# Types and... ARGUMENTS!



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

We're capable of getting along with people of all types, but it's only when friction occurs between people that we're most aware of our differences. We've all been in an argument at some point, with someone else of a different type. 

Many of us engage in logical discussion and argument here on PerC, or on other discussion venues, and we run into poor arguments and defenses of many kinds. Have you ever wondered if there's a type-related pattern to some of the defenses people use? Well, I certainly have. And if you haven't ever thought about it before... well, you're thinking about it NOW 

Below are some observations I've made about common defenses people use in arguments, and what information elements I think they're related to. I've gathered all these from personal experience and just keeping my eyes open when people fight  

Please feel free to add your own or comment on any of the above! 

Disclaimer: These may not be applicable to everyone who have these information elements in their ego! Many people are excellent at arguments -- both intelligent and empathetic, regardless of their type. There are consistent 4D Fe types and respectful 1D Fi types. Therefore I recommend you don't consider this to be "you are X type so you must be Y negative way" but more like "you show Y negative tendency so you might be X type". There's a huge difference!

------------

Fe ego:

They do not like too many references to objectivity or objective consideration/generalization of experiences.
They may try to shift the argument towards emotions, attitudes, behaviors, and expression. They may express their own emotions have been misunderstood/nitpick the expressions and behaviors of others in an effort to discredit them.
Fe bases, as focused on self-expression and encouraging expression in their environment as they are, often make claims that are inconsistent and lack rationale. They prioritize truthful self-expression over accuracy or application of material.
They may sometimes be capable of referring their claims to sources and authorities, and may appear knowledgeable and well-read. However, their source usage is often slanted to fit their emotional attitudes and self-expression. If some source claims something that doesn't suit the atmosphere they're trying to create, or the personal feelings they are trying to express, they ignore it (cherrypicking).
They ignore copious amounts of source material thrust onto them by others. You are expected, hence, to prove the internal consistency of, and extensive rationale behind your claims by yourself instead of referring to what you may (as a Te ego, for example) consider essential source material.
They're more interested in what you "subjectively think/relate to" than what is an objective or valid interpretation, or what is factually correct and supported.
They may use the argument that "everything is subjective" when under pressure and use this as a method to validate their own poor rationale (or lack of one). ("Who are you to question my emotions?")
Fe creatives are better at providing arguments that are internally consistent and account for more perspectives than Fe bases.
However, these arguments may often blatantly ignore real statistics, existing studies and research, and established source material. While the speculation will be consistent with itself, the variables accounted for and the results arrived at may have no applicable basis or utility.
They often perpetuate an attitude of "don't trust all the shit you hear and read!", especially when under stress and feeling challenged to refer to proof of their claims.
If you overload them with source material that directly disproves their claims, they may zone in on one or two perceived inconsistencies in your argument and fail to address the others, in an attempt to save face.
Alternatively they may retreat and try to incorporate that source into their argument, but inevitably be plagued with doubt about whether that source is trustworthy at all. Additionally, since their Te works by personal experience only, they still may fail to account for the existence of other research or contexts, and not be able to create an objective patchwork of consensus on the issue.

-----------

Fi ego:

They do not like too many references to consistency and advanced intricacy of logical arguments and frameworks.
They may try to shift the argument towards morals and feelings of "right/wrong" or "good/bad" or "like/dislike". For example, they can harp on how you are being immoral or how they are absolutely uninterested in dealing with someone like you. (So as to not confuse this with Fe ego types, Fi types focus on the principles you're (not) espousing, as opposed to your behaviors)
Fi bases may often present seemingly consistent arguments and expect consistency in others. However, beyond a point they disdain anyone who nitpicks their arguments for validity and feel offended if people don't take their argument's consistency at face value. In such cases they outright reject the rationale on moral grounds or because it feels wrong.
Their logic is often black-and-white.
Often they may pick up one or two "reliable sources" and cite them repeatedly, with no regard to whether what they're quoting makes any sense with their claims or with the context. (No wonder their conflictors are xLEs, who are armed with disarmingly fluid, contextual logic and considerably good factual consistency as well.)
However, they are poor at evaluating what a reliable source really constitutes, and may just have picked someone who says something that "feels right". They are also quite bad at proving that an example is applicable anywhere except in their own life.
Fi creative types are much better at providing good "documentation" and being accurate and thorough in their claims. However, they often take a lot of time and "need to think about it" when put on the spot, because they are very afraid they will do or say something inconsistent.
They like people and sources who seem objective and reliable, and they may consider someone one of these people if they like them and they seem to know what they're talking about at face value -- even if that person's claims lack much of a rationale. This means they can often feel insecure if forced to elaborate why they support a particular source aside from it being popular or realistic.
They often claim that you're "missing the point" or "not making any sense" when you nitpick them too much for consistency, and urge you to refocus on the "main point" they're making or the result of their theory, not the details -- even if the details put their theory in hot water.
When irritated or under high pressure, they completely reject logical intricacy because things are subjective anyway, people are different, etc etc. However, unlike Fe doms, they will not expect a different subjective rationale for everything out of everyone. Instead, they will go back to focusing on real-world applications and situations and take individual contextual differences for granted.
They may passionately claim they're off to do one thing and then change their mind to do something different, and take very poorly to arguments that nitpick this tendency.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

I'll deal with Ti and Te egos later. Writing this exhausted me.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I think the problem might be sometimes you do not have energy to really put urself in others shoes and therefor be stubborn. In for example when two people argue about some famous persons type it seem there is sometimes different base source thing people go to depending on type. That the source material they collected have a different base where their arguments raise from. An Fe ego for example might be good with the ethics of argument, not that they always respect their opponent but that they know the game. (?) I think the common idea around a lot of source material in intellectual discussion is that Ti ego might find it something that reveal what is going on while Te it is what is actually going on.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Definately found things from Fe-ego I related to.



Night Huntress said:


> [*]They may sometimes be capable of referring their claims to sources and authorities, and may appear knowledgeable and well-read. However, their source usage is often slanted to fit their emotional attitudes and self-expression. If some source claims something that doesn't suit the atmosphere they're trying to create, or the personal feelings they are trying to express, they ignore it (cherrypicking).


Ugh, I do that. My ESE does that. It gives people reason to ignore us in turn... and I can sort of see why.



> [*]They ignore copious amounts of source material thrust onto them by others. You are expected, hence, to prove the internal consistency of, and extensive rationale behind your claims by yourself instead of referring to what you may (as a Te ego, for example) consider essential source material.


Interesting observation! I do value the internal consistency over a realiable source in many occasions. Hm, the source has objective value but it is more interesting to find out what people make of it. If it makes sense, that is.



> [*]They often perpetuate an attitude of "don't trust all the shit you hear and read!", especially when under stress and feeling challenged to refer to proof of their claims.


I take it that this irritates other people? 



> [*]If you overload them with source material that directly disproves their claims, they may zone in on one or two perceived inconsistencies in your argument and fail to address the others, in an attempt to save face.
> [/LIST]


Another interesting and accurate observation. I've seen this happen a thousand times (mild exaggeration only) on different forums. IRL too, but not too often. Perhaps it is (for someone with weak but valued Ti) easier to tear things apart online than in live discussion. And quite so, it often attacks only very few inconsistancies - that's how you know it's a defense.

This about Fi ego was relevant for some reason:



> They often claim that you're "missing the point" or "not making any sense" when you nitpick them too much for consistency, and urge you to refocus on the "main point" they're making or the result of their theory, not the details -- even if the details put their theory in hot water.


All in all, interesting read, fascinating subject and cool things you have observed! I'll look forward for the Ti and Te egos!


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

I have wondered about this too during forum debates. Often I feel like the other person is completely misunderstanding or not registering my points, perhaps I did to them too. These kinds of arguments have turned into very repetitive points on both sides as they try to explain their reasoning. In the end I just have to ignore the post, which is something I prefer not to do if I can help it. They tend to be logicians, usually self-typed as Ti ego types (NTPs, as self typed STPs seem to be non-existent on this forum). I wondered if difference in cognition had something to do with that. Anyway, I also look forward to the Ti and Te ego types.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

> They often claim that you're "missing the point" or "not making any sense" when you nitpick them too much for consistency, and urge you to refocus on the "main point" they're making or the result of their theory, not the details -- even if the details put their theory in hot water.
> 
> However, they often take a lot of time and "need to think about it" when put on the spot, because they are very afraid they will do or say something inconsistent.
> 
> They may passionately claim they're off to do one thing and then change their mind to do something different, and take very poorly to arguments that nitpick this tendency.


I strongly relate to these tendencies. I relate well to the whole section in general.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

I've noticed some of those traits and have made my own in real life, not as much around here online. I think it has something to do with people on here making an active effort to figure each other out. But here are the defense mechanisms I note among real-life people. 

Gamma SF's:
-Using denial, even when obvious.
-Saying things like "you should" do something or "that's weird" without explaining.
-Blaming all of their problems on luck.
-Turning it into a physical fight. (usually less educated or unhealthy Gamma SF's)
-Adversarial, black-and-white ideology. "You're either with me or against me"

Alpha SF's:
-Emotionally pressuring people.
-Gossip/rumors.
-When guilty, trying to shift the blame from just themselves to the whole "group."
-Exaggerating or minimizing certain facts.
-Unduly criticizing things that don't follow etiquette.

Beta NF's:
-Dismissing opposing perspectives too simplistically ("You just don't get it.")
-Theatricals/histrionics.
-Paranoia, reading too much into tones and expressions, etc.
-Burning bridges.
-Blaming their failures on personal-life problems, or a few specific "guilty" people.

Delta NF's:
-Being defensive when people disagree with their values, even respectfully.
-Over or under-valuing certain people or ideas without evidence.
-Sulking.
-Struggling to impartially describe things or their beliefs.
-Improper use of force- tolerating things too long and then blowing up, or getting aggressive right away and then regretting it.

Beta ST's:
-Excessive optimism- not considering bad potential or consequences.
-Rationalizing. (They are the WORST at this, especially when they do things to people's property)
-Tunnel vision, working towards one goal and only one goal.
-Indifference to values or dismissing them as trivial.
-Ignoring or avoiding responsibilities rather than solving them (relationship commitments, trying to get out of being responsible for an accident they caused, etc)

Gamma NT's:
-Authoritarian issues, trying to control everything themselves.
-Dismissing social customs and those who value them as fake. 
-Immersing themselves in work to cope with pain.
-Repressing feelings, not sure how to comfortably show how they feel. 
-Yelling at people, hitting things, making empty threats.
-Difficulty admitting to being wrong.

Alpha NT's:
-Misleading people, using complex language to look smarter, twisting the meaning of words.
-Starting arguments on purpose to irritate others.
-Intellectualization of values and feelings, being too impartial towards others.
-Distancing from others without an explanation.
-Petty behavior: insulting and criticizing others, playing mind games, insubordination.

Delta ST's:
-Excessive skepticism towards novel activities.
-Stonewalling, appeal to authority, refusal to explain the "why" aspect of rules.
-Nit-picking, towards both others speech and behaviors. 
-Pesimissm, imagining only the worst-case scenarios, doubting others intentions. 
-Bigotry (not in the literal, racist/sexist sense), unwillingness to listen to certain people or perspectives.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> I've noticed some of those traits and have made my own in real life, not as much around here online. I think it has something to do with people on here making an active effort to figure each other out. But here are the defense mechanisms I note among real-life people.
> 
> Gamma SF's:
> -Using denial, even when obvious.
> ...


This was interesting. I fit the Gamma NT pretty well but I dont really yell, I use black mail and munipulation when things are not going my way. Most people dont call my bluff.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

MisterPerfect said:


> This was interesting. I fit the Gamma NT pretty well but I dont really yell, I use black mail and munipulation when things are not going my way. Most people dont call my bluff.


I feel you. Do you have an idea of what exact type you might be? Cause the yelling, hitting, and threatening is more common in LIE's than ILI's.


----------



## MisterPerfect (Nov 20, 2015)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> I feel you. Do you have an idea of what exact type you might be? Cause the yelling, hitting, and threatening is more common in LIE's than ILI's.


I dont know what LIE/ILI is. I am INTJ. I also very traditional though in my behavior thanks to the house hold I was raised in. I dont think yelling and hitting people to get a piont across is normal. Its just plain abusive. My temperment is passive/Controlling. I do things in a way no one will notice, but generally I am making sure things are geared in a certien direction.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Rabid Seahorse said:


> I've noticed some of those traits and have made my own in real life, not as much around here online. I think it has something to do with people on here making an active effort to figure each other out. But here are the defense mechanisms I note among real-life people.
> 
> Gamma NT's:
> -Authoritarian issues, trying to control everything themselves. --> happens when I'm with incompetent people.
> ...


I commented about your observations and for me they seem legit.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse (Mar 10, 2015)

MisterPerfect said:


> I dont know what LIE/ILI is. I am INTJ. I also very traditional though in my behavior thanks to the house hold I was raised in. I dont think yelling and hitting people to get a piont across is normal. Its just plain abusive. My temperment is passive/Controlling. I do things in a way no one will notice, but generally I am making sure things are geared in a certien direction.


The closest Socionics equivalent of INTJ's is ILI (intuitive logical introvert) so that makes sense


----------

