# "How To Win Every Argument"



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Manticore said:


> So?
> In that case just manipulate their emotions instead of their arguments.
> If anything its easier than bending logic.


That's what politicians do 

One of the problems in our culture (U.S.) is just that, our entire news media network and political campaigns run on manipulating emotions, and most people don't even understand what a _logical_ argument is, if they understand what the word logic itself even means. Maybe it's just the US school system but I don't remember ever learning anything about logic or the keys to developing a rational and logical argument; just a never ending memorization of facts. I had to go out on my own to learn through voluntary reading and listening to lectures online in order to get a real grasp on it, among a lot of time contemplating, and we all know most people just don't bother, for they're able to get by just fine without givin' a shit about books n stuff.

Not to mention we treat people's opinions as if they're sacred:frustrating::dry:.


Anyway, after some "extensive" research, here's how to win arguments: If just want to win for the sake of winning, manipulate their emotions and twist their logic around in order to confuse the audience; if you want to win legitimately, be right.


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

Roland787 said:


> That's what politicians do
> 
> One of the problems in our culture (U.S.) is just that, our entire news media network and political campaigns run on manipulating emotions, and most people don't even understand what a _logical_ argument is, if they understand what the word logic itself even means. *Maybe it's just the US school system but I don't remember ever learning anything about logic or the keys to developing a rational and logical argument; just a never ending memorization of facts.* I had to go out on my own to learn through voluntary reading and listening to lectures online in order to get a real grasp on it, among a lot of time contemplating, and we all know most people just don't bother, for they're able to get by just fine without givin' a shit about books n stuff.
> 
> Anyway, after some "extensive" research, here's how to win arguments: If just want to win for the sake of winning, manipulate their emotions and twist their logic around in order to confuse the audience; if you want to win* legitimately*, be *right*.


The answer to your problems is hidden in the text you wrote yourself 

Apart from that, define "_legitimately_", also define "_right_". 

Whats the purpose of doing something if the end point is not speculated to be a "win" by the doer?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Manticore said:


> The answer to your problems is hidden in the text you wrote yourself
> 
> Apart from that, define "_legitimately_", also define "_right_".
> 
> Whats the purpose of doing something if the end point is not speculated to be a "win" by the doer?


Guess it wasn't obvious enough, but that last paragraph was just sarcasm/humor. Had to make it relevant to the thread instead of just a rant against the u.s. school system and the apathy of other's toward logic.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Manticore said:


> Apart from that, define "_legitimately_", also define "_right_".
> 
> Whats the purpose of doing something if the end point is not speculated to be a "win" by the doer?


A legitimate argument to me means one that is rational, accurate (quantitatively, where applicable), and avoids fallacious reasoning and personal bias. If that isn't the end goal, then partaking in an argument has no purpose. And it obviously hasn't been "won." If anything it's a loss because not only has the "doer" committed errors in reason, but participating in the argument was a waste of time that could have been spent doing something that has an actual purpose.  That is why I don't see manipulating the other party as a win.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

How to win every argument? 

Simply use this each time someone says something:










---

Argument over.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Antipode said:


> How to win every argument?
> 
> Simply use this each time someone says something:
> 
> ...













/lose


Ha, you're wrong!


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> A legitimate argument to me means one that is rational, accurate (quantitatively, where applicable), and avoids fallacious reasoning and personal bias. If that isn't the end goal, then partaking in an argument has no purpose. And it obviously hasn't been "won." If anything it's a loss because not only has the "doer" committed errors in reason, but participating in the argument was a waste of time that could have been spent doing something that has an actual purpose.  That is why I don't see manipulating the other party as a win.


Sure, mathematically you are correct while the real world is rational, the people living inside aren't. If you want something, and if someone isnt giving it to you, it usually doesnt work if you tell them, "rationally what you are doing is wrong".

The legitimate argument is always the one you win.
And the right argument is always the one you support.

If anyone thought otherwise about any argument, they wouldnt argue about it.
And thats the people aspect of it.
Note that, you can argue without math/logic, but when there isnt anyone to argue with, you cannot.


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

The only one who truly can win in an argument vs an INTJ is another INTJ with stronger logic. For everyone else it's impossible, sorry. When you think you win, in reality we really incorporate your logic statement into our own grander scheme so that even when we "lose" we win. So basically if we win by superior logic, we win; and if your superior logic wins the argument, we also win.

But a few of you (mainly ENFPs and INFPs) can "win" by being excessively vague and prolonging the argument, this will trick us into thinking that we're wasting our time. So we'll leave and the argument will go into a stalemate.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Blue Soul said:


> The only one who truly can win in an argument vs an INTJ is another INTJ with stronger logic. For everyone else it's impossible, sorry. When you think you win, in reality we really incorporate your logic statement into our own grander scheme so that even when we "lose" we win. So basically if we win by superior logic, we win; and if your superior logic wins the argument, we also win.
> 
> But a few of you (mainly ENFPs and INFPs) can "win" by being excessively vague and prolonging the argument, this will trick us into thinking that we're wasting our time. So we'll leave and the argument will go into a stalemate.


Lol, probably because INTJ's are more likely to see losing an argument as a learning opportunity and the real way to win is not someone else admitting you're right or you trying to show they're wrong, but in having the most logical argument. When I "lose" arguments to people it's basically a stalemate where I remain agnostic b/c something they claimed needs to be fact-checked before we can proceed.  I don't trust people lol.


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

ninjahitsawall said:


> Lol, probably because INTJ's are more likely to see losing an argument as a learning opportunity and the real way to win is not someone else admitting you're right or you trying to show they're wrong, but in having the most logical argument. When I "lose" arguments to people it's basically a stalemate where I remain agnostic b/c something they claimed needs to be fact-checked before we can proceed.  I don't trust people lol.


Yeah, exactly. It's all about progressing that knowledge, so if someone proves us wrong by presenting better logic, fine - we're all about that.


----------



## AshtangiBear (Dec 27, 2014)

Blue Soul said:


> Yeah, exactly. It's all about progressing that knowledge, so if someone proves us wrong by presenting better logic, fine - we're all about that.


INTPs are the logic masters. Formidable comrades in debates.

You have to get them to leave their lair though. That's the tricky part.


----------



## SnowPharaoh (Mar 7, 2015)

Blue Soul said:


> The only one who truly can win in an argument vs an INTJ is another INTJ with stronger logic. For everyone else it's impossible, sorry. When you think you win, in reality we really incorporate your logic statement into our own grander scheme so that even when we "lose" we win. So basically if we win by superior logic, we win; and if your superior logic wins the argument, we also win.
> 
> But a few of you (mainly ENFPs and INFPs) can "win" by being excessively vague and prolonging the argument, this will trick us into thinking that we're wasting our time. So we'll leave and the argument will go into a stalemate.


So what you're saying is.... every Intj is a member of the Borg, well that's convenient,
although.... I do remember a certain Captain Jean Luc Picard beating you once or twice :tongue:


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

faraon1990temujin said:


> So what you're saying is.... every Intj is a member of the Borg, well that's convenient,
> although.... I do remember a certain Captain Jean Luc Picard beating you once or twice :tongue:


But not before he became one of us himself, for a little while at least. WE ARE THE BORG. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

Haha, but seriously you ENTPs can be pretty sharp too.


----------



## SnowPharaoh (Mar 7, 2015)

Blue Soul said:


> But not before he became one of us himself, for a little while at least. WE ARE THE BORG. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
> 
> Haha, but seriously you ENTPs can be pretty sharp too.


Well thanks, in Star Trek terms I've always considered an Entp would be someone like the "Q" , "He's devious and amoral and unreliable and irresponsible and... and definitely not to be trusted."
– Jean-Luc Picard
, I don't know if there is one but if there isn't someone should definitely start a thread on star trek characters and mbti types ....just a thought, anyway live long and prosper my good friend :wink:


----------



## Blue Soul (Mar 14, 2015)

faraon1990temujin said:


> Well thanks, in Star Trek terms I've always considered an Entp would be someone like the "Q" , "He's devious and amoral and unreliable and irresponsible and... and definitely not to be trusted."
> – Jean-Luc Picard
> , I don't know if there is one but if there isn't someone should definitely start a thread on star trek characters and mbti types ....just a thought, anyway live long and prosper my good friend :wink:


Yeah, Q is an ENTP no question. The ultimate troll.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Manticore said:


> So?
> In that case just manipulate their emotions instead of their arguments.
> If anything its easier than bending logic.


Yes. This is literally the entirety of the articles and all the subsequent articles linked in the article.

I read them all.

They all say that in order to win, you need to ignore the topic being discussed and simply focus on emotionally manipulating your target.


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Yes. This is literally the entirety of the articles and all the subsequent articles linked in the article.
> 
> I read them all.
> 
> They all say that in order to win, you need to ignore the topic being discussed and simply focus on emotionally manipulating your target.


I'm not sure if this is sarcasm for me or for the articles, but in any case;
Ifs its sarcasm for me;
-Well I can always ignore the articles and charm my way to win despite the evidence.
On a real note: social science articles dont include the "emotionally manipulate" option

If its sarcasm for the articles;
I completely agree.

If its sarcasm for you;
and you indeed havent read the articles.
Well, good for you. Me neither.

If its not sarcasm at all;
Wow.. those articles must be really stupid. I mean like more than an average social science article is.

And someone will get pissed at this post and argue against it, since I called average social science articles stupid.
But they should be reminded that getting annoyed is a form of "emotional manipulation" too.


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

I tend to define whether an argument is even worth engaging in before doing so. To be honest, I don't take on 'arguments' so much as _discourse,_ because I want to come away with new insights, not prove I'm right (unless the person is a complete dingbat).

I find much more enjoyment in playing a neutral role, mediating, or dropping in as devil's advocate if I feel the need to do so. 

Translation: I like breaking out the popcorn and watching other people battle.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> How To Win Every Argument
> 
> I've always noticed I am more convincing when I'm not trying to be. I think one of my biggest challenges when having an argument is when whoever I'm arguing with is in an "ego state" (like what's described in this article). I can recognize that and don't know how to proceed or if it's even worth it if they already think they're right and are just going to keep trying to prove me wrong. That itself is what can put me into fight/flight mode, but that turns me off to debating further. This is why I'm selective about when to participate in an argument and with whom. I don't know if this is common amongst NT's.. how do you all deal with ego-driven debates (or do you struggle with going into fight-or-flight mode yourself)?


That is why ENTPs are naturally gifted debaters. They actually don't give a shit about the outcome or if they "win." 

It's also a bit Zen or the main point of the Bhagavadgita, 

Krishna:

"You should never engage in action for the sake of reward, nor should you long for inaction. Perform work in this world, Arjuna, as a man established within himself - without selfish attachments, and alike in success and defeat.”


----------



## Zare (Feb 11, 2011)

Four pages and no one linked to The Art of Being Right

Shame on you, for there is no need to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Powershower (Feb 19, 2015)

I don't argue the way most do. I am generally interested in peoples points of views. I look for similarities and point out areas in which I agree first and then start explaining the areas in where my opinion is different. This builds a rep with others that is a sort of companionship that is built. I tend to explain why my opinion differs and I don't just go based off of feelings. I use facts. I source things. I am the creditable hulk. I then proceed to ask them their opinion on what I just explained and get their input. I have done this many times and a heated exchange often turns into a healthy discussion.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

How FBI "negotiators" emotionally manipulate people, learn their techniques and become a master rhetorician. No thanks. I'm sticking to logic.


----------



## 9v_nunchucks (Mar 31, 2015)

I don't really argue but I do attempt to debate a lot. I pick and choose my battles predominantly. If someone attempts to argue with me to gain social status I typically just smile and say "ok" and walk away. It's a bit passive aggressive and incredibly dismissive and it tends to piss off the person arguing with me. Sometimes I'm even nastier and stop them mid sentence, smile and tell them "I'm sorry, I just don't care enough to hear you continue with that thought" and walk away. Yea, they're borh rude responses but then again so is them trying to prove to the world that theyre better than me. And typically being direct like that will wear into their skin more than arguing with them anyhow. 

Work arguments are trickier, but typically if it's a customer Ill just let them get away with murder. I don't have to agree with them, plus I'll feel a hell of a lot better about their opinion once I'm walking away with a new client that's willing to unload tons of cash on a product. If its a coworker I'll just ask them why their arguing with me. 9/10 of the time they know, they'll apologize, and it'll go forward in more of a debate style. If they do have a reason I'll listen to it and if it's logical well debate it out but if it's not then I get dismissive and tell them I respect their opinion but I think it's best if the conversation doesn't go any further

Now if it's someone I care about it's usually different because we both respect each other enough not to do it. It's usually a debate as opposed to an argument, and if it does turn into an argument I isually stop them and say "I don't believe we're going to see eye to eye on this one so I don't really see the point in talking about it any further. Would you agree?" You'd be surprised how often just being incredibly direct with people tends to accomplish exactly what you're going for lol. 

If they refuse to let me along I typically try to walk away. If they won't let me walk away I'll typically end up exploding but I'll warn them well ahead of time that I'm going to explode and it's in their best interest to walk away, stating that a harassment lawsuit really doesn't do their bank account any good. 

Sometimes I feel like a jerk for being dismissive but everyone at work along with all my friends and family seem to think I'm the nicest guy ever so I must not be too bad lol. As I said though, most of the time being direct is honestly the best approach and people will repect you for it. Sometimes it's best to just avoid the situation entirely before it even starts, that way it doesn't have to get to the pick and choose your battles or the blunt honesty approach. 

I liked the article though, it confirms a lot of the things I've always thought plus it has some good links. I hope this helps


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

johnnyyukon said:


> I think I get ya.
> 
> We probably have a few different motives, but also share some. When I debate/argue- ideally I'd like it to be a "discussion"- I AM generally interested in the Truth. But if I'm in a discussion and both sides have learned nothing, or at the very least, tried to understand someone else's perspective, then I probably still had fun talking. Truly open minded people are pretty rare, so it's no surprise. I'll even get into it with someone that I know isn't going to budge. That's me though. Sounds like that's not your bag.
> 
> ...


First example = worth debating, imo. Second ex. = waste of time. I've had some more impatient people not take me seriously if I say I don't have an opinion on something similar to the 2nd example (like they think I'm just refusing to give an opinion, or I'm boring, or something lol), because my "opinion" is essentially "this issue is lacking sufficient information to properly form a judgment on." For some reason it's others with an ideological stance towards an issue who seem to HATE a response that isn't coming from the same place (even more than an opposing ideology, possibly). 



johnnyyukon said:


> Psh.
> 
> I've SMOKED many an INTJ in debate.
> 
> ...


My understanding of that post was that if your goal is to discover the truth, and you lose a debate, that means you learned something new which brings you closer to the truth, i.e. you're reaching your goal. The war that followed is confusing to me  Anyway, I don't know if it's an introvert or INTJ thing but I can be too slow in debates sometimes. I realize how it should have played out after the fact, or that I had the perfect evidence to falsify a claim but at the time I wasn't aware of it and just said "uh-huh" or something and gave up b/c I felt like I didn't have enough information to rebut.  Basically with debates I rely on previous info I've gathered as well as logical thought processes that I've already... processed before a debate has taken place, that way I can just say it out loud as-needed. Those are the ones I am stronger in. It sometimes looks all impressive from the outside and I'm like, "no, I just happened to think through this already and come to a conclusion in my head before any of this happened." lol. 

I think Ne verbal ability is quite different and better at winging it.

Granted there are some topics that it's more natural for me to just Te-bomb someone in the moment haha.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> First example = worth debating, imo. Second ex. = waste of time. I've had some more impatient people not take me seriously if I say I don't have an opinion on something similar to the 2nd example (like they think I'm just refusing to give an opinion, or I'm boring, or something lol), because my "opinion" is essentially "this issue is lacking sufficient information to properly form a judgment on." For some reason it's others with an ideological stance towards an issue who seem to HATE a response that isn't coming from the same place (even more than an opposing ideology, possibly).


Agreed on 1st (just to be sure, pitbulls) and 2nd (abortion) examples.

Super ideological people are virtually impossible to have a discussion or debate with. In a situation where there was like, a debate format and a, what, referee? haha, I think anyone with moderate level of logic or common sense would murderlize the ideological foe. Scripture makes for a shoddy foundation.

Alas, it's street rules up in most places and in this forum. Here, it's a bit different, as you will get equally ideological (to me, infers lack of logic) cheering their fellow nonsensical team on, making it difficult to determine a "winner." Though you and I understand this and realize the futility. I however, will debate regardless just because it's fun to me to point out logical fallacies in a mocking and hilarious fashion.





ninjahitsawall said:


> My understanding of that post was that if your goal is to discover the truth, and you lose a debate, that means you learned something new which brings you closer to the truth, i.e. you're reaching your goal. The war that followed is confusing to me  Anyway, I don't know if it's an introvert or INTJ thing but I can be too slow in debates sometimes. I realize how it should have played out after the fact, or that I had the perfect evidence to falsify a claim but at the time I wasn't aware of it and just said "uh-huh" or something and gave up b/c I felt like I didn't have enough information to rebut.  Basically with debates I rely on previous info I've gathered as well as logical thought processes that I've already... processed before a debate has taken place, that way I can just say it out loud as-needed. Those are the ones I am stronger in. It sometimes looks all impressive from the outside and I'm like, "no, I just happened to think through this already and come to a conclusion in my head before any of this happened." lol.
> 
> I think Ne verbal ability is quite different and better at winging it.
> 
> Granted there are some topics that it's more natural for me to just Te-bomb someone in the moment haha.



Oh, I understood what she meant, my friend, haha. Knowledge and wisdom are the ultimate goal!! Oh, well I just cleaned your clock in that debate so whatever. btw, that was a fun little bout with @Blue Soul, she was playful.

Sometimes you have a format where the rules of debate are regulated (rare out of highschool) or you have someone that is willing to play fair. Otherwise, it's a dirty game where swiftness, cleverness, and frustrating or embarrassing the opponent can be worth far more than superior logic or knowledge on the subject.

This is something Ne excels at. I am more knowledgeable than most people think (but probably not INTJ level) and I do try to play fair, but I always have those other skillsets. Those with superior logic or knowledge bases can get tunnel vision. An ENTP is like a fox. "Crazy like a fox" actually implies "not crazy at all," it's a ruse to mask cunning, agility, and resourcefulness. They're actually a rather remarkable animal, and use their wits to evade whole groups of humans on horseback with a pack of bloodhounds in pursuit. Talk about an underdog, and btw, I think that sport is despicable.

Yeah so, my go-to INTJ irl is, I think, the only one I know, my brother. Hand surgeon, extremely intelligent, to say the least. I catch him off guard many times in discussions, leaving him flustered, embarrassed, pissed at himself, or simply speechless.

BUT, when it comes to discussions where his knowledge is far superior to mine, I rarely even try to engage. I just listen and take it in. Like his rants on the health care industry. I simply don't know enough to agree or disagree. He is a worthy foe, and over time, we've developed a mutual respect.

And yeah, INTJs are like information sponges, it's impressive.

edit: I should also add, that ENTPs, and definitely myself, though we have pretty strong opinions, we are actually quite open minded and our minds CAN be changed if someone presents a reasonable point I hadn't thought of. I'm not some kind of "my way or the highway" asshole, haha.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Be me.


Naww, the question wasn't "How do I manage to lose all the time??"


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

johnnyyukon said:


> Naww, the question wasn't "How do I manage to lose all the time??"


Whats wrong Johnny boy? Did you need some help winning arguments? Passive aggression is never the answer. Ask and ye shall receive.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Whats wrong Johnny boy? Did you need some help winning arguments? Passive aggression is never the answer. Ask and ye shall receive.


ha, yeah, I'm passive aggressive. At least ur funney


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

johnnyyukon said:


> ha, yeah, I'm passive aggressive. At least ur funney


Its not your fault Johnny. Its the Ne. Nothing you can do about it. You have to embrace who you are.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Its not your fault Johnny. Its the Ne. Nothing you can do about it. You have to embrace who you are.


Junglestud with mad bedroom skillz? Ok done, I've accepted it. Thank you.


----------



## Jonn (Mar 17, 2014)

Refresh the #care.IRL script input reloader and listen to what somebody was actually saying and than turn their world inside out with the knowledge you hold, but this won't work if you haven't reloaded your #care files properly.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

johnnyyukon said:


> Oh, I understood what she meant, my friend, haha. Knowledge and wisdom are the ultimate goal!! Oh, well I just cleaned your clock in that debate so whatever. btw, that was a fun little bout with @_Blue Soul_, she was playful.


Mine, or hers? Because I wasn't aware we were really debating anything really. Other than maybe the definition of vanity or something. haha. 



> This is something Ne excels at. I am more knowledgeable than most people think (but probably not INTJ level) and I do try to play fair, but I always have those other skillsets. Those with superior logic or knowledge bases can get tunnel vision. An ENTP is like a fox. "Crazy like a fox" actually implies "not crazy at all," it's a ruse to mask cunning, agility, and resourcefulness. They're actually a rather remarkable animal, and use their wits to evade whole groups of humans on horseback with a pack of bloodhounds in pursuit. Talk about an underdog, and btw, I think that sport is despicable.


Yeah, INTJ's are quite stubborn/prudish when it comes to using more "underhanded" tactics (anything besides logic), it's like "I will NEVER stoop to that level" lol. Either that or we just become too lazy to bother trying to be "persuasive" and selling a point. I've had similar problems with writing a resume  tend to expect info will just speak for itself without me adding in sugarcoating and/or ass-kissing (seriously, can't see it as anything else). 



> I'm not some kind of "my way or the highway" asshole, haha.


Nah. That's *NTJ's :laughing:


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

_Oh, I understood what she meant, my friend, haha. Knowledge and wisdom are the ultimate goal!! Oh, well I just cleaned your clock in that debate so whatever. btw, that was a fun little bout with Blue Soul, she was playful._




ninjahitsawall said:


> Mine, or hers? Because I wasn't aware we were really debating anything really. Other than maybe the definition of vanity or something. haha.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OH, heh, actually neither. I meant "you" as in general, was definitely not clear. I didn't clean Blue Soul's clock, buuuuut in her words, I won the battle, :laughing: Me and you (see, improper grammar again, you and I, just doesn't sound right) are having a civil discusion 

I also think ENTPs are just more naturally gifted at thinking outside the box. We, or at least I, want just enough knowledge to be functional at something or talk about something. INTJs are way more thorough, pros and cons to both.

Resumes, f*** ass kissing, I approach it like, "I'm the shit." and this is why. And I through in some personality so it's not some technical document they forget. 

Didn't get an interview, but just got an email back from imgur.com saying my experience was "impressive." Not sure what they were looking for. But I was a straight shooter, praised, in earnest, things I liked, and critiqued other things. Throwing in non-tech jobs, seemingly unrelated, but getting across "I'm cool, interesting, chill to work with"

Drop resumes off face-to-face.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

johnnyyukon said:


> _Oh, I understood what she meant, my friend, haha. Knowledge and wisdom are the ultimate goal!! Oh, well I just cleaned your clock in that debate so whatever. btw, that was a fun little bout with Blue Soul, she was playful._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I get told my resumes are "impressive" from time to time... if I don't get an interview I tend to assume they just say that so you don't get discouraged. And saying "I'm the shit" on a resume seems like sugarcoating. I dunno, maybe I'm being too critical about the whole work thing, haha. (balancing pros and cons rather than mostly pros :wink

I think INTP's are probably even more thorough and less about "only what's needed to get the job done" than INTJ's. I've had experiences of what I think is trying to mimic Ti-dom thinking, rather than Ni and all it accomplishes is analysis paralysis. Doesn't work for me.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I get told my resumes are "impressive" from time to time... if I don't get an interview I tend to assume they just say that so you don't get discouraged. And saying "I'm the shit" on a resume seems like sugarcoating. I dunno, maybe I'm being too critical about the whole work thing, haha. (balancing pros and cons rather than mostly pros :wink
> 
> I think INTP's are probably even more thorough and less about "only what's needed to get the job done" than INTJ's. I've had experiences of what I think is trying to mimic Ti-dom thinking, rather than Ni and all it accomplishes is analysis paralysis. Doesn't work for me.


Yeeah, they probably just didn't want to make me cry : ( haha

"I'm the shit" is waaayyy more about advertising yourself, confidence, flare. Sugarcoating, maybe, prolly not the word I'd use. I don't even like sugar. 


Oh yeah, INTJs talk about "logic is king" and they would be lost without it (ENTPs too) but INTPs would probably win a logic-off contest. heh. I was on an INTP forum for awhile and I was like a bull in a china shop. "Hey! you can't debate like that!" 

Analysis paralysis, heheh, Ti is not for the faint. We go waaayyy down the rabbit hole. Pretty comfortably too, but then I get action/decision paralysis. Like, there's just too many options and outcomes, I know, I've seen them all in my head! Best to just lay around. More thinking, that'll get it done. 

That's probably the worst case scenario and possible quicksand for TPs. Best way to avoid that is to be sure that you're actually DOING something in the real world, not overanalyzing. "Idle hands are the Devil's workshop." NTs would be wise to remember that one.

Dang INTJs, productive power houses, ha.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

johnnyyukon said:


> Yeeah, they probably just didn't want to make me cry : ( haha
> 
> "I'm the shit" is waaayyy more about advertising yourself, confidence, flare. Sugarcoating, maybe, prolly not the word I'd use. I don't even like sugar.
> 
> ...


We absorb a lot of sensory information through the sponge-soaking and it ends up that we have a lot of (nervous) energy to burn off, and productivity is sometimes a side effect of that, when it works to our favor. :tongue:

I don't usually disagree with INTP's to the point it becomes more competitive than playful, so I don't know if I've had the true contest experience with one. 

I am not sure I fully understand how their functions operate b/c it comes off to me as a more refined form of Ni, like trying to follow the rules of logic and such (which I don't consciously do, except for the paralysis episodes I mentioned, haha) but it also seems more flexible in some ways (_less_ strictly logical?) and also very similar, one of my friends accuses me of reading his mind b/c I'll say things he was thinking (but didn't say for whatever reason), and he tends to say things that I'm thinking but just didn't put as much conscious thought into.

I think we are more different emotionally.. as in what annoys us or what we see as violating a principle ethically vs. rationally.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

ninjahitsawall said:


> We absorb a lot of sensory information through the sponge-soaking and it ends up that we have a lot of (nervous) energy to burn off, and productivity is sometimes a side effect of that, when it works to our favor. :tongue:
> 
> I don't usually disagree with INTP's to the point it becomes more competitive than playful, so I don't know if I've had the true contest experience with one.
> 
> ...


Who's more different emotionally? You and your mind reading friend? He an INTP?

I think INTPs can easily get lost in the realm of thought and logic. And they enjoy it, so naturally they are very good at seeing inconsistencies, fallacies, etc. They aren't always great at communicating those thoughts, and I've had miscommunications with them, more than any other type probably.

And flexible yes, they couldn't be so good at seeing how things fit together if they weren't very open minded. 

I can play in my head for a little bit, but unlike INTPs, too long, and I get super restless, anxious. But yeah, I'm with ya on ethics. My logic and rationale gets sidelined when some gross violation of morality occurs. Some things are just flat out wrong. But more heavy duty thinkers and "hair splitters(INTPs petname)" may not see it like that. Instead examing things, as if they were an alien, totally disconnected from the plight of **** sapiens, ha. Ok that might be a stretch, but they can be objective to a fault. 

I'm pretty convinced the first girl I fell in love with, head over heels, stupid dumb love, was an INTP. I was smart, but young (19) and honestly, her intelligence was intimidating. But that was also a time where I thought intelligence was the end all be all. Now, even super smart people, smarter than me, I'm not intimidated.


----------

