[amnorvend]

I'm always a bit thrown off by ENTPs. At first, they just seem like a more outgoing version of an INTP. But then I debate one and I'm confronted with just how different we can be. In particular, ENTPs seem to dislike something about the way I debate things but never really seem to be able to put their fingers on what it is*.



One possibility: it seems to me that while an INTP's arguments might be a bit better (as we're constantly debating things in our own head), an ENTP is a bit better at putting their arguments in terms other people can understand (because they're constantly debating other people). So perhaps it's just that ENTPs feel we're using intellectual violence against them while we feel that they're trying to talk below us.

Do any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

* To be honest though, sometimes I think they just don't like losing!

[Tony Stark]

I'm always a bit thrown off by ENTPs. At first, they just seem like a more outgoing version of an INTP. But then I debate one and I'm confronted with just how different we can be. In particular, ENTPs seem to dislike something about the way I debate things but never really seem to be able to put their fingers on what it is*.

One possibility: it seems to me that while an INTP's arguments might be a bit better (as we're constantly debating things in our own head), an ENTP is a bit better at putting their arguments in terms other people can understand (because they're constantly debating other people). So perhaps it's just that ENTPs feel we're using intellectual violence against them while we feel that they're trying to talk below us.

Do any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

* To be honest though, sometimes I think they just don't like losing!

Wow, functional programming and intellectual violence in one article. I love it. Only an INTP or maybe ENTP could write that article, I'm pretty sure.

INTPs can be irritating in debate to ENTPs I think, because ENTPs are always looking at the big picture, and INTPs tend to return to the same thing if it isn't resolved to their satisfaction. The focus makes you better at that one area, but an ENTP is seeing so many bigger picture possibilities that we see that one narrow area as more and more irrelevant. This is my experience. It's Ti vs. Ne. You're seeking precision, we're seeking possibilities. We figure we'll work out the details later (even though we rarely do).

Yes, we definitely don't like losing a debate, but I think we're honest about when we are wrong, which is very rare .

[amnorvend]

Wow, functional programming and intellectual violence in one article. I love it. Only an INTP or maybe ENTP could write that article, I'm pretty sure.

INTPs can be irritating in debate to ENTPs I think, because ENTPs are always looking at the big picture, and INTPs tend to return to the same thing if it isn't resolved to their satisfaction. The focus makes you better at that one area, but an ENTP is seeing so many bigger picture possibilities that we see that one narrow area as more and more irrelevant. This is my experience. It's Ti vs. Ne. You're seeking precision, we're seeking possibilities. We figure we'll work out the details later (even though we rarely do).

Yes, we definitely don't like losing a debate, but I think we're honest about when we are wrong, which is very rare .

I see, so basically they feel how I feel when I debate an ESTJ. I just want to genuinely apologize on behalf of all INTPs for that.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, that also explains why I always hear "But how do you know that such and such isn't true?"

[Tony Stark]

I see, so basically they feel how I feel when I debate an ESTJ. I just want to genuinely apologize on behalf of all INTPs for that.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, that also explains why I always hear "But how do you know that such and such isn't true?"

I think ENTPs only feel the joy of debate. I think I can say I have had fun in any debate. By "irritating" I only mean that I'm a a bit frustrated when I can't draw someone into the debating in my playground of possibilities and am seemingly forced to debate in one spot. INTPs are intellectually challenging, so it's like the moth and flame.

[CJ99]

Its the details. All in the details. INTPs (especially ones with good Si) are brilliant nit pickers like ISTJs with an understanding on Ne so there nit picking is annoying other than that there pretty kool people to debate!

[sinistralpal]

I'm always a bit thrown off by ENTPs. At first, they just seem like a more outgoing version of an INTP. But then I debate one and I'm confronted with just how different we can be. In particular, ENTPs seem to dislike something about the way I debate things but never really seem to be able to put their fingers on what it is*.

One possibility: it seems to me that while an INTP's arguments might be a bit better (as we're constantly debating things in our own head), an ENTP is a bit better at putting their arguments in terms other people can understand (because they're constantly debating other people). So perhaps it's just that ENTPs feel we're using intellectual violence against them while we feel that they're trying to talk below us.

Do any of you guys have any thoughts on this?

* To be honest though, sometimes I think they just don't like losing!

Hm, this is an interesting point. I sometimes feel like I don't "get" INTP's...

The ENTP argues with whiskey straight in one hand, a tongue in one cheek, and a stream of profanity coming out the other side. We are gregarious to a fault, and when we are not verbally assaulting the opponent themselves, we are obliterating the argument on which they stand.

Personally, I think J-types are much more fun to debate and argue with because they have their plans methodically, agonizingly, structured and laid out. The ENTP will then go about to mind-fuck them with a rueful grin, and get bored after 10 minutes, leaving the J-type to question their argument and self worth.

Back to my point at hand about INTP's. They seem to be immune to our whirlwind approach, while still trying to take shit seriously. The ENTP argues with vulgarity and lude conduct for intimidation, making an obvious point, or just plain fun. The INTP seems to try to pinpoint the truthful grain of salt in our spiel and harass that, to which I get utterly confused at their profound missing of the point entirely, which 99.9% of the time is....sarcasm.

Sometimes debates just turn awkward, and I need to walk away.

[Loke]

INTPs I know don't like debating with me. Unlike most people, they do understand that I'm mostly just playing around with rhetoric tricks and semantics, but they don't like it.

[fn0rd]

as an NTJ, I love debating and having great conversations with INTPs... when I can hold their attention.

[dagnytaggart]

, we definitely don't like losing a debate, but I think we're honest about when we are wrong, which is very rare .

But what if two ENTPs have regular debates with one another?

[dagnytaggart]

In my experience, and perhaps that of a handful of INTPs, many ENTPs can be quite unproductive to seriously debate with.

When I'm in serious debate mode, I like to organize and lay out my facts and order them by recency, relevance and ability of persuasion. And then I'll think out my position and thoroughly construct my support for it. I prefer a methodical, careful approach to making decisions and persuading others to make the same ones.

The ENTPs and ENFPs I've 'debated' with tend to fly all over the place and tend to use a lot of rhetoric, articulate phrasing, fast talking and appeals to ridicule, novelty, etc. Like salesmen. It's commendable if you have a foundation to ground all the pizzazz to, but it's not a substitute for careful, objective research.

I tested professionally as an ENTJ, which I am clearly not, but I'm not such a textbook ENTP (or more specifically, its parody) that I become so wrapped up in the characteristics and their perceived merits that I can't see the flaws that a lot of them have.

INTPs, on the other hand, can also focus too much on the construction of an argument - except they seem to focus more on pointing out holes in their opponent's argument. They seem to argue on the defensive, if you will.