Passionate/logical arguments | INFJ Forum

Passionate/logical arguments

justeccentricnotinsane

Community Member
Oct 7, 2008
367
88
0
MBTI
INFJ
Hi
I was actually just thinking about the fact this is always on MBTI tests:

Which do you prefer:
a) a cold, rational argument
b) an argument with passion.

I have never been able to answer this question. I sit there staring at it and eventually choose logical because the idea of a passionate argument conjures images of people shouting at each and that never gets you anywhere.

But in reality, I don't actually give a shit how it's said. I'm only interested in what's being said. Something being cold and rational doesn't put me off and something being passionate doesn't put me off. I only care about what they're saying.

So. Discuss. Which do you prefer or are you like me? Can you also say why?
 
Most of those questions set me off because I want to say, "it depends on the context of the situation." I'm never just one or the other, so I always choose what I seem most like - although to be fair, that changes from time to time too, depending on how I'm feeling. Those types of test bug me. What I really want is a full situational paragraph of, "here's the situation. You walk into a room, and there's an argument going on. What's the first thing you'd do?" And then give me a list of five or more suggestions. And not those types of suggestions that have more than one answer, either.

Lol. No, I hate those tests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aer
Why not both? Oh well, since we're talking about extremes, I'd have to say I prefer logical arguments. I literally don't have the energy to deal with my flaring emotions these days, let alone the emotions of someone else.
 
All things being equal, I would prefer to have a cold, rational argument. At least in such arguments I can detach myself to look at the facts without getting too personally involved - in heated, passionate discussions, I either end up feeling highly unsatisfied, or highly tired. In really bad arguments though, both rational and passionate arguments irritate me.

For me, the nicest sort of arguments don't involve the whether it's rational or passionate... but more of whether it is sensible, and constructive. If I know the people involved genuinely care about the subject matter, and are being reasonable when they make their stand, I'm pretty willing to have such discussions. :) But that's out of the OP's question's parameters.
 
I would say that the questions are designed to be answered quickly. It is supposed to be about your instinctual response to relatively opposing viewpoints or behavior. If you are sitting there for several moments and thinking about the questions you aren't liable to get accurate test results. I would prefer to see tests that limit time..ie, timed responses. The tests are designed to ferret out your habitual and preferred method of dealing with certain things. I would say you would do well to stop taking tests and focus on the written theory if you want to find/confirm your MBTI type (not that you are trying to do this :) )

I don't agonize over questions that stump me. Sometimes both choices aren't "right" but one presents a more tolerable alternative to the other. Perhaps you have a greater deal of anxiety for untenable situations. "I don't like either choice" isn't an option--the task it to pick the "choice that is more like you" --it doesn't mean it is exactly like you--but more like you--even if by a hair.


Edit: Guess which one I pick....
 
Cold, rational argument. With the other, I am likely to be overwhelmed by the other persons emotions. It's not that I'm likely to get emotional. But it's very likely I will began to respond to their emotion instead of the question.
NDN NT; said:
Guess which one I pick....
That's a harder question than the one in the OP. But I'm going to say rational because it would appeal to your logical side. However my guess is that you may be a less overwhelmed than I, in an argument with someone who is being very emotional.
 
I prefer a "cold" rational argument.
Arguments made passionately, with lots of emotions and loud tones of voice are distracting and alarming to me.
I also have a hard time taking someone seriously if they do not practice restraint.

When I went to church, I always preferred a preacher who was calm and collected and enriched the content of his sermon with parables and other connections I could use to synthesize the material to my own knowledge.
I definitely prefer a speaker who appeals to my intellect over my emotions... I usually feel manipulated if someone tries to appeal to my emotions.
I could never take a preacher seriously who was way emotional. I'd leave.

If I'm having a discussion with someone and they become really emotional and passionate, I may exit the discussion or try to persuade them to calm down.

Also, like Norwich said, I find myself overwhelmed/focused on the emotions of the speaker.

My mom always raises her voice and speaks emotionally about a topic she is passionate about. I always have to say, "Could you stop yelling?" And she isn't aware that she is yelling and being confrontational.. but that's just how it comes off to me: confrontational.

And I'm not a Thinking type.. Like the OP, when it comes to someone trying to teach, persuade, or debate me... I only care about the content.
It's not a very reliable test question.

At the same time... I can't say I don't ever get passionate about what I'm talking about.. Especially if the other person is doing that and I'm getting caught up in the flurry.. but I don't like to debate or discuss that way--So I try to avoid it.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps as a singular question it is not very reliable @acd

Seen in the context that it is a single question, taken from a series of questions, designed to narrow down the respondents preferred functions...more than adequate.
 
I usually get NT results from an online mbti quiz.
And I am not an NT. That I am sure of.
I think that a lot of the tests are too black and white.
 
Perhaps you are closer to the divide than you realize? Thinker Denial? LOL
 
I pick irrational and passionate because nobody else will....

DAMN ALL YOU RATIONAL THINKING PEOPLE!

I made my point, and it makes sense to me..

Actually, it gets hard for me to discuss certain issues dispassionatley, but I'm trying to do better. It seems like I relate litterally everything back to my personal experience---(including this discussion).

*falls to the ground*

DAMN IT ALL TO HELL! *pounds fist hard on the floor*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nixie
I would prefer a cold logical argument because like some have said, I really don't like the feeling of someone trying to manipulate me through emotional appeal (Pathos). I don't like it when people get too subjective in this arena.
I would rather hear someone say something that will make me think, make me want to see reason, because for me, someone who is adept at this, is showing me how they feel about something without having to actually say it.

For instance, I have little patience arguing with my ESFJ mother about anything because she is always trying to "guilt trip" me to make me see that her side is "right", On the other hand, I argue with with my ISTP/INTJ brothers for hours, because we are constantly coming up with new ways to address the issue rationally; And we all feel like we are actually being listened to, that our opinions have weight and depth.
 
I don't like this question either. I usually answer cold, rational because I like the rational part. The best argument is rational AND passionate!
 
Exactly!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nixie
Cool, seems a lot are like me here! I totally understand you @acd , as well. I would walk out of a church with a preacher who was too emotional about it (if I was religious).

I think people are right about the manipulation feeling, I get that as well. The other thing I tend to do is think that people need to use restraint to keep order (i.e. if we all get emotional then the debate will become disorderly and we should be professional/polite) and also because I think emotion clouds judgement.

I know that's going to make me seem like a T and I've tried to look at the Ts way of thinking and doing things but it doesn't match up with me. The problem people sometimes have, and perhaps some of the test writers have if they're going to ask questions like this, is confused the feeling function with emotions. I don't think that feelers are necessarily emotional. I am emotional, in that I am easily overwhelmed by my emotions and the emotions of others. But I don't get emotional about things in front of others. Other people wouldn't describe me as emotional (only people who know me well know how emotional I get). I don't trust my personal emotions. Often they are irrational.

If someone comes to me with a problem and they have restraint over their emotions (I'm not saying one should always have restraint, I don't think it's good for you) then it still hurts because I can hear it in their voice. But I can feel calm enough to give advice. If someone is crying in front of me, I don't know what to do. I feel incredibly uncomfortable. If it's my boyfriend, it's fine, because I can hug him. Usually, when crying, that's what people need. Talking comes later. But I'm not tactile with anyone else, really, just not brought up that way so I feel uncomfortable with the idea of physical contact with friends. So I just feel helpless and it's awful.

Also, I get overwhelmed by my own emotions and don't cope easily with strong emotions, which just send me flailing. But that does not mean that I trust emotions or that I don't question how I'm feeling or that I think I should put all my judgement into my feelings, because often emotions are subjective. They're related to your personal experience and your personal experience can't tell you anything about what's right or wrong. You can't allow your feelings about things to cloud what's right. Not just in terms of facts and such, I mean morally right. That's the way I see it. I think people trust their emotions too much and they allow their emotions to lead them to do and say things or believe things that are immoral.

When it comes to debates that do not have a moral dimension, I generally just think they need to calm down and stop getting so personal. I don't understand how people get so upset if you challenge their opinions, as if just disagreeing is calling them stupid. I say that, but I get upset (even at tv programmes!) when my morals are crossed. External functions - your anchor in the world. If someone pulls out your anchor you're lost, which is frightening and evokes emotion.

Anyway, a lot of people think Ts are the ones who believe their emotions are irrational. Actually, it depends on the T. INTJs, for instance, probably wouldn't consider their emotions to be irrational, they'd consider them justified. However, they may think other people's emotions are irrational. I tend to see other people's emotions as rational (even when they're apparently acting out, you can see why) and see my own as irrational. I can feel something very strongly and at the same time think: "Hm. Why do I feel like that? There isn't a good reason for me to feel that way so there's something wrong - with me. I'm being irrational." I don't just shout at myself, I investigate. If I'm being irrational, it means something's touched a nerve. If I don't get to the bottom of it the problem will get worse and I will start feeling bad all the time. Once I've worked out what I'm upset about I can start trying to rationalise it. Generally, this doesn't work. Feeling still overpowers logic, however much I hate that! But I don't look at my own emotions and think they are "true" or "justified" because that may lead me to make mistakes that hurt others.

That was such a rant! I think it's just because this all reminded me of how people mistake feelers for overly emotional people. Sorry!
 
Last edited:
I think people are right about the manipulation feeling, I get that as well. The other thing I tend to do is think that people need to use restraint to keep order (i.e. if we all get emotional then the debate will become disorderly and we should be professional/polite) and also because I think emotion clouds judgement.

If one can't detach the self from the discussion, then if something the person is passionate about gets brought up, all Hell is bound to break loose. That's why discussing feelers is difficult for me, because I know that I am one. So I would say that when passion and emotions start flying, it is NOT a debate in that person's mind. They feel as though they are being attacked by the opposition.

I feel like a Jew talking to Hitler, if it seems like the person believes that feelers are inferior, because of what most people think that means in the MBTI, including many unfortunate feelers themselves. Any passion on my part gets the ol', "Why do you care?" response. So maybe I should just start wearing a T-shirt that says, "Fe and Fi are values and not feelings."
 
Your "rant" cracked me up. I very much understood it. I am an INFJ but act like an INTJ in the workplace. When I finally get emotional it's because I've let my feelings build up (second guessing the rationality). When I finally do blow a lid, I truly have a reason to. Not saying that is the best way. I need to trust my inuition more when something's not right and not let the feelings build. There, thanks for letting me rant! lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broken705
Okay off on different tangent than you guys here:

The question is asking about opposing functions that are typically designed to test whether one is along the T or the F axis. But it also touches on other components: I get Te with Si versus Fi with Se kinda vibe from the question--feel free to argue. The question itself doesn't really lend itself to anything that would really apply to intuitives.

I would also like to say that Thinking versus Feeling has always been about functions not intelligence. Thinkers aren't more intelligent than Feelers and Feelers don't lack intelligence. It is a judging function. For me, I identify Thinking (vs. Feeling) as how I build my map of the world with intuition (vs. sensing) as how I navigate that map.

One (Thinkers) focuses on the outward manifestation of individualization--humankind's creations (thoughts, ideas, concepts) and one (Feelers) focuses on the inward manifestation of individalization--humankind (thoughts, beliefs, emotions). Both are systems of thought
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broken705
At work, I prefer cold rational argument but at home, an argument with passion.