View Poll Results: In a debate, my main objective is...

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • ... to win at all costs [I知 an Alpha]

    2 11.11%
  • ... to arrive at a high truth [I知 an Alpha]

    9 50.00%
  • ... to learn something from my challenger [I知 an Alpha]

    3 16.67%
  • ... something else [please explain]. [I知 an Alpha]

    4 22.22%
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Alphas: What is your goal in an argument?

  1. #1
    Creepy-

    Default Alphas: What is your goal in an argument?

    Please, only Alphas respond to this poll [there is a similar poll in each quadra痴 section]


    In a debate, my main objective is...
    ... to win at all costs [I知 an Alpha]
    ... to arrive at a high truth [I知 an Alpha]
    ... to learn something from my challenger [I知 an Alpha]
    ... something else [please explain]. [I知 an Alpha]


    ETA: The word "debate" [and "argument," for that matter] is not intended to connote a fight. For the purpose of this discussion, I intended "debate" to mean a discussion in which disagreement is expressed.
    Last edited by female; 01-26-2009 at 03:41 PM.

  2. #2
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Learn something gnu. People who argue to win don't belong in real arguments.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  4. #4
    Your DNA is mine. Mediator Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,481
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, I argue to discover the flaws in reasoning of the opposition.

    high truth ftw.
    D-SEI 9w1

    This is me and my dual being scientific together

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,101
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean View Post
    I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.
    I identify with this.
    I don't argue just to argue and I usually can't stand the people that do this.

  6. #6
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sometimes I want to win at all costs, more often I want to arrive at a high truth. Often I just want to air my ideas, but those "arguments" don't last long, so I don't know whether they count. I can also go pretty long reiterating a technicality until someone gets it... I have no idea what to classify that as.

    OK, after reading the other posts... like Jimbean, if I am certain that I am right, I will argue to win (this definitely counts). If I do not know what the truth is, but know some criteria for it, I will argue in search of some higher truth (which can involve countering the other person's points, but no me vs. you situation). If I don't even have that much, I'll just air my ideas (which really doesn't count).

    So I could answer like Jimbean... but the search for knowledge is a gray area, which may or may not count as argument.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  7. #7
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I argue to clear misconceptions whether they be mine or my opponents and to test my logic and knowledge.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  8. #8
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean View Post
    I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.
    look at that. a beta posting in an alpha-only poll. heehee
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  9. #9
    Creepy-

    Default

    It's pretty interesting that so far Alpha is the only quadra where people have selected the first option, "to win at all costs." And two people, at that. Hmm....

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulanzon View Post
    Learn something gnu. People who argue to win don't belong in real arguments.
    Why not? Because they're being unnecessarily combative, because they're not adhering to respectful debate, something else...?

    -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean View Post
    I don't argue unless I know I am 100% right, in which case I argue to win.
    &
    Quote Originally Posted by cracka View Post
    I identify with this.
    I don't argue just to argue and I usually can't stand the people that do this.
    &
    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Sometimes I want to win at all costs, more often I want to arrive at a high truth. Often I just want to air my ideas, but those "arguments" don't last long, so I don't know whether they count. I can also go pretty long reiterating a technicality until someone gets it... I have no idea what to classify that as.

    OK, after reading the other posts... like Jimbean, if I am certain that I am right, I will argue to win (this definitely counts). If I do not know what the truth is, but know some criteria for it, I will argue in search of some higher truth (which can involve countering the other person's points, but no me vs. you situation). If I don't even have that much, I'll just air my ideas (which really doesn't count).

    So I could answer like Jimbean... but the search for knowledge is a gray area, which may or may not count as argument.
    So you start out thinking you池e right before you値l even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting 電efeat, or would you give in?
    Last edited by female; 01-26-2009 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #10
    ILE - ENTp 1981slater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Spain
    TIM
    ILE (ENTp)
    Posts
    4,866
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by songofsappho View Post
    It's pretty interesting that so far Alpha is the only quadra where people have selected the first option, "to win at all costs." And two people, at that. Hmm....


    Why not? Because they're being unnecessarily combative, because they're not adhering to respectful debate, something else...?

    -


    &

    So you start out thinking you池e right before you値l even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting 電efeat, or would you give in?
    Rationals never give in
    ILE "Searcher"
    Socionics: ENTp
    DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
    Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
    MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
    Astrological sign: Aquarius

    To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.

  11. #11
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1981slater View Post
    Rationals never give in
    Unless their irrational mate proves them wrong. Then they get irritable.

    and anyway, jimbean isn't alpha. nobody listens to me.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  12. #12
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post

    and anyway, jimbean isn't alpha. nobody listens to me.
    I don't know what type he is, so I don't want to exclude his answers - if he thinks he's an Alpha and I don't have any reason to think his type is or is not that, that's good enough for this [for me, anyway].

  13. #13
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamangir View Post
    Well, I argue to discover the flaws in reasoning of the opposition.
    Can you expound on 吐laws of reasoning? Do you mean that you池e trying to see how the other person痴 points do or do not fit a consistent system, and if there痴 a flaw, you use it as a counterargument? What if the other person points out flaws in your reasoning how do you react?

    This might not be a useful question, but how important to you is it that the truth fit a logical, consistent system? And when you say 鍍ruth, do you mean a universal truth, or can it be whatever works in a specific situation [even if it is different for other situations]?

    -

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    some combination of the above, with emphasis on (2), to arrive at truth.

    by truth, i am not as interested in say, correcting the whole of someone else's argument, as much as i am interested in how a subset of it relates to the essentials of my own argument.
    i don't think all reasons for a (1) win/lose attitude are deconstructive, although in excess that attitude hinders the (3) flow of information which i do value to an extent.
    Can you expound on this?

    -

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    I argue to clear misconceptions whether they be mine or my opponents and to test my logic and knowledge.
    So would you say that for you, most cases of disagreement result from misunderstanding? What if it eventually becomes clear that while you do in fact understand each other, you still disagree. Would you be more likely to walk away, try to convince the other person of your argument, or something else?

  14. #14
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by songofsappho View Post
    I don't know what type he is, so I don't want to exclude his answers - if he thinks he's an Alpha and I don't have any reason to think his type is or is not that, that's good enough for this [for me, anyway].
    you're right. sorry about that. I was kind of teasing, kind of not. carry on!
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  15. #15
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by songofsappho View Post
    Why not? Because they're being unnecessarily combative, because they're not adhering to respectful debate, something else...?
    Welp, in my experience, as soon as you get an atmosphere of competition, people start either: clamming up and not contributing; or begin to butt horns and make lots of noise without actually going anywhere useful "because I can't back down now, or I'll have lost!"

    I think it's more useful to have conversations where two or more peeps can just transmits their ideas and input and see what congeals, transmutes, explodes, or conquers the human race. My is proudly subordinate in this matter.

    EDIT

    But this is for a discussion.

    In an argument where I'm trying to prove a point, goes Super Sayan 4 and tries to win at all costs. Even if I lose my points, I usually read up on it ASAP and see if I can get a new counter. In such a way, I've had extended discargumessions that last for 3 or so days at a time.

  16. #16
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulanzon View Post
    I think it's more useful to have conversations where two or more peeps can just transmits their ideas and input and see what congeals, transmutes, explodes, or conquers the human race. My is proudly subordinate in this matter.
    imo, this sounds very ILE. Based on the interactions I've had irl with ILEs.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  17. #17
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gulanzon View Post
    Welp, in my experience, as soon as you get an atmosphere of competition, people start either: clamming up and not contributing; or begin to butt horns and make lots of noise without actually going anywhere useful "because I can't back down now, or I'll have lost!"

    I think it's more useful to have conversations where two or more peeps can just transmits their ideas and input and see what congeals, transmutes, explodes, or conquers the human race. My is proudly subordinate in this matter.
    This is what I was originally talking about - debate in the course of discussion, not as in a fight. Does that change your answer at all?

    Hmm... I should have anticipated that people would see the words "debate" or "argument" and associate it w quarrelling/fighting/etc. What I meant was something closer to a discussion in which disagreement is expressed. I'll add disclaimers to the opening posts to hopefully clear that up.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    5,101
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by songofsappho View Post

    So you start out thinking you池e right before you値l even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting 電efeat, or would you give in?
    I don't like to argue, therefore do my best not to. If I happen to be in an argument with anyone, it's because of a difference of opinion where I think my own opinion is the correct one. If it comes to my attention that I'm actually in the wrong, I'll be the first to admit it and the argument is over.

  19. #19
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    3. For delta, these guys are just losers... j/k I believe delta wishes to achieve a points victory, but things like love of the game and enjoyment of the game are valued over dominating the opponent. Not prone to running up the score. A tie might be considered the best possible game. In a delta influenced society like Japan, you can see this in the post-tie celebrations.
    Like ultimate frisbee?

    Ultimate has traditionally relied upon a spirit of sportsmanship which places the responsibility for fair play on the player. Highly competitive play is encouraged, but never at the expense of the bond of mutual respect between players, adherence to the agreed upon rules of the game, or the basic joy of play. Protection of these vital elements serves to eliminate adverse conduct from the Ultimate field. Such actions as taunting of opposing players, dangerous aggression, intentional fouling, or other 'win-at-all-costs' behavior are contrary to the spirit of the game and must be avoided by all players.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  20. #20
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by songofsappho View Post
    So you start out thinking you池e right before you値l even enter into an argument... but what if, during the course of a debate, you become convinced that the other person is right? Would you continue to argue your original case and avoid admitting 電efeat, or would you give in?
    I will avoid admitting defeat, if possible. Normally this means picking absurd definitions for words; when the strange definitions come to light, we can laugh about it and no one can say I was really wrong.

    EDIT: I suppose that's trying to get out of it - if I find that I am wrong after all, I will try to make it seem like we were arguing over nothing.
    Last edited by Brilliand; 01-26-2009 at 08:53 PM.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    Unless their irrational mate proves them wrong. Then they get irritable.

    and anyway, jimbean isn't alpha. nobody listens to me.
    Actually, I really should not answer any of these since my type is debatable, so disregard my input. Apologies for any confusion.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  22. #22
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    I've talked about this with some folks before concerning what victory or winning means to the quadras.

    1. For beta, achieving victory is asserting dominance and superiority.

    2. For gamma, they want to assert dominance and superiority but via something quantifiable, a points victory.

    3. For delta, these guys are just losers... j/k I believe delta wishes to achieve a points victory, but things like love of the game and enjoyment of the game are valued over dominating the opponent. Not prone to running up the score. A tie might be considered the best possible game. In a delta influenced society like Japan, you can see this in the post-tie celebrations.

    4. For alpha, winning and losing are based in less concrete elements. /// while other quadras have at least one concrete function which qualifies victory, such as and . Alpha's goals can be either advancement of truth or great popular attention. A victory for a alpha might be to figure out a new way to play a game, or a new understanding of the world and those ideas gaining some acceptance from others.

    There is no fixed goal in a discussion or argument usually, sometimes one argues to win, say against someone attempting to incite racial bigotry or making false claims against others for political motives. In a argument with a research peer it might be more important to advance our mutual understanding and leave the ego stroking out of it. When having a discussion with a teacher, it might be important to ask appropriate questions in order to get more insightful answers.

    Fixed goals are not really a Alpha motivation.

    As far as other quadras not voting winning at all costs, advancement of a "higher" truth often provides a rational for "winning at all costs".

    The idea of a higher "truth" actually means that one's truth is somehow greater then a opposing "truth".

    A and B can be lumped together.
    I think what you've written about each quadra in particular is really interesting, and it matches my own observations and experience - I think the Delta one is right on, at least for me.

    Here's an excerpt from a conversation I had w a friend last night [I'm person A; I wonder if you can guess person B's type from this alone]: [Edited out]
    Last edited by female; 01-27-2009 at 04:40 PM.

  23. #23
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    beta?
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  24. #24
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    beta?
    Quote Originally Posted by hkkmr View Post
    Seems beta NF.

    Is it Strrrng or Gilly?
    After this conversation, I am leaning towards Beta for his type [it isn't anyone from the forum]. I had been debating this guy's type - trying to decide bt ILE and SLE - and this threw me off a bit, as he hadn't said anything quite like that before. Something else he said later on sounded very "victim," though, so Beta NF is a pretty good possibility as well....

  25. #25
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    goal? why would my life need a goal? that's stupid.

  26. #26
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat View Post
    goal? why would my life need a goal? that's stupid.
    not the goal of your life, the goal of the argument.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  27. #27
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    not the goal of your life, the goal of the argument.
    oh lol... I dont argue. if you dont agree with me than whatever.

  28. #28
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bionicgoat View Post
    oh lol... I dont argue. if you dont agree with me than whatever.
    spoken like a true 9.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  29. #29
    Your DNA is mine. Mediator Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,481
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sappho
    Can you expound on 吐laws of reasoning? Do you mean that you池e trying to see how the other person痴 points do or do not fit a consistent system, and if there痴 a flaw, you use it as a counterargument? What if the other person points out flaws in your reasoning how do you react?
    Well, I think you pretty much said it. There is a system of logic that is easily quantifiable by the majority of cases. For example, it would be(imo) fair to say that children love their mothers, even though I can assure you that one would be able to find a case where a kid's mother beat the shit out of them, and therefore there might not be much love there. Because the (hopefully) majority of mothers do well enough that their children love them, I take the above fact as truth.

    Anyway, if a person's points do not accord with what I see as a point in the major system of things, what I would call my mental framework, I would disagree, but I'm not one to raise hell because someone might be off a bit. Now, when someone sits around making presumptuous statements, then I collect my arguments and engage, basing off the proofs that leads to my interpretation of that point that they have missed.

    If someone points out a flaw in my reasoning, there would no need to necessarily back off, because I'm on the logical tree of nodes, seen here.


    As you can see, to get to 9, you need to have 4, 2, and 1. I would consider 1 to be a basis of my mental framework, whatever you want 1 to be. If I argue the validity of let's say, 9 and I am having trouble rationalizing it, then I simply start arguing 4, and up and up until you reach your root node, which is 1 in this diagram. It is a fail-safe protocol, because it is assumed that 1 is someone that cannot be doubted. Then me and the arguer come back and find a common denominator to agree on, both learning more.

    This might not be a useful question, but how important to you is it that the truth fit a logical, consistent system? And when you say 鍍ruth, do you mean a universal truth, or can it be whatever works in a specific situation [even if it is different for other situations]?
    Truth should be able to fit a logical system, then using the information you have, you can extrapolate connections through your ordered knowledge.
    D-SEI 9w1

    This is me and my dual being scientific together

  30. #30
    Creepy-bg

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    spoken like a true 9.
    I'm just as God made me

  31. #31
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamangir View Post
    Well, I argue to discover the flaws in reasoning of the opposition.

    high truth ftw.
    Agreed from that persepective, but I voted 'to learn'.... it's almost the same for me.

    A high truth is something learned, discovered from the argument, from the differences between you and the other/s.

    I know it might be a little cliche to my HA, but hey, I'm keen to understand. In this case, I'm keen to understand the differences in opinion between myself and the person I am arguing with so that I can begin to see things from their unique viewpoint, and figure out where their conclusions have come from. If I have enough of this knowledge, I can pre-empt their next move before they make it in terms of Fe and create a more comfortable environment/avoid another conflict (if it rose from a misunderstanding). I actually really REALLY enjoy arguing, but please note the difference between an argument and a negative/threatening conflict (which I cannot stand and will traumatise me).

    I find it specially difficult when arguing with gammas for this reason, as they seem to be unable to differentiate between the two...or should I say.... neither side (alpha and gamma) can differentiate between whether the other is arguing or attacking and hence become defensive-aggressive.
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  32. #32
    Your DNA is mine. Mediator Kam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,481
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bee View Post
    Agreed from that persepective, but I voted 'to learn'.... it's almost the same for me.

    A high truth is something learned, discovered from the argument, from the differences between you and the other/s.

    I know it might be a little cliche to my HA, but hey, I'm keen to understand. In this case, I'm keen to understand the differences in opinion between myself and the person I am arguing with so that I can begin to see things from their unique viewpoint, and figure out where their conclusions have come from. If I have enough of this knowledge, I can pre-empt their next move before they make it in terms of Fe and create a more comfortable environment/avoid another conflict (if it rose from a misunderstanding). I actually really REALLY enjoy arguing, but please note the difference between an argument and a negative/threatening conflict (which I cannot stand and will traumatise me).

    I find it specially difficult when arguing with gammas for this reason, as they seem to be unable to differentiate between the two...or should I say.... neither side (alpha and gamma) can differentiate between whether the other is arguing or attacking and hence become defensive-aggressive.
    This sounds very idealistic bee, but it is quite hard to keep that chill attitude when you are arguing in real life, especially when you are making someone defend a deep-set belief, like the assassination of JFK.
    D-SEI 9w1

    This is me and my dual being scientific together

  33. #33
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh that is very true. This is what my aims are about, I frequently end up in tears (haha whoops!)
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  34. #34

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    890
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Has anyone else here had the repeated experiences of speaking to someone, only to be abruptly interrupted with, "I don't want to argue about it," in such a way as to end the conversation (eg, they walk away), when you didn't even think you were arguing to begin with?!

    That's happened to me multiple times, which always surprises me. And then I get pissed because I was only trying to help ... yet in a state of befuddlement, I swallow my anger and chalk it up as another instance of skewed communication beams.

    Oh! Which reminds me:


  35. #35
    I had words here once, but I didn't feed them Khola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    3,535
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes!! Although my reaction is to get angry and show them what an argument looks like!

    (oops I suck)
    Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .



  36. #36
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bee View Post
    Yes!! Although my reaction is to get angry and show them what an argument looks like!
    No it isn't.

    Shut up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •