Types in Verbal Combat

[strrrng]

"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.

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.

[xyz]

I don't argue, I let the facts speak for themselves.

[strrrng]

I don't argue, I let the facts speak for themselves.

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)?

[xyz]

What if there aren't enough compelling facts at hand?

Then find more facts.

What if you're arguing a personal conviction?

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 the facts don't matter (i.e. arguing the logic behind something rather than the objective aspects of what it is)?

You still need facts for logic.

[strrrng]

Then find more facts.

Yes, but you don't always have enough time to keep searching for facts.

I'm not trying to nitpick, I just thought you sort of over-simplified it.

[mikemex]

I hate discussing with Fe/Ti types. They rarely care about the discussion; they are generally more concerned about "winning" it. It's fairly classical when it comes to SEIs and ILEs. You can even notice how the SEIs here introduced the "+1" expression, etc.

I specially hate when they throw what they think is a "devastating" argument and won't allow you to even reply to it, starting to scream and such. I bet it usually happens when such an argument creates a Fe connection and they don't want you to break it; even if they don't really ever cared to check whenever the argument was that great in the first place.

[Khamelion]

I enjoy verbally sparing, however I'm not that articulate sometimes so I need to do it with someone who is patient and not nit-pick about words I choose.

And I actually am more likely to get angry with argument styles and habits more than the actually subject of the argument. For example, I cannot stand it when someone says, "You're just think that because of this!!!" As if that makes them win.

I don't JUST think something for one singular reason, at least not when it comes to a serious opinion on something. stfu.

Another thing I don't like is when someone is arguing with you purely to win, rather than come to the truth of the matter or a mutual conclusion and understanding. I dont see the point in an argument other than to promote truth and mutual understanding.

[Wynch]

And I actually am more likely to get angry with argument styles and habits more than the actually subject of the argument. For example, I cannot stand it when someone says, "You're just think that because of this!!!" As if that makes them win.

I don't JUST think something for one singular reason, at least not when it comes to a serious opinion on something. stfu.

You just think that because you're ethical and weak.

[DirectorAbbie]

I love arguing! I also love changing the subject. I've had some interresting conversations, although not many things actually get resolved.

[Joy]

When a person's levels of norepinephrine are low, their brain will try to find ways to increase levels of epinephrine (adrenalin). One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to create drama/arguing/heated debates. Some people get addicted to this form of self-medication.

In other words, some people like to argue because it provides a certain type of stimulation that they otherwise don't get enough of.

[Satan]

When a person's levels of norepinephrine are low, their brain will try to find ways to increase levels of epinephrine (adrenalin). One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to create drama/arguing/heated debates. Some people get addicted to this form of self-medication.

In other words, some people like to argue because it provides a certain type of stimulation that they otherwise don't get enough of.

I don't relaly see why poeple wouldn't enjoy it.

It's kind of like people who don't like to eat. They go fucking crazy, anorexic, and they still don't eat.

Some people need to argue more.

[FDG]

When a person's levels of norepinephrine are low, their brain will try to find ways to increase levels of epinephrine (adrenalin). One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to create drama/arguing/heated debates. Some people get addicted to this form of self-medication.

In other words, some people like to argue because it provides a certain type of stimulation that they otherwise don't get enough of.

I doubt everything can be related to deeply rooted causes in the brain. Sometimes people argue just because there's someting to argue about, it's too easy to say that they're becoming heated because they have low levels of norepinephrine.

[dbmmama]

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)?

i'll bet he doesn't even get himself into those kinds of arguments. counterproductive for him.