ENTP and INTP wars

I think you're right.

 

So, you witnessed one event with an ENTP and INTP and now you've made a generalization about all of us?

Alright. /shrug

 

It's true nonetheless.

 

Hmm. Why not choose an Intp from the forum, confine him and Shai in the mediation sector and watch how it goes? I'd like to form my own opinion based on my own empirical data. Plus we can experiment with different issues, and come up with an evaluation regarding their wits, intelligence, composure in an argument and manipulation abilities.

Do we have an Intp specimen here, willing to fight Shai Gar?

 

No, don't.

I'm off to work in a couple of secs. I'm just throwing on me shoes then it's off to bed. It'd not be fair.

Do it in 15 hours.

 

2 debates would still be anecdotal. I'm willing to do it if I can find a way (I'm at work right now and don't have a computer at home).

 

Better that way actually. We'll have more time to choose a worthy specimen willing to risk it's life.

 

Duty, I didn't know you're an Intp.

Cool. Duty vs Shai Gar. I love the way it sounds. Anti-Religious Fanatic vs Mass Murderer.

 

This has been my experience with my ENTP girlfriend. We get into discussions all the time, and she is a master of rhetoric. She can make a conclusion that sound very very good, and present herself in a way that she knows what she is talking about more then you do. Her biggest weapon is to actually appeal to my INTJ side and say, "Well, does it work? If it does, then why are using another way that isn't quite as effective at getting what you want?" I usually catch her though (many times by catching her in a bias, a flaw in her logic, or with a faulty assumption), and I appeal to her Ti side very well...often what is effective just isn't true or is immoral in some way.

It's interesting how we are both so convincing to each other in such different ways. She would by far make a more successful lawyer or politician, but I by far make the better philosopher/scientist. It's just difficult because both of us are involved in psychology and want to influence the world to become a better world...her style is much more effective for convincing lay people.

 

Anti-Religious Fanatic...is that what I am?

 

I have no doudt that if you had a conversation with god about him, he'd most definitely have an existential crisis afterwards.

 

Screw morality.

 

Common ENTP sentiment.

That or "Lets create our own morality!"


Whereas an INTP goes, "Lets discover the truth behind morality!"

 

I've seen an INTP reduce an ENTP to a stuttering mass of ridiculousness in the middle of a debate about torture. The ENTP ran out of steam and just starting throwing out crazy stuff to throw the INTP off and it didn't work.

The INTP just sat back made intelligent points and a few smart ass barbs and the Entp, while also intelligent, just got more and more mad when it was clear he was losing. It was pretty cool to watch but the ENTP got his ass handed to him on a silver platter. But he still made it funny.

Granted, it is pretty hard to argue pro-torture, but since he *was* pro torture irl, he should've defended his position much better. I's go with INTp usually but I think it depends.

 

I have to agree with duty and others.

ENTPs are good at debating in such a way that make them look more intelligent or more well read. Often by using fallacies to their advantage , possible aggressive or oppressive tendencies and an overall use of perception of an audience. I think Extroversion really helps as they can often play the games that win arguments. I think of this as similar to how a politician may use wording , context, fallacies, and ignorance of those around to win debates.

For example. I once got into a debate about furrys and my opponent was most likely an ENTP. His argument rested on several fallacies including a hasty generalization. (I hadn't taken logic yet, but I knew his argument was bad for various reasons.). But none the less he used perception, pour logic, and as duty put it rhetoric to win the debate. While I provided facts and didn't use other means to get my point across.

this is part of the reasons I don't get along well with ENTP's sometimes. I may not be NT but I personally can't stand facile or misleading information to be used or accepted. If I'm really wrong i will admit it. But by the same token, I hate when less than ethical means are used to win arguments or get work done.

Which is at the core my problem with many people. Or those who don't consider ethics needed.

 

The problem is the vast majority of people find rhetoric very convincing, and so that is what tends to have more influence. If your side is the right one, and you've proven it to yourself by honest means, does it justify the ends to use the most effective means at your disposal, despite the honesty of your techniques?

Ever since I met my girlfriend this question has been on my mind quite a bit. Her answer to this question is "Yes," but I'm not entirely convinced yet. I've never found it enough to just convince people, but only for them to agree for the right reason.

 

Thats a very good question duty and I think one that we all think about eventually.

And this would hinge on a person feels about utilitarianism and weather that conflicts with their person moral system. For example if they beliefs are more kanten, Aristotlelian, or a mix of all three ethics systems.

As for myself I don't know.

 

I agree with her. As long as your point is right, screw what others think, go for the jugular to win, by whatever means possible.