How each Quadra argues

[Cat King Cole]

In the interest of promoting harmony and civility between members of different quadras, I'm interested in discussing how each Quadra argues.

Let's start with Alpha, but I'd like other representatives of other Quadras to describe the terms upon which they argue.

For an Alpha, a debate is not exclusively about the topic we're debating, but the terms we're debating about, and upon which we're basing our assumptions. If I say religion is invalid, the discussion is not just about whether this is the case or not, but what "invalid" means.

Even once we're "certain", that "certainty" has a limit: we still always allow for our opinions to be wrong, opening up the possibility that we haven't considered something; up until the point we've built a perfectly defensible fortress of logic in our minds (Egbert and Labcoat are the best examples of this on the forum).

[FDG]

Alpha: my little pony and paedophilia are good

[Cat King Cole]

Yes, every Alpha's argument hinges on the assumptions of my little pony and pedophilia is a good thing.

We simply wish too penetrate the ideal of our childhood with our penis through the symbol of a woman's vagina. Makes perfect sense.

[rat1]

That sounds like what every debate is like.. people questioning assumptions and defining terms.\
ALpha: Bad ideas which they cant seem to grasp are bad ideas
Beta: Will argue with the agenda of causing a stir or entertaining themselves
Gamma: Argues the conservative, standard position
Delta: Takes the pussy route & acts offended

[pianosinger]

Deltas: We are passive-aggressive, making a pointed effort to avoid the "elephant in the room." We'd rather complain to an uninvolved third party, than bring up our issues with each other in person. I have observed this particularly in my mother- and father- in law (EII and SLI Activators); and also similar tendencies in myself towards each of them.

Interestingly, I have no problem bringing up personal issues with my ILI husband; it must be either because of our Quadra difference, or perhaps simply because he's my husband and I believe it's important for spouses to communicate and be honest and straightforward with each other.

[Skeptic]

You people are ridiculous. OP is trying to make exclusive to alpha commonalities of debates everywhere, crazedrat is exuding prejudices or trolling and so on.

[Jonathan]

That sounds like what every debate is like.. people questioning assumptions and defining terms.\
ALpha: Bad ideas which they cant seem to grasp are bad ideas
Beta: Will argue with the agenda of causing a stir or entertaining themselves
Gamma: Argues the conservative, standard position
Delta: Takes the pussy route & acts offended

This is not correct. Gamma has nothing to do with conservatism.

Here's a theory about how quadras might argue.
Te quadras externalize their reasoning and try to support their viewpoint with evidence. They're more likely to bring things down into "situational" chunks.

Ti quadras are more likely to state and expound upon their point of view and expect people to evaluate the entire thing as a whole.

But the Gamma = conservatism thing is wrong.

[Cat King Cole]

*Good debates.

I'm trying to figure out why I have irresolvable disagreements with people of other quadras, but not with those of my own.

[DividedsGhost]

*Good debates.

I'm trying to figure out why I have irresolvable disagreements with people of other quadras, but not with those of my own.

I'll tell you why. I try to discuss an idea that conflicts with your own and you take personal offense to it and make me look like fool. And I'm sitting there, with a person who is not only intellectually humiliating me, but has shown hostility instead of any kind of open appreciation for my observations or ideas that I wanted to share on friendly terms.

Now I know I have my faults and I'm sure I did something asshole-ish/quarrelsome too without realizing it, but that's how you've made me feel multiple times.

[rat1]

Conservative has a variety of meanings. The american political definition of conservative is so skewed. It isnt even real conservatism. In this context gammas are conservative within the debating process and in considering new viewpoints. I know that's true from debating them numerous times. They tend to take the common sense position. They like their books and citations, they aren't good with speculation and theory. They look at theory as a waste of time if it doesnt have some tangible application.

[Galen]

Even once we're "certain", that "certainty" has a limit: we still always allow for our opinions to be wrong, opening up the possibility that we haven't considered something; up until the point we've built a perfectly defensible fortress of logic in our minds (Egbert and Labcoat are the best examples of this on the forum).

Egbert being you? This is something I've noticed in you too at any rate.

I also notice that there's a tendency in Alpha, specifically the NTs, to set up a scheme of correlative logic by means of analogy. Normally this wouldn't annoy me, but what tends to annoy me about the Ti way of doing this is that they create their own basis for how the analogy is supposed to work, which goes back to what OP said about clarifying the basis for arguments. What annoys me about this is that firstly it feels like they ignore any other possible interpretations of the analogy, but more importantly it's like they're creating their own system for how the world is supposed to work. Then I'm not allowed to argue with them about it because it's their own system, and you can't argue the validity of the system because they've already proven that it's true to themselves.

The Niels Bohr quote against Einstein comes to mind: "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."

[Blaze]

Even once we're "certain", that "certainty" has a limit: we still always allow for our opinions to be wrong, opening up the possibility that we haven't considered something; up until the point we've built a perfectly defensible fortress of logic in our minds (Egbert and Labcoat are the best examples of this on the forum).

Egbert being you? This is something I've noticed in you too at any rate.

I also notice that there's a tendency in Alpha, specifically the NTs, to set up a scheme of correlative logic by means of analogy. Normally this wouldn't annoy me, but what tends to annoy me about the Ti way of doing this is that they create their own basis for how the analogy is supposed to work, which goes back to what OP said about clarifying the basis for arguments. What annoys me about this is that firstly it feels like they ignore any other possible interpretations of the analogy, but more importantly it's like they're creating their own system for how the world is supposed to work. Then I'm not allowed to argue with them about it because it's their own system, and you can't argue the validity of the system because they've already proven that it's true to themselves.

The Niels Bohr quote against Einstein comes to mind: "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."

hmmmmm. interesting. kind of like how Fi egos interpret the world of relationships based on their subjective feelings?

[krieger]

The Niels Bohr quote against Einstein comes to mind: "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."

Bohr was very likely an INTj himself. Ti types wrote the book on thinking apart from objective, standardized Te logic.

[DividedsGhost]

Even once we're "certain", that "certainty" has a limit: we still always allow for our opinions to be wrong, opening up the possibility that we haven't considered something; up until the point we've built a perfectly defensible fortress of logic in our minds (Egbert and Labcoat are the best examples of this on the forum).

Egbert being you? This is something I've noticed in you too at any rate.

I also notice that there's a tendency in Alpha, specifically the NTs, to set up a scheme of correlative logic by means of analogy. Normally this wouldn't annoy me, but what tends to annoy me about the Ti way of doing this is that they create their own basis for how the analogy is supposed to work, which goes back to what OP said about clarifying the basis for arguments. What annoys me about this is that firstly it feels like they ignore any other possible interpretations of the analogy, but more importantly it's like they're creating their own system for how the world is supposed to work. Then I'm not allowed to argue with them about it because it's their own system, and you can't argue the validity of the system because they've already proven that it's true to themselves.

The Niels Bohr quote against Einstein comes to mind: "No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical."

If I've done this I apologize because I know this is never going to be set in stone. But to think that you can just tell someone they are wrong without having any idea of your own about how something works just makes you an asshole. It's easy to tell someone you think they are wrong or just shit on them and show them how you believe or think they might be wrong; it's another to offer constructive criticism and supply better ideas.

What do you think happens Galen when people only supply deconstructive criticism? People get hostile and stop sharing ideas. This shouldn't be about dick wars. Aren't we all just really trying to better understand that which might not even be perfectly explainable?

[Galen]

If I've done this I apologize because I know this is never going to be set in stone. But to think that you can just tell someone they are wrong without having any idea of your own about how something works just makes you an asshole. It's easy to tell someone you think they are wrong or just shit on them and show them how you believe or think they might be wrong; it's another to offer constructive criticism and supply better ideas.

What do you think happens Galen when people only supply deconstructive criticism? People get hostile and stop sharing ideas. This shouldn't be about dick wars. Aren't we all just really trying to better understand that which might not even be perfectly explainable?

That post wasn't directed at any one person in particular, and I didn't intend for anybody to be offended. I'm just giving my subjective reaction to things I notice; I would have expected the same back really, although I admit that I probably went a bit too overboard with the personal sentiment.

hmmmmm. interesting. kind of like how Fi egos interpret the world of relationships based on their subjective feelings?

Even further, really. I'd even go so far to say that Fi egos interpret all of the world based on their subjective feelings. I find that in my argumentation, or even just in how I interact with people in general, I try to figure out the other person's intentions with the questions they ask: try to fit how they think or what makes them tick into a consolidated version of the person who's making the point. I'm sure this annoys the hell out of Ti egos too, lol. In the same way that I see Ti egos as bringing up bases for arguments on the spur of the moment, I'm sure Ti egos would see what I talked about as completely spontaneous and manipulative of the argument.