and let them realise in that moment that I have designed the current situation to connect them directly with their actions. Usually this provokes are very strong negative response, but I find most people, upon experiencing this once or twice, will be much more mindful of their actions and how they affect the people I care about in any situations arising after the initial conflict with me.
I'd say this is possibly the use of emotion to express logic to a person with some level of emotional disconnect perhaps? It's messy, but once it's done things are much more......pleasant.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Whatever you were doing, citing "official" sources is pointless.
Nope. We can only conceive of them as general conceptual constructs because of the constituent parts—which do exist—that comprise them.Then you think they exist.
I thought you didn't like playing with semantics.
While the concrete behavior itself isn't intrinsic to the mental process underpinning the function, Fe egos do have a more precise grasp of the internal causal processes occurring between objects, which can typically result in a more natural propensity for said behavior.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
