"Yeah, defend your position or it's no good!"

[Barnabas]

"Yeah, defend your position or it's no good!"

this used to be or still is someones sig, it started to make me thing about being willing to debate over what has been stated.

I come to the conclusion that it's not an entirely good idea.

first off, If I have to defend something that means I'm being attacked, defending myself would only prolong the conflict. It would be better to not invole yourself further.

secondly, I starting to think that debate isn't the beest tool for learning.Often two or more people start already convinced of their view and would bemore or less unshakeable. At best it lets the other readers view the debators views and learn from there.

which leads to my next point, I may not even be capable of debating on the subject and most if not everything i contribute may end up being false and provide others with false knowledge.

Even if i do debate, skillfuly or woefuly. The outcome doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, It just means I've made some else or myself look like an idiot instead of getting any information of real value to others.

Which leads me to a final point, simply asking questions with the will to learn is 1,000 times more productive then a debate, espicially if you check that with knowledge you've had prior and make sure what the writter has said has any sort of value by other sources.

What do yo guys think, any good or is this about as far as I could get from the truth?

 

[NeverAmI]

Learning is understanding the other person's perspective, not proving your own.


Debate has many forms.

 

[IndigoSensor]

It is a good idea to defend what you believe in, but also know when it isn't worth it. Some people like to challenge you, just for the sake of the challenge. In cases like that, I will not get involved. Fact of the matter is they don't want to gain anything from it except the energy from debating. I will get involved if someone wants to understand something, needs clarification, or has such a flat opinion on something that I feel compelled to say something.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I am once again honored.


I find debate very useful... when practiced with the right people. The most important thing is that the other person, if not open-minded, is able to justify shis position coherently. Therein lies the challenge to your beliefs, which you may rise to or buckle under according to your own competence. If you recognize from the outset that you're dealing with a simultaneously ignorant and brash person, there is little point outside of brief entertainment value.

 

[Ecton]

I do not enjoy debate. I prefer conversation about opposing ideas.

There are two main reasons I do not enjoy debate:

1) In particular, when debating T types, I tend to get frustrated with their requirement that I abandon holistic thinking. I'm not interested in abandoning it, and their refusal to accept its elements leaves me feeling that they just wish to dominate me in an arena of their choosing. I refuse.

2) While a discussion of ideas is great for arriving at axiomatic solutions, and I do this all the time at work, the more adversarial model that spirits debate (even in collegiate forms) has undertones that I find repulsive. If I wanted conflict, I'd grow horns on my head and butt heads with other rams. But I don't, and I'm not interested.

This is just me. I enjoy watching two people debate who find no objection to it. I'd just rather have a discussion where I'm not being forced to "defend" my position. In that scenario, I'm essentially being "attacked". One day, I'd like to have a discussion where I require INTJs to come at me with only holistic elements. Then they would understand what it is like to stand in my shoes.

 

[Satya]

Debating is suppose to be a fun activity. If it isn't fun, then there really isn't much point to doing it. You can learn a lot more about a position if you do debate, but by debating alone, it is unlikely that you or the person you are debating with will change your positions.

As far as how "good" a position is, that depends a lot on the individual. I don't think a positoin is worth crap if people can't support it in an argument or can't provide evidence to back it up. Other people see the personal significance a belief has to a person and recognize that it is more important to respect that person's worldview than it is to be right or to make fun of that person for believing something that is unsubstantiated. I'm not that mature. I'm gonna make fun of people who believe in unsubstantiated stuff by tearing big holes in their logic. I'm getting better at not doing that all the time though.

 

[Ecton]

I respect your position, but most of the "hole tearing" I see going on is usually never as sound as the people doing it think it is. I have a PhD in a science, I'm well versed in rational thought, experimentation, and logic. I deeply value the Scientific Method, rational discourse, ideas, and scrutiny.

Its just my personality. When people start debating ideas in order to "win" I just get turned off. It just isn't the way I like to approach knowledge. I have no problem discussing ideas and identifying their flaws, I just don't want to make it into a contest. I can walk away from a discussion without declaring a winner, completely and fully satisfied. In a conflict-driven debate with a declared winner, I usually leave with a bad taste in my mouth and foreboding about the future of humankind. That's just me and my typical INFJy-ness. I'll never really enjoy any format that has ritualized combat as its basis. I don't like conflict of any kind. (That doesn't mean I won't resort to conflict when necessary.)

I also need to communicate that I respect you and what you do. I find your posts and debates to be very interesting. I always appreciate your candor and willingness to delve into a testing of well planned thought. One of the things I admire most about your posts is that you take the time to organize your ideas in a way that is pleasurable to read. You really put thought into what you are thinking, and get really good responses from those who are activated by your passion. I think you also have a great ability for conversational discussions, which is the mode I can prefer to operate in.

To summarize, I think there is great value in debate but I prefer other methods of discussion. It really comes down to not enjoying conflict. I just don't like it. That's just me For those who do enjoy debate, and do it well, there is great value for the rest of us. I see it on these forums.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

"Yeah, defend your position or it's no good!"

That works for me if I'm presenting a doctoral thesis or running for public office. Otherwise, I generally don't feel the need to justify my position to everyone who disagrees. I am open to new ideas and being proven wrong, but I'm way too lazy to go tooth and nail with every single person who might disagree with me.

For example, if I present a viewpoint and someone not only disagrees but decides to put a few condescending barbs into their message, I'll more than likely disengage due to the fact that I'm not going to waste my time with someone who is disrespectful of others, regardless of whether or not I can pose a successful defense.

 

[TinyBubbles]

i think debate is useful if both parties have respect for each other and both are equally capable of presenting their viewpoints effectively. there's no point debating politics with someone when they don't follow the news and don't know the current state of affairs, for example. you'd be starting off from an unequal platform. but when you've both "done your homework" so to speak, and are both informed about the topic you're discussing, then debate can be a great way to exchange information, and maybe have the loopholes in your argument revealed to you. or have your argument further validated to you by being able to demonstrate how there are no loopholes. either way, you leave with a more accurate version of the topic - at least, in an ideal situation. it's also possible neither of you will agree and you'll come away just feeling annoyed, lol.

 

[Soulful]

As far as how "good" a position is, that depends a lot on the individual. I don't think a positoin is worth crap if people can't support it in an argument or can't provide evidence to back it up. Other people see the personal significance a belief has to a person and recognize that it is more important to respect that person's worldview than it is to be right or to make fun of that person for believing something that is unsubstantiated. I'm not that mature. I'm gonna make fun of people who believe in unsubstantiated stuff by tearing big holes in their logic. I'm getting better at not doing that all the time though.

But perhaps it's only unsubstantiated to you if you're only using logic or rational thought as an accepted means of measurement/explanation?

 

[Reon]

"Yeah, defend your position or it's no good!"

this used to be or still is someones sig, it started to make me thing about being willing to debate over what has been stated.

I come to the conclusion that it's not an entirely good idea.

first off, If I have to defend something that means I'm being attacked, defending myself would only prolong the conflict. It would be better to not invole yourself further.

secondly, I starting to think that debate isn't the beest tool for learning.Often two or more people start already convinced of their view and would bemore or less unshakeable. At best it lets the other readers view the debators views and learn from there.

which leads to my next point, I may not even be capable of debating on the subject and most if not everything i contribute may end up being false and provide others with false knowledge.

Even if i do debate, skillfuly or woefuly. The outcome doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, It just means I've made some else or myself look like an idiot instead of getting any information of real value to others.
Which leads me to a final point, simply asking questions with the will to learn is 1,000 times more productive then a debate, espicially if you check that with knowledge you've had prior and make sure what the writter has said has any sort of value by other sources.

What do yo guys think, any good or is this about as far as I could get from the truth?

Your posts reeks with connotation(Shitty debaters are shitty is the general vibe I'm getting). And about your second point, if you honestly have no information about a subject and you are to the point of actually giving out fraudulent information, what's the point in believing in that particular piece of knowledge (This is not just being unable to argue) Edit: Just to be clear, I'm saying that you should state that you don't know anything about the subject. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about something. Remaining ignorant after that is your choice.

Anyways, if you argue with the village idiot or ask questions to one, you'll get the same result, no knowledge will be gained at all.

Ecton: What do you mean by holistic elements, unless I'm mistaken, I thought all the INTJs were really into that for some reason (based on the INTJ forum)

 

[Barnabas]

Seriously though, what would be the point? There aren't that many religion threads.

changed that now didn't I


I hear alot about what people are saying, and I guess I should state that I'm not entirely against debate. But often debates become something like whats happening in the [pug] Christianity thread (hindsight being 20/20 I think it was a bad Idea for me to post in that thread), where it nothing good comes from it. This is often found in religion and politics, but I've seen it in other areas to.

Though I have to admit this board for the most part is capable of having simple reasonable debates, I just find a threads like ask a Wiccan, ask a Christian or ask a Gay to far more informative then the former the the pug thread.

 

[slant]

It was Satya's siggg

TLM said it, I believe.

Or maybe it was the other way around.

TLM''s sig and Satya said it?

One of the two.

 

[TheLastMohican]

It was Satya's siggg

TLM said it, I believe.

Or maybe it was the other way around.

TLM''s sig and Satya said it?

One of the two.

The former.

 

[slant]

I thought it was the first that I said but then I second guessed myself and though 'I better get this right if I'm going to insist upon it or people will grill me for it later'. After that thought I went for the 'dumb slant doesnt know what shes talking about' approach to gain sympathy.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I thought it was the first that I said but then I second guessed myself and though 'I better get this right if I'm going to insist upon it or people will grill me for it later'. After that thought I went for the 'dumb slant doesnt know what shes talking about' approach to gain sympathy.

I gather you weren't looking to debate it.

 

[Ecton]

Ecton: What do you mean by holistic elements, unless I'm mistaken, I thought all the INTJs were really into that for some reason (based on the INTJ forum)

That's a good question. If I understand correctly (and I'm new at this MBTI stuff), then INXJ leads to similar intuition preference. But my experience with my many, many, many INTJ colleagues and my INTJ twin brother is that they want to put that intuition into a logical model and then discuss the logical model.

An INFJ would traditionally want to explain intuition through feelings, unless I'm mistaken (again, new at this). I was born an INFJ, but I had a strong interest in the sciences. After years of scientific training, I'm now more of an INFX when I'm being professional (I revert to INFJ when I'm pressured, and that can be an awful place to be in a debate). As a result, I theorize my committee and my adviser tried to move me more towards an INTP mode of function (not knowingly). But I only really got as far as exercising a kind of INFP . So as a result, I like to pull my Intuition straight out of the pot and try to apply it as my argument, but it comes out as aesthetic metaphor. The more I "Feel" like the metaphor fits, the more I like my argument. This is how I became the creative idea guy in my research group. I was never the best analyst, however, as one might suspect from my lack of T preference.

So basically, in a debate, if I were to apply my preferences, I would sound like an annoyed (because I am afraid of conflict) monk spouting metaphors. Its not a great tactic. Hence, I prefer other forms of discourse that FEEL less conflict driven from the other side, and where the dialogue between two people weaves intuitive connections, so that I'm not forced to resort to my metaphors, but can instead focus on the progress of the narrative and less on the direct logical applicability of particular statements (although I try to avoid being the opposite: illogical)

In a direct debate, I'll just get frustrated and pull away. I CAN do it, but it will never be natural and I don't really enjoy it. Other people can easily kick my butt, too.

I don't know if that's an INFJ thing or just me. But if it was an INFJ thing, then an INFJ debate would be like two monks throwing narratives and metaphors at each other.

 

[Satya]

But perhaps it's only unsubstantiated to you if you're only using logic or rational thought as an accepted means of measurement/explanation?

Rational thought, logic, and evidence are the only acceptable means of measurement/explaination.

 

[Ecton]

Rational thought, logic, and evidence are the only acceptable means of measurement/explaination.

I certainly agree with this. That's why at the very least, after I'm done with my abstract point of view, I at least try to translate my Fe models into Te models that are logically consistent. Its the lingua franka of scientific reproducibility and portable models of a rational world.

Had I not been capable of that translation, albeit a slow process, I could have never deserved to complete my dissertation.

But, it will always be a second language for me learned later in life.

Sorry about carrying on about this, its just that this issue has always been on my mind as a non-T preferring scientist.

 

[Satya]

I'm actually fascinated by values. They have so much influence over how people behave and interact, and yet may have little to no rational basis to reality.

I think the emotional processes of the brain are meant to motivate humans and to facilitate the cognitive processes.