# Attack the Person, then their Idea VS Attack the Idea, then the person



## cantstopthinking (Aug 13, 2011)

Please discuss how
Which process hurts a person more + their type
Which gets the message across more effectively
What do you think about the statement ?

I've seen personal attacks on me. It gets personal and i'm very annoyed because its untrue and they dont know me. But when someone attacks my idea(ideals), i'm furious when it is not justified... unless they present their logical justification, then I'm going to evaluate it.

There's sometimes when people attack me personally and my ideas in the same moment... i just dont feel like talking to them and i will totally shut my mind off to them.

There's also times when people attack my idea, that I will call it giving constructive criticism.

I think when people attack my idea, then attack me, there's bound to be grudges somewhere inside...

roud:

(feel free to obligate yourself to reply, do not just lurk  )


----------



## Zeez Theory (Sep 1, 2011)

Attack their ideas first because it's a moment builder.

When you go right to the core in a personal attack, everything else is mad-secondary because you're still thinking about the personal insult.

When you attack someone's idea first, you leave someone questioning the way they think and arguing with THEMSELVES before arguing with you. Next, a personal insult will redirect their attention toward their feelings vs. their thought process.

-It's like getting away with the first insult. And it's a longer lasting effect.


----------



## Coppertony (Jun 22, 2011)

Best tactic: attack them _using_ their ideas. Get them to doubt themselves, to lose faith, to challenge themselves for you, and you've won.

Speaking personally, though, I like to think that I hold ideas on a higher level than persons. If you attack me, I'll just come back with a witty negation, we can spar and play with words, and no harm is done. If you attack my ideas, though, . . . nevermind I'm just as likely to continue trolling you there as I am with my self. One particular thing that I like to do is broaden my ideas as they attack it, so that their attack appears to actually be implied by my idea. Antagonistic people tend to get pretty funny when you start violently agreeing with them .


----------



## Perhaps (Aug 20, 2011)

I disdain personal attacks as a general rule, although I 100% approve of calling out ridiculous behavior. That's as close to personal as I usually get.

Attacking ideas tends to infuriate most people even more because it's quite rare that someone takes the time to completely and utterly destroy a particular argument. When confronted with that, they're not sure what to do, and will usually... attack you personally. It's pretty funny.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

Nah, it's when someone can dish it out but can't take it that irks me. 


I'm one of those people that should not be taken lightly if a person should chose to attack me. Just because one offers constructive criticism doesn't mean it's free _from_ criticism. It better be solid, otherwise I'll call it BS--- and credibility lost when attacks become obvious in conversation.


----------



## Chaotic_Stupid (Jun 15, 2011)

IMO, it varies a lot.

How strong of an attack is it?

How thorough of an attack is it?

Are you effectively using their own weapons against them?

Do they have a nearly impenetrable wall of stubbornness and stupidity?

What do they think of you?

Is it an idea they hold very dearly?

Does the idea reveal something about the person?

Can biases be pointed out easily?

Too many statements might lead to you being tuned out. Are you leading them to your own conclusions through questions?



Action Potential said:


> When confronted with that, they're not sure what to do, and will usually... attack you personally. It's pretty funny.


It's funny if they have self-control. If they lack self-control, it can be terrifying. 

The way I attack ideas is often regarded as a personal attack. If there is a need to get personal to defeat the idea, chances are I'll keep my big mouth shut.


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

Or...you could attack their idea first, then attack the person for believing that idea.


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

Action Potential said:


> I disdain personal attacks as a general rule, although I 100% approve of calling out ridiculous behavior. That's as close to personal as I usually get.
> 
> Attacking ideas tends to infuriate most people even more because it's quite rare that someone takes the time to completely and utterly destroy a particular argument. When confronted with that, they're not sure what to do, and will usually... attack you personally. It's pretty funny.


I agree.

In my opinion, attacking a person is a no-go. It only serves to rile them up and make the debate even messier. My goal is to eradicate the emotional factors in the debate - and deal with the ideas only.

Sometimes that is inseparable with some people. And for those - I usually do not interface with them.

But in response to your question, if I have to stick to the guidelines you've set - I just say attack the idea and thereby allow them to feel attacked as a person.


----------



## Pendragon (Dec 31, 2010)

I attack the idea first. Generally, people can't defend the idea well enough, or they get hot under the collar, or start attacking me. Then I...attack the idea personally?

It's difficult to explain, so I'll provide an example - in a debate about religion, I compared God to Hitler. (Believe me, it was to prove a valid point.)

I rarely go beyond calling someone an idiot. Even then, it's generally in a light tone.


----------



## cantstopthinking (Aug 13, 2011)

I've read it through

I've always wanted to know what ticks people off the most. 
Attack NT's ideas
Attack SF's persona 
Am I doing it right ?

Some of you mentioned that you do personal attacks first to rile them up, make them all confused or emotionally fired up. I feel that this is very high school-ish, for kids(or at least mentality of kids)...haha

To me, in higher levels, making the person doubt their ideas, attacking their believe system, then their persona gets people really doubting themselves... most of them tend to shut down after time... different people have different degrees of tolerance

However, my most memorable debates are often with NTs because they just have the stamina, impartiality, and the endless arguments.


----------



## Homraigar (Jul 29, 2011)

Casually dismissing an idea is worse than attacking it, I find.

An attack implies that they've at least been bothered to _listen_ to the idea... to some level. Ideally.


----------



## kristle (Oct 21, 2010)

If I was trying to cause the most harm possible, I would attack the person first, kind of out of the blue to where it seems like it might be off topic while they're talking about their idea. 

Then I would follow up the personal attack with an attack on their idea, use it as proof to back up the first attack which would most likely be some sort of insult to their intelligence or abilities. 

It leaves people dumbstruck and unable to focus on one attack at a time. While they waste time trying to figure out what to defend first I would solidify the link between the two attacks and maybe ask them a cruel rhetorical question to redirect their thought process away from defending themselves back to some unanswerable, horrible question.

It's all about catching them off guard and being confident and bold while they are confused and insecure. Most effective if done publicly. 

That is all *IF* I wanted to cause the most harm. Usually I feel free to attack ideas. They shouldn't be personal to people, even though sometimes they are. Besides, for the most part ideas are there to be used, to accomplish some sort of goal or job. To attack an idea is impersonal. To attack the person is personal and damaging for most. 

If a person was an idea machine when you attack an idea you are just saying they had one product that is defective. When you attack the person, you are saying the machine's entire product line is going to be defective because the machine itself is off.

Personal attacks should be the nuclear bomb in your arsenal, not the to-go, but something you use only when it's absolutely necessary to cause the most irrevocable damage. You can never unsay something, so go all in and accomplish the job, or just stay out and save everyone the trouble. No one like amputees in an argument. Don't be cruel; Blow them away, out of their misery, or just leave them to their stupor.


----------

