[Le9acyMuse]

Just had a debate with my mother. She got sore and began belittling my viewpoints. It got me to thinking: it is a trend in how people put others down for standing for differing causes, or for committing certain acts. Do you notice it in anyone else, or even yourself?

I refer to:

name calling
condemnation
fabricating stories
ad hominem attacks
doubting for the sake of doubt
baiting with sarcasm or other derogative devices
insulting one's intelligence
avoiding an issue with counter-accusations
deferring to tradition as proof enough to support your opinions
or any combination of these...

It seems hot spots for these methods are rampant in religion, law, general disputes, politics and social change. It's a wonder how the above arguments are made and taken seriously by large groups of people. It's scary. Pointing it out doesn't seem to do the job, and it continues to die hard. Why? Why do people emotionally isolate themselves from others enough to create cycles of hate? Why does it run society? Why is there denial of this? How does it survive?

Is it because the right words are unspeakable? The right actions undoable? What?

[Enfpleasantly]

I think it's because certain actions/topics can bring out certain emotions, or touch sore spots (namely the ego) with a sting. They then lash out at whatever caused or exacerbated this feeling inside of them and try to hurt their opponent in the same way, or worse. It's basically highly concentrated projection of themselves. Sometimes people unintentionally touch these sore spots, other times people know exactly what they are doing and like to push buttons.

This is not a "feeler" thing btw, I know a lot of "thinkers" who have very fragile egos and react with these techniques when their ego is threatened. Just thought I'd throw that in there since I know how this forum can get sometimes when it comes to emotional responses in people..."feelers" usually get the fingers pointed in their direction.

[Larxene]

Feeling is a function that processes values. Thinking is a process that processes logic and reason. Our emotions reveal what we value most. But the Thinking function does not take values into account but simply simply determines whether the logic is consistent, the Thinking function is less likely to evoke emotional reactions.

Hence, Feelers are more likely to react emotionally.

However, because humans have both the Thinking and Feeling functions, Thinkers can also react emotionally when their values are violated.

We should also consider that although Thinkers are less likely to evoke their emotions, when they do evoke them, it may come out in extreme bursts.


As for the OP's question, one reason could be because it is more effective at derailing (called a red herring) an opponent's unrebuttable argument (as presented at that time) than anything else human beings can find. Our emotional brain centres are more developed than our logical brain centres. Provoking our emotions can lead us to defend ourselves instead of defending our arguments, which is what losing opponents want to do.

Another reason would be that the person is emotionally distressed by having his argument rebutted, as he is emotionally invested in it. This, whether consciously or subconsciously, leads him to feel that he is attacked instead of his argument, and leads him to attack the other person in turn. It's a projection thing.

[Enfpleasantly]

Feeling is a function that processes values. Thinking is a process that processes logic and reason. Our emotions reveal what we value most. But the Thinking function does not take values into account but simply simply determines whether the logic is consistent, the Thinking function is less likely to evoke emotional reactions.

Hence, Feelers are more likely to react emotionally.

However, because humans have both the Thinking and Feeling functions, Thinkers can also react emotionally when their values are violated.

We should also consider that although Thinkers are less likely to evoke their emotions, when they do evoke them, it may come out in extreme bursts.


As for the OP's question, one reason could be because it is more effective at derailing (called a red herring) an opponent's unrebuttable argument (as presented at that time) than anything else human beings can find. Our emotional brain centres are more developed than our logical brain centres. Provoking our emotions can lead us to defend ourselves instead of defending our arguments, which is what losing opponents want to do.

Another reason would be that the person is emotionally distressed by having his argument rebutted, as he is emotionally invested in it. This, whether consciously or subconsciously, leads him to feel that he is attacked instead of his argument, and leads him to attack the other person in turn. It's a projection thing.

And when a person's ego is what they value most, you can be sure to see emotional responses like crazy from the person...thinker or feeler has nothing to do with that. A lot of people get ticked off when they think someone is trying to make them look stupid (ego again), it doesn't have to be a personal attack, simply being wrong or being perceived as wrong can evoke emotional responses in people.

[Larxene]

It does have to do with being a Feeler or Thinker. For Thinkers, thoughts about whether something is true or false predominates their mind. For Feelers, thoughts about whether is something is right or wrong predominates their mind. This part of the cognitive function functions autonomously.

Hence, because right/wrong depends on values (and emotions reveal our values) and true/false does not, Feelers are more likely to react emotionally and create emotional arguments. Notice I said 'more likely', and this must be interpreted with care.

No one knows for certain what that probability is, and it certainly varies from individual to individual. All we can say is that, generally: P(Feeler reacts emotionally) > P(Thinker reacts emotionally).

The reason why you might think that there is no correlation between Judgment function and emotionality is due the effects of individual differences. Thinkers put into 'emotional' environments are more likely to develop their Feeling function more than Thinkers put into an optimal environment for Thinkers. Thinkers with brain abnormalities (e.g. lower metabolic activity in the prefrontal cortex is related to impulsivity and lack of self-restrain) will probably behave more emotionally than Thinkers without brain abnormalities.

These are just two examples that make it difficult to determine the correlation.


Also, as I mentioned, when a Thinker's values are violated, they may react emotionally as well. For example, a Enneagram Type 5 Thinker has the basic desire to achieve competency. If his arguments are constantly refuted without him being able to do anything about it, he would probably react by using the bad ways of creating arguments, such as ad hominems and red herrings. This is because his competency (and hence his value) is threatened.



EDIT: Regarding my first example on individual differences, note also that the US population has more Feelers than Thinkers. This would affect how Thinkers are raised and may elevate emotionality.

[Le9acyMuse]

Thanks, you guys. Makes a lot of sense. We should consider that people are the same. Thinking or Feeling functions will only vary the way one expresses their judgments. Feelers are more apt to express themselves openly. Thinkers express themselves just as much, but within the constraints of sequential thought. While a Feeler can often be transparent and ostensive in their disliking, Thinkers can often be undermining and self-righteous. And both can be pushed to the edge and explode. Thinkers aren't more sensible as Feelers aren't more sensitive. Those are characteristics more than static interaction styles. Spiteful Thinkers and firm Feelers are common combos.

My mom deeeffffiiinitely projected in the conversation. I even made that clear to her. She very well may have been agitated due to a sore spot being touched. And she very well may have felt her invested values being threatened. This either means I should expect and be prepared to defend against bad arguments or that I should find another way to make my points. Why do people develop sore spots or invest so much into ideas enough to destroy other people?

Such below-the-belt behavior seems pandemic. This is what revolutions are made of, right: effecting a large-scale confrontation on touchy issues people become too proud to reconsider? But how does it start? I think of Joan of Arc and Martin Luther King Jr. at times like these where people make me feel foolish for speaking up.

[sprinkles]

I do it mainly from getting annoyed by having to waste my time rehashing things over and over again trying to get some sense out of the person, though I try pretty hard not to get too deep in it.

Most of the time it isn't a person's views that get to me, it is their justification (or lack of) and presentation of these views and their coherence. I also dislike passing off opinions as something other than an opinion.

I'd be willing to accept any valid position if a coherent justification comes along with it, and have retracted my own positions at times when they were shown to be not justified.

[timeless]

Is it because the right words are unspeakable? The right actions undoable? What?

I think it's because sometimes, people will know what conclusion they want to reach, but they're not sure how to get there. So when they're pressed on it, they react in the manner you described because they can't fill the gap.

[GloriousEnd314]

Two possible causes for such behavior (in my opinion):

- One is so deeply invested within a worldview/position on many levels that any reasonable argument against that position is taken as a personal attack when none was intended; these types of people can't bear to contemplate or (sometimes) live in reality should they consider the possibility of their position to be wrong.

- The person firmly believes that they are right but has difficulty conveying their arguments in a clear and expressive fashion to their opponent; they cannot convince their opponents and start to feel helpless when put on the line. Almost always, the result is intense frustration and thus the person in the debate starts throwing personal attacks for the sake of emotional and intellectual security regarding his position.

So, unless they're trolling, people who exhibit the list of traits that you mentioned in the OP are usually performing a self-defense mechanism.

[MNiS]

I don't believe it's ever acceptable to belittle someone. It's counter-productive and in a relationship environment it would be considered negging. If you need to be negative to someone constructive criticism is what one should achieve when providing feedback.