"Disagreement"

[stray]

So.. I'm kind of disturbed by a post I came across. I'd like to get to the bottom of it.

Originally Posted by CILi
Don't know if anybody'll see this, but anyway:

Is the inability to disagree with what other people say (even when all logic suggests otherwise) indicative of a certain type, function, PoLR, or something?

YES. It means you're definitely not a type; probably an introverted ethical type.

I would guess EII or SEI. But if you really are anxious about health etc. I would say EII.

^Is this true? I've seen the agreeable behavior in Enneagram 9 like workaholic said in that thread, but it's hard to agree with otherwise. As for Fi doms, lets take the more "colorful" example of "disagreeableness". Why are ESIs, for example, able to be very critical?

"ESIs tend to evaluate people's ethical behavior "as it is" and not "as it could be" or "as it could be interpreted according to the context or another person's point of view". That means that they can be perceived as unrelentingly harsh, even unforgiving or vindictive, when correcting, punishing or even avenging what they see as unethical behavior, especially betrayal of trust. "Evil must be punished" or even "destroyed" is one of the ESI's mottos."

"Accordingly, the ESI is very confident in spotting when another person is "spoiling" a group emotional atmosphere without noticing it, and will discreetly warn that person if the ESI judges it to be advisable in that situation. However, the ESI does not regard such social missteps as a character flaw in the person, and may even be reassured by this kind of awkwardness.

The ESI's ability to merge into a pleasant social atmosphere if he sees no strong reasons for not doing so, and yet actively go against it if he considers it called for, may be perceived as intentional "bitchiness" by those more sensitive to Fe."

Additionally, how do intertype relations even apply across all types if some are intrinsically agreeable? How can an ESI ever operate as an SLE's supervisor, or an ENFp conflict with ISTj? How about when people make a post that expresses disagreement - are they a closet type? Is anyone who relays a story about arguing with someone at work or has an opinion on any political situation or even wants to make a correction on some mundane procedure in daily life a Ti type? I'm not just being rhetorical here - Honestly, it's thrown me for a loop. It isn't my system, so I'd like to understand it clearly.

[FDG]

An ESI will rarely outright disagree with you in person if you don't know him-her well. Even if you know him-her well, he-she will generally disagree only if he-she wants to make a really strong point. Generally IxFx types are quite unsettled by disagreement.

[Aiss]

I don't think there's a clear correlation with socionics type. Maybe some with enneagram, but even 9s are often like "no, no, let's look at it this way..." in a mediating sort of way, working out a compromise. If it makes sense.

Though I kinda agree with thehotelambush that F types may be more likely to not argue against something which makes no sense (regardless of what they think) for the sake of smooth communication or relations. I've often heard that it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not, can't I just nod and be nice and sociable? No, sorry, I can't.

[krieger]

When I "disagree" with someone/something, it feels more like a choice than like a real commitment. In this particular sense, I can not disagree the serious way.

[stray]

When I "disagree" with someone/something, it feels more like a choice than like a real commitment. In this particular sense, I can not disagree the serious way.

I don't have a commitment either. For the most part. When I disagree, there are concerns for "truth", but it's not "ultimate truth". I'm up for correcting myself if it comes to that. I just voice my thoughts when I'm looking for consistency, when someone's incorrectly labeling something, or when I'm saying some method won't work. I'm not big on debating, but it comes out in these subtle ways. I try to respect people and not go overboard.. I get where some of these other F types are coming from, but it seems to be on a more intense level. This is what I would think is just type 9. And not all F's are type 9. Why would an 4-individualist or 1-idealist not want to disagree?

On another note, what type is Morgan Freeman? I saw that socionix typed him as EII (and I don't know if he is now.. it's not a bad choice though). I thought this video illustrates an emphatic disagreement with some issue - but he's creative in his solution to it too. Is Socionics so extreme that this guy must be Ti?

[Slacker]

I'd say I generally try to not outright disagree with people, or at least not state my disagreement. Two reasons - one is fear of confrontation or argument, but the other is that I try to find some place for us to come together, like some area where we do agree, instead of focusing on the disagreement.

[CILi]

I disagree!

In retrospect, though, my O-OP seems to have pulled one o' these on me.

New Thoughts
1) Maybe it's immaturity.

2) Maybe it's a lack of confidence.

3) Maybe it's that DCNH stuff.

4) Most likely it's desperation to please, to placate, to make friends.*

*(i.e. "If I disagree, you might not like me. If you don't like me, I will be sad."**)

**(Please note the STRONG logicz at work there.)

I'm starting to think I am Type 9 and will say I agree with people more than not, but am not afraid to voice disagreement and will say I actually play devil's advocate a lot or else like to throw in a counter point of view but in as tactful a way as possible so that people will actually be inclined to agree, even if it's not full agreement.

In re: Devil's Advocate, I too love that role.

It's less so to genuinely disagree, but more to just explore "the other side of the coin" and consider every last thing that's "possible". Mentally and socially, that's fun to me. If someone throws a hissy-fit about it, though, sans alcohol, there's not a chance in the world I'll call/fight 'em on it. (Ok, great. You win. )

[stray]

I'd say I generally try to not outright disagree with people, or at least not state my disagreement. Two reasons - one is fear of confrontation or argument, but the other is that I try to find some place for us to come together, like some area where we do agree, instead of focusing on the disagreement.

I can understand that, and do it to an extent, but I also associate (or associated) Fi as another abstract layer of ethics, that supercedes the interpersonal area. I'm coming from MBTI btw, so it seems to line up.

It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words. As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, “Sometimes, some things just have to be said.” On the other hand, most of the time this process works “in private” and is expressed through actions. It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.

Some things just have to be said. And this is something I've been doing since I was a little kid.. I didn't really "grow into it" so to speak. Sometimes it came out in amusing ways, even at a young age. I remember there was a teacher in the 4th grade or so who seemed to like bouncing girls on his lap a bit too much. I was aware/imaginative enough of scandoulous things going on about that, and it pissed me off. So one night I actually broke into the school, and urinated all over his desk, in his cabinets, etc.. It was an immature thing to do, but I had a habit of "disagreeing" like this. Then it transferred later into confronting bullies, then into jobs.. I remember one time I even caused a little insurrection and got five other people to quit with me. I riled them a bit because I thought the employer need to feel some consequences to his attitude, and my own quitting and "disagreement" was not enough. I had to get others to do it too.

Now I don't know what type I am. I'm not as Se oriented as an SLE or SEE exactly. Maybe ILE. It doesn't round right, but maybe these are the types most associated with these kind of antics. Not sure.

[Slacker]

Yes, but even if something has to be said, I try to think of the absolute most diplomatic way possible to say it.

[stray]

Yes, but even if something has to be said, I try to think of the absolute most diplomatic way possible to say it.

Like I said, I do try. But I have this other side to me too. The whole Joan of Arc thing, I guess. Heh..I dunno. Maybe it's not Joan, but Don Quixote and I'm ILE Where what matters is an ideal - and the ideal has nothing to do with letting people get carried away with something that's even more damaging or false. I have a Delta kind of ideal in mind, that's ultimately democractic.. but maybe Fi types have this other universalistic ideal where everyone is allowed their own peculiarities of self-experience. Where what's right is being accepting.. That's a little too much democracy for me.

[Aleksei]

Don Quixote is EIE. Quixotism in general is NTR.

[Slacker]

If I think something is wrong, I will definitely speak up and say it's wrong. I didn't go into this thinking it was disagreement about ethical issues - I thought at first you were talking about disagreement about facts or something. But if someone is doing something I think is ethically wrong, I would absolutely say something, though I would try to say it in as kind a way as is practical, or maybe in a funny way if I thought that would go over well. I would spend time thinking about a good way to put it that still got my point across. Though if someone were just outright awful, I'd probably say something short and curt and remove myself and not have anything to do with them again rather than argue. I wouldn't sit and argue with people IRL, and if it got into an argument despite my intentions, I'd probably back out at some point.

[stray]

@mariella and ashton: Thanks for the input..

Mostly it's just ethically related stuff with me. Although I have that itch for disagreeing and wanting clarification on facts from time to time. Who knows, I could be Alpha myself. It's hard to see, but maybe I'm not understanding it enough. Time to read more, I suppose.

[Exodus]

@straytk What Mariella said is basically what I would expect any ethical type to say. Ashton thinks everything is not type related, so go figure.

[Lobo]

For me it's not being unable to disagree, but not caring enough to correct someone's logic in something that I don't consider worth the hassle of the potential confrontation. I feel like logic is very much a part of how I handle the information I get from the world, though.

[DividedsGhost]

Fi PoLR can make a person (XLE person) tractable to an atmosphere's or person's Fi sentiments, if it isn't deemed as a threat. It is common for Fi PoLR to want to go with the flow and determine how to act or express themselves with a group based on how well their expressions and expressed thoughts are received.

It does not however mean that they will go along with you on something they don't want to do, but rather will use the reactions as a compass for how to continue social engagement or back out from it while still being perceived in a positive light.

Ego Fi on the other hand will often only be able to voice itself in disagreement. What I mean is that when you get a person with ego Fi, they think most greatly (compared to other types without ego Fi) about how their and others various actions affect their close relationships, as well as the relationships they have with other people. Thus when they see something that will cause chaos in human relationships they will disagree and speak up about it and if deemed to be a very large threat to creating chaos can be very argumentative and forceful about trying to keep that chaos from taking place.

This is also evident when an XEI uses their demonstrative function and will be seen to be disagreeing and sometimes just plain argumentative. And an EXE will stifle their displays of emotion if they see they are creating more relationship chaos or express it if they feel that will help attenuate social chaos and will be seen as disagreeing and at times being very argumentative. But this is much weaker and more rarely displayed compared to Fi ego types.

[stray]

@straytk What Mariella said is basically what I would expect any ethical type to say. Ashton thinks everything is not type related, so go figure.

Fair enough.

Although, it sounds a bit unreal to not be a be able make corrections about facts. What does that mean exactly? Take for example, some friends at a table discussing "last year's Christmas" over dinner.. Lets say that someone goofs up on some recalling of an event. Is the Fi ego so "timid" and so concerned with "harmony" that they can't go "No.. no.. Bob was the one bought that present. Not Jim." Does that, like, "shake" up the Fi ego internally that they would go to their rooms privately and flog themselves with a leather belt? Or can make they make a correction if someone's using the wrong type of tool to solve a carpentry problem? Do they just sit and stare, worried that such a correction will insult the person and destroy a relationship..? Can they be teachers? Or any other kind of job where you correct on facts or say "No"? Can they write a book on.. say.. Constantinople - and cite sources, previous research, etc.. and then offer a different hypothesis on an event. To basically "disagree". Or does that "scare" them to hurt the feelings of that old Princeton professor who had a book on Constantinople a couple of years ago? Do they live out life like dropout hippies and simply "not care" about anything like this and just do chores for people for the rest of their lives?

[Slacker]

Fair enough.

Although, it sounds a bit unreal to not be a be able make corrections about facts. What does that mean exactly? Take for example, some friends at a table discussing "last year's Christmas" over dinner.. Lets say that someone goofs up on some recalling of an event. Is the Fi ego so "timid" and so concerned with "harmony" that they can't go "No.. no.. Bob was the one bought that present. Not Jim." Does that, like, "shake" up the Fi ego internally that they would go to their rooms privately and flog themselves with a leather belt? Or can make they make a correction if someone's using the wrong type of tool to solve a carpentry problem? Do they just sit and stare, worried that such a correction will insult the person and destroy a relationship..? Can they be teachers? Or any other kind of job where you correct on facts or say "No"? Can they write a book on.. say.. Constantinople - and cite sources, previous research, etc.. and then offer a different hypothesis on an event. To basically "disagree". Or does that "scare" them to hurt the feelings of that old Princeton professor who had a book on Constantinople a couple of years ago? Do they live out life like dropout hippies and simply "not care" about anything like this and just do chores for people for the rest of their lives?

That's not the kind of thing I've seen people argue about. It's more like, "Obama's health care bill will do X." "No it won't, you've got that wrong. It won't do X at all." I'm not going to argue about Obama's healthcare bill. They can have at it if they like to argue so much. And why would not wanting to argue about facts put you in a position where you'd have to do chores for people the rest of your life? I don't even see how that would follow.

[stray]

That's not the kind of thing I've seen people argue about. It's more like, "Obama's health care bill will do X." "No it won't, you've got that wrong. It won't do X at all." I'm not going to argue about Obama's healthcare bill. They can have at it if they like to argue so much. And why would not wanting to argue about facts put you in a position where you'd have to do chores for people the rest of your life? I don't even see how that would follow.

I wouldn't argue about health care either, but I think that's just my particular take on politics. I only asked about disagreement.. in the abstract. I'm taking hotelambush's post at face value, and like Ashton said, it leaves too much to the imagination. This is why I was being facetious with the comment about "chores". If someone didn't have positions or some area where they wanted a voice, then they'd either be invisible through life or pushed around into things only others want them to do.

[Exodus]

Fair enough.

Although, it sounds a bit unreal to not be a be able make corrections about facts. What does that mean exactly? Take for example, some friends at a table discussing "last year's Christmas" over dinner.. Lets say that someone goofs up on some recalling of an event. Is the Fi ego so "timid" and so concerned with "harmony" that they can't go "No.. no.. Bob was the one bought that present. Not Jim." Does that, like, "shake" up the Fi ego internally that they would go to their rooms privately and flog themselves with a leather belt? Or can make they make a correction if someone's using the wrong type of tool to solve a carpentry problem? Do they just sit and stare, worried that such a correction will insult the person and destroy a relationship..? Can they be teachers? Or any other kind of job where you correct on facts or say "No"? Can they write a book on.. say.. Constantinople - and cite sources, previous research, etc.. and then offer a different hypothesis on an event. To basically "disagree". Or does that "scare" them to hurt the feelings of that old Princeton professor who had a book on Constantinople a couple of years ago? Do they live out life like dropout hippies and simply "not care" about anything like this and just do chores for people for the rest of their lives?

The point is just that if you do correct someone's facts, you're using , so naturally logical types will be more confident at it and more likely to do it. Everyone uses all of the information elements, but with varying degrees of skill and comfort.

Saying "ethical types don't disagree with people" is way too vague and open-ended.

Bullshit, this is a strawman argument. I never said that.

[Exodus]

You didn't, nor do I suspect that's what you meant. I was just going off the implication straytk seemed to draw from it, and it's not difficult to see how/why it got interpreted that way.

ok, sorry.