Types in Verbal Combat
"Verbal combat": what a great way to describe argument.
Anyway, I was contemplating this recently. I think that NTs, particularly those with Ti in the ego, are far more likely to attack the argument, and talk about how the argument is shit, and how the reasoning for the argument is poor etc., than are those who have, for example, Fe or Fi in the ego, who would probably take the attack personally; "you prick!", "stick up for yourself!" etc.
My natural instinct is to analyze the hell out of a person's motivations. If someone's attacked me, my first response is that I pull apart why they're doing that, why they're acting the way they do, what they want to achieve, what they're projecting etc.
But I don't act on my first instinct. I know a lot of people HATE having their motivations analyzed - and if I'm right, it's often quite a hurtful thing to hear your insecurities thrown at you. That, and philosophy class, where I learnt that the strongest way to attack an argument is on its own grounds, means I usually mimic whatever the other person is doing.
There are three stages in any argument/attack for me:
1. I am stunned at being attacked and walk away.
2. They're irritating me and I'm over my initial shock. Now I'm responding in kind. If they attack my logic, I attack theirs. If they point out my fallacious reasoning, I point out their untenable premises. If they use empirical evidence to falsify what I'm saying, I will research until I have countering evidence. If they scream at me, I will scream back.
3. Finally, they've broken my patience, my defenses and I've lost my temper and let it out: what I think of them as a person, of their motivations, their insecurities, their character. I give free reign to my instinctive reactions and rip into them as a person.
Only one person in my life has pushed me to stage 3.
(
)
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
On this forum, I've rarely argued in an analytical way, because the people I find myself arguing with the most won't listen anyway.
1) I try to understand if the person I am speaking with will read and take in consideration what I am writing
2) if 1) = yes, then I will try to write a cogent, both logically and factually correct response
if 1) = no, then I will either say nothing, or might insult the person if I think he-she is being exceptionally unreasonable (examples: Phaedrus and Niffweed)
As the argument progresses, I might try to pick logical fallacies in my "opponent" argumentation - although I do not like this style, mainly because I feel like I am on the reatreat when I have to revert to finding fault in other's responses rather than give support to my own points.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Hmm -- perhaps some of them just think you're wrong and feel they should say what they think is correct?Originally Posted by unefille
Perhaps they don't see it as an attack at all?
Yes. I think - mostly because of the later responses - that I misinterpreted the OP. The words 'verbal combat' made me think of hostile and aggressive situations, so I responded thinking how I would respond in a hostile situation. I don't pretend to find myself in these situations very often, but I have sometimes been caught in them. My responses are not always admirable, but I am trying to analyze how I respond honestly, rather than to simply think that I would always, ideally, be rational and open-minded.
I also attach a different meaning to argument, which is aggressive, to discussion. If I am arguing with you, I have already imported a degree of personal investment and probably annoyance. I don't like to argue and I'm not particularly fond of engaging in arguments for the sake of it.
Discussion on the other hand I am open to and enjoy a great deal. It's why I am now spending a lot of spare time here (although some of the threads are not...what I would consider discussions per se). Discussion is what I see as what you referred to - where the person has an open and sincere disagreement with something I have said and wishes to bring that mistake to my attention. Discussion is rational, because what is at stake is a genuine interest in the intellectual merits of the subject matter. I'm part of numerous discussion groups at university, enjoy a lot of engaging seminars and even welcome critique from certain parties whom I respect and who are sincere in their criticism, like my current supervisor. The more bluntly expressed, the better, because you get to the point faster. Nevertheless, bluntness is not rudeness and rudeness begins to put me offside.
I think (others may disagree) that I have strong Fi and one function of that is that I know when someone genuinely wants to discuss and 'argue' or is being argumentative and attacking.
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
I disagree. I highly doubt all Fe or Fi ego types react to arguments by being offended and attacking someone personally.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
No, that is clearly false. NTs with Te in the ego are far more likely to do just that. This is another very obvious example of the fact that you have an incorrect view on what Ti is and what Ti types are like. You have demonstrated this misunderstanding in many posts on various occasions, and this misunderstanding has caused you to mistype some people.
It depends. A Ti ego type will probably focus primarily on the reasoning (at least in a natural inclination sort of way), and possibly throw in some insults. A Te ego type may come off as more dry and indifferent to the emotional aspect of the argument. An Fe ego type may be more prone to attempting to manipulate the emotional atmosphere in order to make the opponent look stupid or angry. Not that they wouldn't focus on logic (i.e. me, who is most likely INFp, but would focus on logic), but would probably do the emotional manipulation a little more naturally. Once they have pissed off their opponent, revealed their motives, or anything of the like, they have gained control and logic doesn't even matter. Sometimes an Fe ego types emotional games are a compensation for underdeveloped logic functions though. And sometimes a Ti ego type's attempts at Fe games come off as highly miscalculated and silly.
4w3-5w6-8w7
I don't argue, I let the facts speak for themselves.
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
What if there aren't enough compelling facts at hand?
What if you're arguing a personal conviction?
What if the facts don't matter (i.e. arguing the logic behind something rather than the objective aspects of what it is)?
4w3-5w6-8w7
Then find more facts.
I can't think of any activity that simulates banging your head against a wall more than arguing personal convictions with someone else.What if you're arguing a personal conviction?
You still need facts for logic.What if the facts don't matter (i.e. arguing the logic behind something rather than the objective aspects of what it is)?
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
i'll bet he doesn't even get himself into those kinds of arguments.counterproductive for him.
They flail their arms about, grunting and throwing feces.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
That's McCain talking, he's controlling your brain again!
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
I don't like arguing because I've found that the majority of people I've engaged in arguments with take the argument much too personally/seriously or they are arguing just to win, which generally means they do not care what I am saying and will never open their minds to another point of view = 99% of arguments are pointless so why waste my time.
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.
John Muir
Get him out of my mind!
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I find some girls like to take innocous things as an insult.
my favorite conversations are ones where we discuss some concept indepth going in and out and over and around and through the logic of it all. this is much easier irl because we can bounce all ideas off of each other and each other's ideas and such.
what irks me is when i realize that the other is going to take offense to something being presented. that slows, if not stops, the flow of the ideas and understanding. if it's someone i know well enuf, i'll preface for them, but i prefer not to.
this is my natural, normal "know it all" me that some don't like because i'm pretty blunt with my ideas, opinions etc. unfortunately, some take it that i think they should think what i do on a given subject. but that's not what i'm doing. i like to get a lot of ideas "out there" to get the other and me thinking in new directions because anything is possible.
i can't do this very well on the internet because the ideas and thoughts come too fast to put into words to type them and then wait for a response from someone else. my mind has moved on to 15 other things by then.
so, here, you guys only see me one way because that's the easiest to do on the internet. putting my own natural logical ideas together happens easier in a conversation or when i write my ebooks, articles, a website or in a coaching session. or in how i organize my thoughts on what i do with my kids, my life...my inner thoughts on things.
on another note, hubby and i don't really argue. we're so straight up with each other before it gets to that. not that we agree on everything but we are very good at agreeing to disagree without having to argue. come to think of it, others MAY see it as arguing but for us, it isn't. it's us airing things out and we both know it's not personal when we do because we don't attack each other's inner person, inner feelings, character, etc. we care about each other too much in the big picture to do that to the other. so, we air out our thoughts, feelings and ideas on things so we always make sure we're on the same page as we go along together in life, with each other, our family, etc...and then can get on with the business of life, the joy of life together.
i wish i could do that with everyone. neither of us find friends who we can really do that with. i'll have to work on manifesting that one.
I'm pretty convinced of you being some alpha or beta, possibly an Fe ego type (the way you described "airing" your thoughts and whatnot seemed more like you were looking for Ti clarity from external sources rather than having definite confidence in it, like I would expect a Ti ego type to do).
4w3-5w6-8w7
thanks strrrng.
i'm not sure what i'm looking for this way...but, i'm the one who demanded from my hubby from the beginning that he tell me what he is feeling on things so we can deal with them. i'm the one who takes his feelings and analyzes and structures and clarifies what to do to remedy them. he wouldn't be able to do that to save his life. he's too busy enjoying the moment and lightening the mood.
hmm...when you say you demanded him to tell you his feelings on things, were you referring to emotional contexts (i.e. "how does this really affect you?") or just his general disposition on a given situation? Because the former could suggest you taking up the slack on what could be his weak Fi. But then you say you analyze and structure them. Were you just speaking generally? It could make sense for some ethical type to do this, but the structuring analysis would probably be done in a different way than what the conventional definition would suggest. He couldn't what, analyze/understand his feelings to save his life? It seems like he has weak and possibly unvalued Fi. I don't want to make anything out of the last sentence lol, but the stereotype suggests that type of attitude resembles alphas best.
Ever considered ENTp for your hubby?
4w3-5w6-8w7
Sounds to me your hubby is Ni and Fe valuing. You are helping him focus his Ni and keep him grounded and in touch with you emotionally. Something he surely appreciates. Him being busy living in the moment and 'ligthening the mood' sounds Fe too.
I like to do what you are doing too. I like to get a lot of ideas out there and reason them through using my 'logic', which just as you say often is misunderstood by other people who take it too literally. But when you are with someone who 'get' what you are saying and the ideas keep coming extremely fast and the other party can keep up with the discussion there are few things better.
Sounds like you get a 'crimp' in the Fe when the other is about to take offence/misunderstands where you are going. This often stops me from even trying to open a discussion with other people because I know they won't 'get' what I am going after. If I try the discussion will be slow and ponderous (almost painfully so) and they hardly ever truly get my point in all it's aspects.
INFp
If your sea chart does not match reality, go with reality (Old mariner saying)
i was actually thinking me as ENTp and him as ISFp.
we just got off the phone where he got all emotional, reading between the lines, about something that he has to do with his mom's estate and taxes and the legality of investments and such. i am the one who calms him down that way by explaining the logic of exactly what is meant by the lawyers comments how that affects what he has to do, on and on.
he is the one who helps me with Si stuff and I help him to see the logical big picture and what actions to take to make those ideas come to fruition.
he reminds me of a mixture of bg and lv, a sentimental, feel good, have a good time and laugh guy. i'm the analyzer, deep thinker who enjoys him helping me to take life simpler.
Wait a minute here. Are we talking about an argument or an attack? If someone attacks me I pick apart their attack and then strike back. Or I'll mock them if I think their attempt is just pathetic.
But in an argument...that's an argument. There's no need for emotionality; that simply undermines the premise of the debate. If you can be louder or more insulting it doesn't prove your point. Perhaps something important to consider is the affects of sub-type. For instance, you might compare Steve or myself in argument compared to someone like Riddy. Steve and I, Ti-subs, tend to remain uninvested in our arguments on an emotional level outside of emphasizing our intent. We'll argue the point to death, and we may lose patience with people who are totally unreceptive, but we never resort to direct attacks on the individual. Compare that to Riddy, an object-sub, who seems to get caught up in the argument a lot faster, and is a lot quicker to follow along when the argument degenerates to insulting and personal attacks.
Something to consider?
ILE
7w8 so/sp
Very busy with work. Only kind of around.
Your reactions to merky (mercutio) in stickam suggest otherwise. He "attacks" you on a regular basis but I don't see you picking apart his logic (which he keeps to himself anyway) or striking back. Don't you consider his attempt pathetic? If so, how come you don't mock him?
Agreed.But in an argument...that's an argument. There's no need for emotionality; that simply undermines the premise of the debate. If you can be louder or more insulting it doesn't prove your point.
I think this comparison is hasty and, on the whole, incorrect. I disagree that you and Steve are emotionally uninvested in your arguments - quite the opposite actually. You may not run around like a mentally unstable beta NF, insulting everyone in sight, but you do react emotionally and seem to be offset (both of you) if someone contradicts you with the slightest undertone of aggression. And the fact that you're a Ti sub and Riddy is an Ne sub makes little difference in my mind. What it comes down to is how detached a person can be, and how much confrontation (within reason) they can handle.Perhaps something important to consider is the affects of sub-type. For instance, you might compare Steve or myself in argument compared to someone like Riddy. Steve and I, Ti-subs, tend to remain uninvested in our arguments on an emotional level outside of emphasizing our intent. We'll argue the point to death, and we may lose patience with people who are totally unreceptive, but we never resort to direct attacks on the individual. Compare that to Riddy, an object-sub, who seems to get caught up in the argument a lot faster, and is a lot quicker to follow along when the argument degenerates to insulting and personal attacks.
4w3-5w6-8w7
isn't what i said here me being the Ti and him being the Fe?
...otherwise, i try to avoid arguments with others whom i can tell will start being all feelery and not logical about what is being discussed. and i don't care for when someone attacks me personally from the get go. i know that to go on with the conversation from there won't work. sometimes i will and i'll come back with logic and it sucks because they usually come back with more feelery shit and i come back with more logic and then they don't like that i'm not responding back to their feelings.
and maybe my idea of logic isn't socionics logic, don't know.
Yeah, I know. I think this partly has to do with the verbal and emotional aspects of interaction, i.e. you want to keep a clear focus on the verbal accuracy and it pisses you off when someone prioritizes their emotions over that, and it's even more infuriating when they verbally insult you (as opposed to just a negative emotional undertone).
I'm hesitant to attribute this to a socionics type, though, as I've seen ethical types out-reason logical types on numerious occasions.
4w3-5w6-8w7
.
I prefer to avoid verbal combat. If there's some sort of dispute or confrontation, I generally try to remain calm, collected, and objective. I try to find the root problem so as to discover and implement a win-win solution.
Rarely do I see these situations as having "sides", and I pretty much never see it something that one person/group "wins" by defeating the other, and the other person/group "loses".
If events escalate to cause further problems, then both people lose (even if one of them was technically correct or right). If a solution is found and implemented, then both people win. Agreeing to disagree is a form of winning. The only win-lose situation that can occur would be that one person moves on (hopefully having learned something from what happened) but the other remains caught up in his/her hostility or need to be right.
+10, i am all for win/win as well as agreeing to disagree. it's an aspect to my parenting classes i teach.
Different types have different arguing styles? Hmm. Well one would really have to make me mad in order for me to attack someone personally. I always attack the argument. I look down on ad hominem attacking.
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
You clearly are talking shit nowSubterranean: I think you should give this up. You're clearly being supervised due to your poor apphrehension ofIs the reason
are all irrational types because they are based on an instinctive, primitive mode of living, while
8000
4w3-5w6-8w7
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
