[INFJ] INFJs, NI-doms, and ad hominem

[la boheme]

Hello INFJs! I want to ask you about something I've noticed in Ni-doms including INFJs. It is that in impersonal discussions and debates, these types will often bring up what they imagine are my supposed hidden intentions and use that against me. Such a tactic is known as an ad hominem argument in rhetoric, meaning "arguing to the man" rather than to his ideas. It is considered a logical fallacy and highly inappropriate in debates, especially formal ones.

My question is do you ever do this yourself? And what prompts you to do it? Why do you think it is relevant in an impersonal discussion to bring up "hidden agendas" that cannot usually be proven? How do you justify doing this? How do you support your suspicions?

And in personal discussions I assume you do this. I would be annoyed to have my supposed motivations thrown in my face, especially when I think they are wrong or irrelevant. How do you go about broaching such touchy subjects w/o derailing the discussion and upsetting your partner?

thanks

 

[sassafras]

Is there any reason why you're investigating all the negative traits of NFs in the last 12 hours? These are the latest topics of your threads:

• INFJs, Ni-dom and ad-hominem
• ENFPs: the least intellectual NF?
• ENFPS: the most insensitive NF?

Oh wait, I'm questioning your motivations here, aren't I? Sorry ;P

Remember that NFs are holistic thinkers. NFs appreciate that what passes for truth is often a matter of perception and the way something is framed. Think about the subjects these types are drawn to. History, literature, psychology, sociology, etc. Every one of these disciplines requires an ability to approach ideas from multiple angles, question the motives and intentions behind the subject matter to root out biases, intentions, etc. Its what they're naturally good at.

In a conflict, you tend to lean on the functions that are the most developed and the knee-jerk instinct of these types is to figure out the holistic context for where this argument is coming from. If the T is not well developed, it's going to be difficult for these types to organize their thoughts in a strictly T-type approved manner.

Still, while this is a possible explanation, it doesn't mean that every NF out there uses ad hominem attacks or that they can't debate in a logical manner. I can think of several well developed NFs who can dance circles around the holier-than-thou NTs in a discussion because they're better at anticipating where an argument will go and what the other person's response will be by, surprise, surprise, ferreting out the psychological context. Which might annoy the NT, because they keep on insisting that they're only in it because science!

Strengths and weaknesses in every type.

 

[Matt3737]

The distinction between a formal debate and an informal debate are the rules and the decontextualization of the participants and the topic. The participants may or may not be familiar with each other, they do not choose the topic, nor are the motivations to enter into the debate an aspect of the debate.

These things may or may not matter in an informal debate, but may in fact be a true and valid part of the informal argument as no rules are set forth nor reason given for entering into such a matter in the first place.

 

[finifugal]

While I don't actually say these attacks, I do think them. They are not wrong. It is simply our ability to see the motivation that those people have that they are often unaware of themselves. They can't see past their own self-serving bias. But I keep my mouth shut if that makes you feel any better. I find INTJ's guilty of this more. They deny it, of course.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Ad hominem is a fairly common response to a perceived threat or vulnerability; I'm not sure that it is especially prone to (ab)use by a specific type. We mortals like structure and security, and tend to balk at whatever takes these things from us.

With that said, there is a place for psychological investigation in debates. The contents and boundaries of the personality on the other end of the table influence what topics they are willing to explore, how they perceive and think about them, and what they are willing to accept, acknowledge, or reason through. Quite simply, sometimes you have to pick your battles wisely or end up wasting time, energy, and perhaps relationships. Of course, the expression of these things - framed in such a way to denigrate the opposition, undermine the strength of their argument without directly touching it, and/or adopt a veil of superiority yourself to divert a threat - is what typifies ad hominem.

Personally, I do not commit ad hominem, and usually try to reroute discussions back to the original topic if the folks on the other end try that tactic. In such cases, I will probably wonder why they feel the need to digress and get their hands dirty, but such curiosities are just that, are rarely voiced, and never become the mantelpiece of the discussion. If the attacks and assumptions continue, I simply disengage and tell them that I'll be ready to continue when they're ready to have an open dialogue. I debate to gain perspective and insight, not to glorify myself or persuade others.

 

[INFJok]

When you guys bring up these debates, we may glance at you like this....




only because we want to know why we are discussing the particular topic and want to know exactly where it came from!

 

[la boheme]

Is there any reason why you're investigating all the negative traits of NFs in the last 12 hours? These are the latest topics of your threads:

• INFJs, Ni-dom and ad-hominem
• ENFPs: the least intellectual NF?
• ENFPS: the most insensitive NF?

Oh wait, I'm questioning your motivations here, aren't I? Sorry ;P

Remember that NFs are holistic thinkers. NFs appreciate that what passes for truth is often a matter of perception and the way something is framed. Think about the subjects these types are drawn to. History, literature, psychology, sociology, etc. Every one of these disciplines requires an ability to approach ideas from multiple angles, question the motives and intentions behind the subject matter to root out biases, intentions, etc. Its what they're naturally good at.

In a conflict, you tend to lean on the functions that are the most developed and the knee-jerk instinct of these types is to figure out the holistic context for where this argument is coming from. If the T is not well developed, it's going to be difficult for these types to organize their thoughts in a strictly T-type approved manner.

Still, while this is a possible explanation, it doesn't mean that every NF out there uses ad hominem attacks or that they can't debate in a logical manner. I can think of several well developed NFs who can dance circles around the holier-than-thou NTs in a discussion because they're better at anticipating where an argument will go and what the other person's response will be by, surprise, surprise, ferreting out the psychological context. Which might annoy the NT, because they keep on insisting that they're only in it because science!

Strengths and weaknesses in every type.

How do you recommend I respond to someone using an ad hominem argument?

 

[la boheme]

While I don't actually say these attacks, I do think them. They are not wrong. It is simply our ability to see the motivation that those people have that they are often unaware of themselves. They can't see past their own self-serving bias. But I keep my mouth shut if that makes you feel any better. I find INTJ's guilty of this more. They deny it, of course.

INTJs are more guilty of saying it out loud, you mean?

 

[la boheme]

The distinction between a formal debate and an informal debate are the rules and the decontextualization of the participants and the topic. The participants may or may not be familiar with each other, they do not choose the topic, nor are the motivations to enter into the debate an aspect of the debate.

These things may or may not matter in an informal debate, but may in fact be a true and valid part of the informal argument as no rules are set forth nor reason given for entering into such a matter in the first place.

Good points, but the discussions I have in mind involved people who didn't know each other on a forum like this. So there were no personal histories or relationships to complicate the discussions. People simply made assumptions based on gender, type, and what was already said to make accusations about others.

 

[sassafras]

How do you recommend I respond to someone using an ad hominem argument?

YOUR MOM

In seriousness, there's no cut and dry answer. Every discussion is different, every person is different. Some people don't realize they're doing it. Some people can't separate critique of a point from a critique of their person and are lashing out because they're genuinely hurt. Some people are purposely just shaking your tree. But I think the key to any conflict is: staying calm, staying rational, doing your best to see from the other person's perspective and when you see its fruitless, just walking away.

 

[la boheme]

YOUR MOM

In seriousness, there's no cut and dry answer. Every discussion is different, every person is different. Some people don't realize they're doing it. Some people can't separate critique of a point from a critique of their person and are lashing out because they're genuinely hurt. Some people are purposely just shaking your tree. But I think the key to any conflict is: staying calm, staying rational, doing your best to see from the other person's perspective and when you see its fruitless, just walking away.

My mom? You mean ad mominem, the mother of ad hominem? Good idea. They'll never see it coming.

 

[sassafras]

My mom? You mean ad mominem, the mother of ad hominem? Good idea. They'll never see it coming.

Or just jump straight to the big guns and invoke Godwin's Law. It was probably heading there anyway.

 

[charlatan]

I think the attacking mentality is more characteristic of the J than of the INF. In particular, "I" often keep to themselves, "N" promotes seeing multiple perspectives, "F" tries to understand the interpersonal element more (T's can do this too, but F is more drawn to the humane aspects of things), so the J is really the thing at work usually --- that, despite the N, they want to come to closure and are more likely to prescribe "the right" way of seeing things.

Don't get me wrong, I do that too from time to time, but there's less of a core drive to do that.

 

[la boheme]

Or just jump straight to the big guns and invoke Godwin's Law. It was probably heading there anyway.

That's one way to shoot yourself in the foot. I actually did bring the Nazis into one discussion, but by way of comparison to the subject, not to my interlocutor. For him, I've saved the Hitler trick in case of emergency.

 

[grt$5vb]

I absolutely care about the truth. This is what prompts me to unearth it from seven layers of bullshit. I'll only hit you with it aloud if you piss me off.

 

[Matt3737]

Good points, but the discussions I have in mind involved people who didn't know each other on a forum like this. So there were no personal histories or relationships to complicate the discussions. People simply made assumptions based on gender, type, and what was already said to make accusations about others.

Why do you have an expectation of a formal debate wherein such faults would be acknowledged by a judge? The rules of the forum are the basis for what you can reasonably expect in a discussion and should be easily accessible. You might also try setting stricter guidelines for discussion within your own threads at the outset, so long as the rules of the forum allow for such.

People are wired to make assumptions due to the inherent need to process limited and incomplete information in as efficient a manner possible.

 

[grt$5vb]

I am more interested in motive than lies and manipulation.

 

[Sequel]

I think it's human nature to argue around a topic you're not interested in coming to a conclusion about. So for myself I'm easy on myself and others when we (they) become argumentative over certain topics. Also I believe I don't always listen well when I'm tired or reluctant to open up about my personal feelings on a subject.

 

[grt$5vb]

If I have caught someone lying to me or if someone is bullying or trying to steam roll others, I will jump in. Logic is sexy, unless you are hiding behind it. If you're being a shady motherfucker, just admit it so we can move forward.

Also, please respond with your mom. Every time.

 

[grt$5vb]

I was so looking forward to your moming this response... sigh...