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

[la boheme]

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.

The rules of the forums where this has happened include prohibitions against making personal attacks, and not just in the debate threads. In debate threads, the rules usually include many of the usual rules of debate. The primary difference is the threads are self-regulated and not closely monitored until they go off-topic or fights break out.

 

[la boheme]

I am more interested in motive than lies and manipulation.

Why is motive important when an impersonal topic is being discussed? What difference does it make why someone has a position when the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate the subject matter, not the subjects discussing the matter?

So, for example, if someone who happens to be a feminist argues a position, why is it ever legitimate to dismiss her arguments by saying, "you're just saying that because you're a feminist"?

 

[Matt3737]

Why is motive important when an impersonal topic is being discussed? What difference does it make why someone has a position when the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate the subject matter, not the subjects discussing the matter?

So, for example, if someone who happens to be a feminist argues a position, why is it ever legitimate to dismiss her arguments by saying, "you're just saying that because you're a feminist"?

Impersonal is not equivalent with informal. These are not formal debates, nor have any of your topics, so far presented, been in any fashion or resemblance a topic of debate. They are riddled with presuppositions that are ineligible for ANY formal debate.

 

[la boheme]

Impersonal is not equivalent with informal. These are not formal debates, nor have any of your topics, so far presented, been in any fashion or resemblance a topic of debate. They are riddled with presuppositions that are ineligible for ANY formal debate.

Where did I say impersonal is informal? And what topics have I presented? I only mentioned subjects such as come up on sites like this, including on debate threads. The latter have their own rules and are moderated as such, so they are informal debates.

And, once again, "why is it ever legitimate to dismiss a feminist's arguments by saying, "you're just saying that because you're a feminist"?

 

[Matt3737]

Where did I say impersonal is informal? And what topics have I presented? I only mentioned subjects such as come up on sites like this, including on debate threads. The latter have their own rules and are moderated as such, so they are informal debates.

And, once again, "why is it ever legitimate to dismiss a feminist's arguments by saying, "you're just saying that because you're a feminist"?

Your usage of the word 'impersonal' is a supposition. What makes a topic of discussion or debate 'impersonal'? That makes it sound like it's an objective study or a scientific paper, which it is not. Argument necessarily requires a participant to assume a position, stance, or opinion in which to argue from.

You begin your paragraph insisting that you did not say (explicitly, you did not) that 'impersonal is equivalent with informal,' yet end the paragraph with 'so they are informal debates'. 'They' being the topics you just previously described as 'impersonal.' You do, in fact, imply that they are.

im·per·son·al adj.
1. Lacking personality; not being a person: an impersonal force.
2. a. Showing no emotion or personality: an aloof, impersonal manner.
b. Having no personal reference or connection: an impersonal remark.
c. Not responsive to or expressive of human personalities: a large, impersonal corporation.

3. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being a verb that expresses the action of an unspecified subject, as in methinks, "it seems to me"; Latin pluit, "it rains"; or, with an expletive subject, it snowed.
b. Indefinite. Used of pronouns.

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

As TDHT pointed out:

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

These are all topics based on personalities, infested with suppositions, that you insist are or should be impersonal? As in:

Not responsive to or expressive of human personalities

You strike me as being very peculiar.

 

[la boheme]

Your usage of the word 'impersonal' is a supposition. What makes a topic of discussion or debate 'impersonal'? That makes it sound like it's an objective study or a scientific paper, which it is not. Argument necessarily requires a participant to assume a position, stance, or opinion in which to argue from.

You begin your paragraph insisting that you did not say (explicitly, you did not) that 'impersonal is equivalent with informal,' yet end the paragraph with 'so they are informal debates'. 'They' being the topics you just previously described as 'impersonal.' You do, in fact, imply that they are.

No. A formal debate might be impersonal, too, so debate and informality are not the same things. And a scientific study isn't the only thing that may be impersonal. My observation that night follows day follows night is also impersonal but is not scientific nor a study. I use impersonal in this context to mean the bases of the arguments must lie outside of any persons, in reasons and facts that are readily apprehended and easily confirmed by any rational and intelligent person. So it is not legitimate (or persuasive) to argue, "I believe this is right because I believe it"; likewise, it is not legitimate to argue, "I believe he is wrong because he believes it". The arguments for the position must be reasons and facts that don't depend on what any person believes--ie, impersonal.

 

[Matt3737]

No. A formal debate might be impersonal, too, so debate and informality are not the same things. And a scientific study isn't the only thing that may be impersonal. My observation that night follows day follows night is also impersonal but is not scientific nor a study. I use impersonal in this context to mean the bases of the arguments must lie outside of any persons, in reasons and facts that are readily apprehended and easily confirmed by any rational and intelligent person. So it is not legitimate (or persuasive) to argue, "I believe this is right because I believe it"; likewise, it is not legitimate to argue, "I believe he is wrong because he believes it". The arguments for the position must be reasons and facts that don't depend on what any person believes--ie, impersonal.

Incorrect:

The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such.

 

[la boheme]

Incorrect:

No. You are confusing the method in which the outcomes of formal debates are decided--that is, by audience vote--with the manner in which they are conducted. During the debate, there are no appeals to the audience for their opinions. No debater uses audience voting as a part of his argument. He uses facts and reason to persuade the audience, which has the final say when it votes to decide who won the debate.

 

[Matt3737]

No. You are confusing the method in which the outcomes of formal debates are decided--that is, by audience vote--with the manner in which they are conducted. During the debate, there are no appeals to the audience for their opinions. No debater uses audience voting as a part of his argument. He uses facts and reason to persuade the audience, which has the final say when it votes to decide who won the debate.

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Debate is a broader form of argument than factual argument. You are deliberately lying now.

 

[la boheme]

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Debate is a broader form of argument than factual argument. You are deliberately lying now.

I'm glad you resorted to an ad hominem argument because it illustrates my original point about Ni-doms. Is your intuition right? Am I "lying"? What if I don't accept this definition? Would I still be "lying"? What if I didn't read your definition? Would I still be "lying"? What if I forgot your definition? Would I still be "lying"? What if I didn't understand your definition? Would I still be "lying"?

You see how Ni can jump to conclusions without considering how it might be wrong?

In fact, that definition of debate describes how it is practiced by skilled practitioners engaged, usually, in formal debates. For example, notice the reference to "subtle and strategic" use of "context"? I don't participate in formal debates. And debating is not part of my occupation. So I don't know if that definition is true. And that is why I didn't define impersonal to include that idea. Also, I don't see how that idea is not also impersonal. Creating a "context" suggests framing your position against an objective reality that one describes using facts. The difference with a factual argument appears to be that these facts set the stage for or provide the backdrop for arguments rather than being the particular facts used in the arguments themselves.

So I continue to maintain that debates, even formal ones, are impersonal discussions where facts and reasons outside of persons form the bases of arguments--and, maybe, where facts are used to create the context in which the arguments are set or understood.

 

[la boheme]

Debate is a broader form of argument than factual argument. You are deliberately lying now.

Let me share with you how I would have handled this had I been in your position and you in mine. I would not have claimed that you were lying because I didn't have enough evidence to make that claim. Instead, I would have pointed out that your definition did not take into consideration "subtle strategies" and "context". Why? Because it didn't. That is the fact. So I make statements I can support. Ad hominem statements can't usually be supported. So I don't like to make them.

 

[Matt3737]

Let me share with you how I would have handled this had I been in your position and you in mine. I would not have claimed that you were lying because I didn't have enough evidence to make that claim. Instead, I would have pointed out that your definition did not take into consideration "subtle strategies" and "context". Why? Because it didn't. That is the fact. So I make statements I can support. Ad hominem statements can't usually be supported. So I don't like to make them.

Yeah, and clouds are a more nutritious food source than fish, because clouds are more adept at swimming in the sky than fish are sleeping in the oceans. I am right, therefore I win the argument.

 

[la boheme]

Yeah, and clouds are a more nutritious food source than fish, because clouds are more adept at swimming in the sky than fish are sleeping in the oceans. I am right, therefore I win the argument.

Think what you like. The facts speak for themselves. And thanks for the non-apology. The things I have to put up with online! I hope you don't go around irl using ad hominem attacks like you did here.

 

[BrokenDaniel]

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

Sometimes i do, although i try not to. In arguments people ask too much of you, and you can't always fullfil their expectations because (at least that's how i see it) you're not playing by their rules, so if suddenly someone thinks you've crossed their boundaries, it all turns upside down. Taking offense is WAY too easy inn arguments and debates. Lots of people take themselves way too seriously in those situations, like wearing their hearts on a sleeve. It's funny to see that on the internet, it happens so often.
I've been on both ends, i can't say that i take offense by personal attacks myself, i have no explanations nor excuses to give to most people. As for the "personal" attacks that i've made, sometimes intentions speak louder than words, and it's hardly personal, it's just annoying to see that.

 

[grt$5vb]

I know I could be wrong and I will apologize if I am. I suspect that I have put a piece together and I want confirmation. I am motivated by emotion first, so how I respond depends on if I decide to take a break until I can think things through and edit myself.

I don't see myself dismissing a point due to feminism, etc. However, infjs are not intps so we are almost never likely to respond the way you deem correct. We have our own subjective rules and we naturally spot patterns and draw conclusions. If you do not prefer our communication style or suspicious nature there are plenty of intps to debate with.

 

[la boheme]

Yeah, and clouds are a more nutritious food source than fish, because clouds are more adept at swimming in the sky than fish are sleeping in the oceans. I am right, therefore I win the argument.

Oh, and one more thing. Since you think you "won", then you can answer my question, the one you twice evaded: why is it ever legitimate to dismiss a feminist's argument by saying, "you're just saying that because you're a feminist"? Or dismiss a woman's point of view by saying, "you're just saying that because you're a woman"? Or accusing someone of "lying" when you have no proof?

 

[la boheme]

I know I could be wrong and I will apologize if I am. I suspect that I have put a piece together and I want confirmation. I am motivated by emotion first, so how I respond depends on if I decide to take a break until I can think things through and edit myself.

I don't see myself dismissing a point due to feminism, etc. However, infjs are not intps so we are almost never likely to respond the way you deem correct. We have our own subjective rules and we naturally spot patterns and draw conclusions. If you do not prefer our communication style or suspicious nature there are plenty of intps to debate with.

It isn't just debates but discussions, too. The problem arises because online I might be talking to an INTP but an INFJ or INTJ might decide to join the discussion. So it isn't something I can always avoid, nor do I want to avoid INFJs or INTJs. I just want to understand this phenomenon so that I can better respond to it.

 

[Matt3737]

Oh, and one more thing. Since you think you "won", then you can answer my question, the one you twice evaded: why is it ever legitimate to dismiss a feminist's argument by saying, "you're just saying that because you're a feminist?

I evaded it because I never said it was.

 

[la boheme]

I evaded it because I never said it was.

But that's an ad hominem argument and you stated you believe such arguments are valid. So why isn't this one valid, and what are the criteria for valid ad hominem arguments, in your opinion? Why, for example, is your accusation that I was lying valid? That argument was tantamount to, "you're just saying that because you are a liar". Why is this valid and the feminist statement not valid?

 

[Elis]

Oh, I'll absolutely do this. If I feel like a discussion is getting nowhere or that it is getting redundant I might very likely point out any suspicion of underlying issues. I will, however, not discern any argument or point of view only because x is a feminist &c.

I think that a common issue is that people often aren't really communicating, too blindly scoped on their own thing that they don't see that they aren't even addressing the same issue. As such I think that more often than not the real issue isn't whether or not people can follow logical reasoning, but rather that people want to address different issues.