A negativist, right?
ILI may be the typical favorite, but I could see LII somewhat, and perhaps the delta STs if they care about a matter. What do you think?
I ask because I find myself playing that role a bit a lot lately.
Printable View
A negativist, right?
ILI may be the typical favorite, but I could see LII somewhat, and perhaps the delta STs if they care about a matter. What do you think?
I ask because I find myself playing that role a bit a lot lately.
What do you think about this:
- an ILI would be most critical of emotional high situations that are obtrusive to facts or cold logic (Fe polr)
- an LSE would be most critical of vague or unplanned out situations that may lead to poor execution (Ni polr)
Almost like they would be especially prone to attacking weak areas that their polr embody.
I used to play devil's advocate all the time. Usually just for fun, for the sake of pushing the other person further in their thought process and get them to hash out their idea. My husband hates it when I do this because he takes it personally and feels like I am refusing to agree with him out of stubbornness or something. :8* I don't do it much anymore.
Well, for what's worth, I am very critical of both of those things. Also, my mom used to tell me as a kid just how much (she thinks) I enjoy playing devil's advocate with people. So, yeah, I'm prone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Courage
I play devil's advocate quite frequently.
No... ENTps do that.
I love playing Devil's Advocate :P - I can make people lose the will to live.
ILI, to uncover the truth
You don't have to play Devil's Advocate to make ME lose the will to live. Just keep using those psychotic avatars and I'll get there eventually. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
:( I'm sorry to hear that - I wish there was an easy solution to this problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron
I agree. Your avatars are freakish. :P Except for the one before this one. Though PPOD's are possibly worse.
Fine, I'll change it.
oh yes, that is a definite improvement.
It is better actually. WAY better than that other one with the cloak. Three avatars ago, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think now and again I might play devil's advocate, but only if I'm interested in exploring a subject in discussion; I don't ever do it just for the sake of arguing.
Playing Devil's Advocate is my favorite thing in the entire world. If someone would sit in front of me and make questionable assertions all day, I would be the happiest person to ever have walked the planet Earth.
That is insane.
No, this is insane:Quote:
Originally Posted by Birds
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5974/abccc4.jpg
//This program does nothing.
import java.util.*; /*This imports the java utility class. It does nothing in this program. */
public class do_nothing { //This is the class do_nothing. It does nothing.
public static void main(String[] woo_a_cheeseburger) { /*This is the main method. It does nothing. */
} /* This is the closing bracket of the main method. As you can see there are no commands in the main method. */
} /* This is the closing bracket of the class do_nothing. As you can see the class has no commands. */
//This concludes the program.
ENTps seem to like to do that very much. They love to argue and will often take whatever side is likely to get them into an argument. :lol:
Ehhhh...that might be a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
I don't do it, and I hate when other people do it, because I always assume they're being serious.
Could be, but I doubt it. It's counterintuitive for a person to play devil's advocate in response to a POLr attack. To play devil's advocate well, a person must be able to explore an entire problem without bias, turning ideas upsidedown, shifting frameworks, seeming to hold onto one idea but then throwing it aside to present another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Courage
Qualities of an effective arguer:
-has intuitive vision/scope of entire problem
-sees various parts of a problem - how they work separately and together
-able to move around various parts of a problem while predicting the effect on the whole (or the new set of answers which emerge each time)
-good memory, not necessarily of specific facts, but of the general direction/impact of thought processes (to bring back previous points) in argument
- tendency towards detachment / emotional restraint. NOT PERSONALLY INVESTED IN THE ISSUE AT HAND OR CAN VERY EASILY TOSS ONES PERSONAL INVESTMENT OUT IN FAVOR OF THE LARGER INVESTMENT, which generally involves the ongoing search for a "truer" truth. (this is the reason i'd question that a person would be most likely to play devil's advocate in response to a POLr attack).
If you plan on playing Devil's Advocate, never preface any of your statements with "Now if you do not mind me playing Devil's Advocate here..." If you want to play Devil's Advocate and yet you throw up the "Playing Devil's Advocate" disclaimer, no one is going to take your advocation seriously. Your advocation will be ignored and it will be dismissed. So if you want to advocate for the Devil, you are going to have to go into the conversation by letting people think that this is what you believe, that you are right, and that you can and will argue for it.
INFPs seem to do it often.
Personally I find it slightly annoying.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say - and it is possible to actually discover something new.
To everything there is a season,Quote:
Originally Posted by anamericancer
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.
PS I have read that sometimes ESFJs feel obliged to cook up an answer even when they do not really have anything to say. :wink: