[Cheveyo]

QUESTION:



So do any of you ever argue for the sake of arguing? Like, just for fun?

Do you ever argue to feel out another person's intelligence?
I'm writing about an INTP/INTJ character right now and I'm wondering if testing another person's intelligence by taking a poor position in an argument is instinctual... Like pretending to be stupid in order to incite another person into arguing... I'm wondering if that ever happens in reality.

I used to argue for the sake of it, but found people tended to get all emotional and ruin the fun. So I stopped doing that years ago.


I normally don't care about a person's intelligence unless I'm expecting something from them or need to explain something to them. I do so by asking questions. If they've irritated me, I'll make them extremely simple questions. Ones that are most certainly going to annoy the other person.
If they haven't annoyed me, I'll explain something as simply as I can without being offensive.

Sometimes I'll take a stance entirely different than one I actually believe in just to get a person to see a point. Sometimes it works, other times they get all pissy and offended. I guess I can be rather intense without meaning to be. Sometimes they just think I'm some rambling idiot and ignore my points altogether.

It's like throwing a fast ball and the other person is on the plate, batting. Some people will swing at the ball and miss. Some will not even SEE the ball and just stand there with stupid expressions on their face. A few people will see the ball, see your point and hit a homer.
When that third thing happens, it's truly a wonderful feeling on my side.
"YES! THEY GET IT!"


If I find they know more than I am, I start asking questions.

I would never pretend to be stupid to incite an argument. I only ever feign ignorance when I've come to a conclusion that I'm not entirely certain about and need to fish about for more information. Usually, that only happens when dealing with people and their emotions.

[SapphireSarah]

I used to argue for the sake of it, but found people tended to get all emotional and ruin the fun. So I stopped doing that years ago.


I normally don't care about a person's intelligence unless I'm expecting something from them or need to explain something to them. I do so by asking questions. If they've irritated me, I'll make them extremely simple questions. Ones that are most certainly going to annoy the other person.
If they haven't annoyed me, I'll explain something as simply as I can without being offensive.

Sometimes I'll take a stance entirely different than one I actually believe in just to get a person to see a point. Sometimes it works, other times they get all pissy and offended. I guess I can be rather intense without meaning to be. Sometimes they just think I'm some rambling idiot and ignore my points altogether.

It's like throwing a fast ball and the other person is on the plate, batting. Some people will swing at the ball and miss. Some will not even SEE the ball and just stand there with stupid expressions on their face. A few people will see the ball, see your point and hit a homer.
When that third thing happens, it's truly a wonderful feeling on my side.
"YES! THEY GET IT!"


If I find they know more than I am, I start asking questions.

I would never pretend to be stupid to incite an argument. I only ever feign ignorance when I've come to a conclusion that I'm not entirely certain about and need to fish about for more information. Usually, that only happens when dealing with people and their emotions.

Sounds like you're fond of the socratic method. Very cool! Thanks for the info!

[Kilgore Trout]

Whenever I enter into disagreement with an associate of mine, I ask a few of my friends to pay the cock-sucka a visit with Louisville sluggers. I know a guy that can dispose the body. Let’s just say, it pays to be in waste management.

Sorry – I’ve been watching a lot of Sopranos recently.

I try not to be confrontational but I loathe the individuals that I have to walk around on egg shells whenever in their presence. I’m not one to manipulate people and argue for selfish reasons, but I will speak my mind when asked. I do enjoy debating in a friendly way, about existence and death and politics, as long as the other person does not take what I say personally. People seem so touchy nowadays, so I try to restrict my strange and radical ideas to the people I trust the most, or feel the most comfortable with. Sometimes I cannot prevent offending people, and I don’t go out of my way to act fake or nice, because I prefer to tell the truth or not speak at all.

[Randomblahnomina]

...and indiscriminate with the people whom you correct? Regardless of the position they're in (boss, parent, social superior) relative to you? Did you get in trouble with parents or authority figures for informing them of their incorrectness even though it is "not your place"? Did it bother you that some authority figures took an absolutist "the sky is blue if I say it is" attitude without any regard to rationality?

I did. And because of it, many people say I'm a know-it-all. It's not about getting my way. I just want them to see that they're wrong; we might come to a better understanding if they realize that they're being irrational. I would expect others to do the same for me if I am being irrational. My parents used to say that I would antagonize many people with this philosophy, and to some extent they were right. Why is being argumentative so bastardized?

I did this a lot when I was younger, but I sort of got socially conditioned to hold it in. You better bet that in my head, I'm constructing three different arguments as to why they're wrong, though. Trouble is, they probably wouldn't understand/listen, and I'd be the bad guy. Best to just keep my mouth shut, I figure.

[snail]

Yes. I am argumentative. I don't like creating disharmony for fun, and have trouble imagining how it could ever be enjoyable. I hate/fear conflict, but can't seem to avoid it while also remaining true to my convictions.

[Zol]

Nah I don't really like confrontations or arguments unless I'm going to get something out of it. I'm not going to just speak out on someone just to point out they're wrong, unless they ask my opinion that is. Otherwise I'll let them think what they want while I mock them in my own head. Arguments and confrontations are a waste of time to me, they'll find out sooner or later that they're wrong if they are, otherwise tough shit because I don't really care either way, as long as I know what's right.

[Fractals and Pterodactyls]

Not particularly. I tend to avoid conflicts and arguments if possible. However, if I have to do something or see people posting something that offends my ruling principles that I've set for myself, then I'll likely confront. One of the INTP profiles I read said that INTPs are adaptable until one of their principles has been violated. Then they are not adaptable at all!! That is definitely true for me.

[MidnightRose]

Not particularly. I tend to avoid conflicts and arguments if possible. However, if I have to do something or see people posting something that offends my ruling principles that I've set for myself, then I'll likely confront. One of the INTP profiles I read said that INTPs are adaptable until one of their principles has been violated. Then they are not adaptable at all!! That is definitely true for me.

I don't go with group thought, but think individually for myself as most of you seem to do. At times, I do let things go to be diplomatic such as if I work with a person or if they are a close friend or family member, but it does not mean that I change my view or my mind if logically that person does not make sense or don't present a good argument. Sometimes, I also pretend to concede so I can have more time to think about it later and reflect on the issue and make my own conclusion and associations.

I used to argue excessively to get my point made, but I don't do that as much anymore as some people don't get it, and unless they are directly affecting me or people just say something blatantly stupid, in which case, I will throw some facts out there and see if they get it or are truly open to discussion. If not, I move on as it's pointless to argue with close minded, ignorant or egotistical people. I read that more immature or underdeveloped INTPs, are argumentative. No offense. I used to be like that as well. As you get older and understand yourself more, the big picture and more intellectual and deeper things matter more. I care more about satisfying my intellectual and creative pursuits now than being right or making my point heard or agreed on.

From understanding self esteem psychology, I get the impression that some people argue or have a desire to assert themselves in arguments or the win arguments because that helps their self esteem and egos. After a while, I drop interaction with these people because I find that it is more beneficial to both parties to discuss things openly and not debate solely with an attitude to win, but to learn and to precisely express your point without being overly aggressive, competitive or argumentative. I gain little from such people (online and in the regular world) regardless of their type and find that they have few friends in life due to this antagonistic attitude or desire to be right.

I read that description (INTP Profile) about INTP's and their adaptability as well, and I agree with it.

INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to almost anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves.

The open-endedness (from Perceiving) conjoined with the need for competence (NT) is expressed in a sense that one's conclusion may well be met by an equally plausible alternative solution, and that, after all, one may very well have overlooked some critical bit of data. An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition. In this way INTPs are markedly different from INTJs, who are much more confident in their competence and willing to act on their convictions.

[2fast4u2]

...and indiscriminate with the people whom you correct? Regardless of the position they're in (boss, parent, social superior) relative to you? Did you get in trouble with parents or authority figures for informing them of their incorrectness even though it is "not your place"? Did it bother you that some authority figures took an absolutist "the sky is blue if I say it is" attitude without any regard to rationality?

I did. And because of it, many people say I'm a know-it-all. It's not about getting my way. I just want them to see that they're wrong; we might come to a better understanding if they realize that they're being irrational. I would expect others to do the same for me if I am being irrational. My parents used to say that I would antagonize many people with this philosophy, and to some extent they were right. Why is being argumentative so bastardized?

Ive learned to take the Socratic approach. I no longer seek to correct people, rather, through a series of questions, seek for them to correct themselves..

It has yet to fail me, and is free of arrogance, because you are asking a question(s), not professing to know something, of which incites inferiority in lesser intellectual types. You will come to know this eventually.. I try not to profess, but people blind me with their defiant reluctance to "think".....

edit: I almost forgot.. Never correct someone, if you can help it, in front of other human beings. This is illusionary in that you need an audience and as such are merely catering your own ego, thus rendering your injunction "unknowable" to the person you are "correcting" and their ego will alert them to this..

In private, in a calm manner, with questions that evolve the answer, help them arrive at your logic.. I dont work for anyone because of this.

[Deanna]

you guys have been a great help! So when someone wins a debate against you or argues pretty efficiently, are you impressed?

Smitten, actually.

If I find a good sparring partner it's like finding a fascinating puzzle that you can't put down. My eyes light up, I give an appreciative laugh at well played points and if the debate is unresolved, I'll come back to it hours or days later with counterpoints. I'll actually use the phone (INTPs are noted for hating phone convos) and leave a message with no greeting or salutation, just a counterpoint. If they actually win the debate or take me to a draw it kind of takes my breath away. I'm honestly a little embarrassed and humbled, but their esteem in my eyes raises dramatically.

I had an entire relationship based around a debate. The debate lasted longer than the relationship and was ultimately more satisfying.