# a fellow NT vs. a fellow NT



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

what happens when two NTs argue about an issue they have opposing stances? What if each one of them thinks the other one is stupid and because NTs cannot (I assume) stand being called "stupid" or criticized for their intellect, would these two argue to the death?

I wonder what will happen. Are they two going to argue forever trying to prove the other one that they're "right" and the one who makes sense or are they just going to shrug their shoulders and say, "well, let's just agree to disagree."

I wonder what happens.

Tell me your insights and/or experiences.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

There is a very poorly developed INTJ that I know. Does, not ever shut up.... When I first met him yeah we would battle to the death... verbally. But then I realized that he was full of himself and I really didn't care to get in to such battles with him or anyone. He could manage to turn conversations into a war... he even said himself that he believe that "debates" were wars... and he had to win. So now I state my thoughts wait for him to respond and then leave it at that. But he is a very "special" case that probably isn't the best example. Other than that I can't really think of any good examples.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

IDontReallyKnow said:


> what happens when two NTs argue about an issue they have opposing stances? What if each one of them thinks the other one is stupid and because NTs cannot (I assume) stand being called "stupid" or criticized for their intellect, would these two argue to the death?
> 
> I wonder what will happen. Are they two going to argue forever trying to prove the other one that they're "right" and the one who makes sense or are they just going to shrug their shoulders and say, "well, let's just agree to disagree."
> 
> ...


I think two well-developed NTs will eventually agree to disagree and move on. It's not a matter of being called stupid or not. It's not even an issue of pride for me. It's about being right, and I don't like being wrong. It means that I have missed something in my thought process, and I need to examine where I went wrong. On second thought, that sounds prideful, but it's not. It's not necessarily the need to have a leg up on the next person. It is the need to be right. In a poorly developed NT, this manifests itself in being afraid of being wrong. Defense mechanisms, argumentative, etc.

I don't really view a debate with another NT as sort of being at odds with each other. It's just a discussion to me. I also don't call anyone stupid since I haven't met a single person that isn't better than me in one area or another.


----------



## Mav (Dec 19, 2010)

IDontReallyKnow said:


> Are they two going to argue forever trying to prove the other one that they're "right" and the one who makes sense or are they just going to shrug their shoulders and say, "well, let's just agree to disagree."


That has been my experience. Usually, myself and other NT's I argue with could argue all day. However, there reaches a point where there is a time constraint and we must agree to disagree.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

In most cases, there is only one objective truth. Assuming we're both rational and actually debate to figure out that truth rather than trying to undermine each other, even if we disagree at first, after further discussion and "correcting each other," we usually converge to that one single objective truth. It is at that point that we then agree to agree. 

An exception is if the topic is so obscure or subjective that it's almost impossible to come to one single objective truth (eg. politics), in which then the debate may go on and on and on, often in full circles. I usually avoid such encounters since they often lead to nowhere and is therefore unproductive. 

Another exception is if one party is simply trying to win against the other rather than trying to come to the objective truth in which case they will irrationally refuse to yield even with all evidence against him. Once again, such discussions will yield no productive outcome and I therefore avoid those. I used to engage in such "debating for sport" thing just for fun, but these days I no longer have the disposable time to do such thing, so screw them.


----------



## billymark (Nov 3, 2011)

childprodigy got it right. If you want to see what two "NT's" battling looks like, go over to the "anti-science" thread in the intp forum (I think, can't remember). It's a long and boring, somewhat passionate debate.


----------



## Extraverted Delusion (Oct 23, 2011)

IDontReallyKnow said:


> what happens when two NTs argue about an issue they have opposing stances? What if each one of them thinks the other one is stupid and because NTs cannot (I assume) stand being called "stupid" or criticized for their intellect, would these two argue to the death?
> 
> I wonder what will happen. Are they two going to argue forever trying to prove the other one that they're "right" and the one who makes sense or are they just going to shrug their shoulders and say, "well, let's just agree to disagree."
> 
> ...


I'll give Ti credit for trumping all other primary functions among the NT circle-jerk in objective analysis and logical conclusion. If however both points hint at a direction other than pure, raw reason and logic, I couldn't answer that question in full. All functions at their optimal "use" could technically NOT compete with Ti under these pretenses.

We did not however, discuss function combinations. Is the information better judged or perceived to begin with? How is the information being "vehicled" (third function), and whats the argument/friendship dynamic like? This would highly influence who is right, and who is wrong.

But an INTP isn't usually wrong lol. Concede with those robots and tickle them with Ne, that's how I do it! Debates are for fun, because they never objectively solve anything unless its implemented or has been sourced from a problem thats requires a solution.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Why don't you stick around in this forum long enough and find out?


----------



## Fodzy (Mar 29, 2011)

I have very mixed personal experiences. When I'm at University, I'll debate mostly with a friend of mine who is an ENTP which largely seems to run quite smoothly and we both thoroughly enjoy the exchange of ideas however there are times that he will ask a question under the impression that it will unravel my argument completely and I find myself irritated by it as the question often appears, in my mind at least, to be entirely irrelevant or that the answer is entirely self-evident. This is where the debate usually turns into an argument as I am often unwilling to continue afterwards.

At home, my closest friend is an INTX who is much less competitive when it comes to debate and discussion who I find to be much more relaxing company. The debates tend to cover a vast spread of topics which we move to only after one area has reached a conclusion and it rarely reaches the point where we're reaching for the heaviest object to hand to bludgeon the other with.

I think my problem lies with NTP's as their rambling and often disorganised thought processes do nothing but irritate me.


----------



## M1R4G3 (Aug 21, 2011)

If it's two mature NTs then it would go something like this.

If the information is objective: Both will argue until one sees where the other went wrong in his/her process, it will be corrected, one will beat him/herself up and they will move on.

If the information is subjective: They will argue, bring up some good points on their own arguments, see where the other is coming from but probably disagree anyway and neither will have a reason to argue anymore.


----------



## randomness123 (Mar 28, 2011)

To be honest, when it's other NTs, I'm usually missing some information and, when given the facts, I'll accept that I'm wrong. For me, the ongoing battles, or ones where you agree to disagree are with non-NTs.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

mkeath said:


> I think two well-developed NTs will eventually agree to disagree and move on. It's not a matter of being called stupid or not. It's not even an issue of pride for me. It's about being right, and I don't like being wrong. It means that I have missed something in my thought process, and I need to examine where I went wrong. On second thought, that sounds prideful, but it's not. It's not necessarily the need to have a leg up on the next person. It is the need to be right. In a poorly developed NT, this manifests itself in being afraid of being wrong. Defense mechanisms, argumentative, etc.
> 
> I don't really view a debate with another NT as sort of being at odds with each other. It's just a discussion to me. I also don't call anyone stupid since I haven't met a single person that isn't better than me in one area or another.


Agreed. 

NT's strive for accuracy, not to be proved "right" (though when they think the two are one and the same, watch out!). If a well-presented argument for a different viewpoint is presented to them (especially in an objective way, rather than as a personal attack), then typically they'll process the new angle for a while and (usually) have no problem admitting that they learned something new and refining their own views.


----------



## LifeUnderTheSheets_ENTP (Nov 21, 2011)

I agree with the difference between objective and subjective arguments having a huge divide in how the debate turns out. Case in point: the only other NT I know is an INTP. We were working on his self-improvement and potential personality flaws... Uh oh hahah. Honestly, he trusts my judgement almost entirely in the realm of social interaction and self-improvement... to a point. For example: we hit the topic of him holding ridc long grudges (he's got family he hasn't talked to in years cause of lawn tools, and roommates he'll ignore for days or weeks over an argument about food). I explained that it's not a desirable trait to have, often comes off as childish, normally doesn't accoplish anything, and that he really ought to "choose his battles" so to speak. Well, he sees my point, but still thinks it's fine. "Well that's just how I am. Don't piss me off." *shakes head* lol


----------



## IDontReallyKnow (Jun 17, 2011)

"an other INTJ/INTP christians" is an interesting thread that somehow shows this thing playing out with some NTs.

some of them don't agree with each other and are near often going into debate-which-seems-pointless route


----------



## searcheagle (Sep 4, 2011)

redmanXNTP said:


> Agreed.
> 
> NT's strive for accuracy, not to be proved "right" (though when they think the two are one and the same, watch out!). If a well-presented argument for a different viewpoint is presented to them (especially in an objective way, rather than as a personal attack), then typically they'll process the new angle for a while and (usually) have no problem admitting that they learned something new and refining their own views.


I have to agree with this. Two of my room mates in college (which have remained close friends) are NTs. So, that put 2 INTJs (including myself) and 1 INTP in the same room.

Our debates never got personal (other things did but not our debates!). Quite a bit of our arguments came down to 3 separate elements:

1. Who had the most logical theory- that stood up to the scrutiny of the debate
2. Who had the most accurate facts to bring to the table
3. How relevant were those facts to the issue in play

Occasionally, someone would get frustrated over the debate. In those cases, the subject usually changed to something. Every once and a while, the debate would continue at a future time when everyone is able to recollect their thoughts and arguments.


----------

