Debate and Conflict

[Pocky]

A lot of information I see online is about INFJs disliking conflict - but I actually like debating! Which I think is a type of conflict/can cause conflict?

I don't like it when things get personal of course, but I am definitely not the type to seek out harmony in place of the truth/getting to the bottom of things. I don't like debating to the point where feelings get hurt but this has definitely happened before, especially when I really think the other person is mistaken. As I've gotten older I've learned to let some sleeping dogs lie for the sake of friendship/work relationships. I might pry a bit to get a little more info but then drop it if I feel talking about it is gonna get rough. Its also a way of avoiding the thought that if person believes X... does that mean they're dumb?!

Debate seems to be more of an TP/INTJ type thing to do than INFJ. (Altho my sister is an INTJ and she hates debating me on anything !) Maybe I'm just one of those annoying INFJs who likes to be right about everything because of the amount of thought I put into it.

Does any other INFJ feel this way about debating others?

 

[TomasM]

Most people aren't good at debate because it requires listening and hearing the other person.

Perhaps you could provide a specific example of something that you would debate. I mean if it's just argument for the sake of argument then that always seems to be a waste of time and energy. If both people have something to gain from the debate / dialogue then it can be productive and uplifting.

Why do you believe your sister "hates," this side of you?

 

[Pocky]

Hmm I actually like debating things for the sake of debate, unless the other person is starting to become upset/flustered. If someone proposes a solution that I don't think will work, I'll debate them to see how they came up with this solution and if they've thought it through. If they don't think what I'm proposing will work, I'm happy to explain/break down how I arrived and include any better solutions suggested.

If both people have something to gain from the debate / dialogue then it can be productive and uplifting.

For sure! I want to understand their thought process even if I don't agree with their conclusion. I think debating requires both people to be kind of tough skinned and skillful enough to avoid getting personal/hurting each other's feelings, so it can be a lot of work for anyone who struggles with one or the other. (I sometimes do especially when debating something I personally care about.)

Why do you believe your sister "hates," this side of you?

I don't think she hates that side of me, she just doesn't like engaging in debate because she's very private, dislikes conflict, and doesn't want to explain the reasons for her decisions. I can be very tenacious in my questioning and I don't mind when people ask me how I decided on something so we're just very different in those areas.

 

[TomasM]

Are you sure you are an INFJ?

 

[Pocky]

Haha yep, tested INFJ since I was 13! (its been over 2 decades since then) I don't relate to how blunt/insensitive TJ types can be when it comes to emotions and I'm definitely not a P of any kind.

You don't like debating people?

 

[TomasM]

Haha yep, tested INFJ since I was 13! (its been over 2 decades since then) I don't relate to how blunt/insensitive TJ types can be when it comes to emotions and I'm definitely not a P of any kind.

You don't like debating people?

I don't mind debating a topic but it's not my nature unless there is a good reason.

I ask about your type for a few reasons:

- You appear to lead with Te in your written dialogue and that is not a function in the INFJ primary functional stack.
- You appear to enjoy debate and conflict and that is not a common trait for an INFJ.
- You appear to enjoy winning in a debate more than gaining from it which is not typical of an INFJ as common activity.

Of course there are exceptions. Te can come out in your shadow functions. Debate and conflict could have developed as a means of survival in childhood (more likely than as an adult.) Winning could be core to success in your field of expertise / profession.

Are you an attorney or do you speak in front of people regularly?

Is 13 the only time you have tested?

 

[Pocky]

No I've tested a bunch of different times since 13! Always INFJ, a few times ENFJ depending on the test (I'm def an introvert tho).

Hmm I think I might have a pretty developed iT from chatting with people online when I was a teen/young adult, I was very shy in person. I read somewhere writing is a bit more of a iT function? I grew up in a very emotionally withdrawn family so I found people online to express my thoughts/feelings to. Grew up and went to therapy, traveled, made a bunch of mistakes and became more extroverted/confident.

You appear to enjoy winning in a debate more than gaining from it which is not typical of an INFJ as common activity.

Wanting to be right and being persuasive seem like J traits to me. Also I don't want to "win" if I'm not actually right. I'd rather get to the bottom of things, and that could mean understanding why someone would make a decision I don't agree with, or realizing my own opinions are flawed etc. If I ask enough questions I can feel out where the core of the issue is and finally ask THAT question that pulls the whole thing apart! It's like unmasking someone. (not everyone likes this lol)

I'm definitely not a lawyer haha (pouring through law books sounds like a horribly tedious task), I'm actually an artist/designer.

Te can come out in your shadow functions.

I think I inevitably get pissed off/piss off people who lead with Te They're just so... INSENSITIVE!!

 

[Wyote]

If you enjoy being right about everything, then you don't actually enjoy debate, you enjoy making your own point.

I only enjoy debate with people that understand what debate is, and act accordingly with my best interest in mind.
Which is to say, I basically never debate. I love the exchange of ideas in a safe and comfortable environment.
Most people who "debate" just want to put you in a state of feeling unsafe. I'm not about that at all.

I've had some extremely good debates with my INTJ/P buddies over the years.
But I'm at a point now in my life where I've come to understand that people are mostly all just trying to say the same things.
The core essences of any particular conflict always boil down to a handful of relatively boring human traits.

 

[John K]

Maybe I'm just one of those annoying INFJs who likes to be right about everything because of the amount of thought I put into it.

Do you know your Enneagram type? There is a big difference between liking to be right and needing to be right, because one is a game and the other is visceral - existential even. But needing to be right is a very strong tell that the content is far less important than the outcome. I know, because I am of an Enneagram type that needs to be right in its less healthy manifestations as essential to my sense of personal identity.

There is a lot of ambiguity in the world - what is it that determines what you think is right when you champion something in a debate? There are some things that are uncontroversial between people of good reason - the earth is not flat for example, no matter what the fantasists say. Mind you, weirdly, the business of proving it is beyond the capabilities of most of us and most arguments I see online about it seem to have weak validity on both sides as a result. But most debates are far less deterministic than this - Trump v Harris for example. Then there are debates about climate change and carbon emissions which are convoluted in the extreme in terms of the genuine details, and completely befuddled in the popular arguments which are really no better than 'my dad's bigger than yours' as far as I can see.

As I get older, what matters to me more than what is right or wrong is understanding both sides of an argument. If one side is pushed very strongly, I'm often drawn to the other side regardless of what I actually think or believe. There are some situations that need to be resolved reasonably quickly - such as if you are driving somewhere and your spouse tells you you took a wrong turning back a way. But there is no completely right or wrong answer to so many things, and what fascinates me is not the winning of an argument but a greater understanding of what each alternative really means in all its infinite possibilities.

 

[Pocky]

Hmm ya'll didn't really read my other posts.. I might start off a debate thinking I'm right but if someone proves otherwise I'm ready to adjust my stance.

A huge part of debate to me is also understanding how someone arrived at their POV, I find it really informative to understand how someone thinks and what their personal values are. Whether information is true or false or inconclusive is important bc you have to both agree on what's real etc, but not what's ultimately interesting to me. It's how they arrived at their conclusion, was it bc someone (friends, family?) told them that and they chose to believe it? Is it bc they believe strongly about X so they also support/don't support this idea? What news sources do they read? Are they going against the grain of society or their friends in believing this?

As I think about it more, I think debate allows me to gather information and then organize it to come up with a refined idea of how the other person thinks and what their beliefs are (iN in action).

I love the exchange of ideas in a safe and comfortable environment.

Hmm I guess I don't think too much about this unless the person starts getting very defensive/agitated then I stop/change the topic.

 

[Wyote]

Context is important and it's more difficult to see/know what types of circumstances you've experienced personally through text only.
Ni doms are idea generators so when we are in circumstances where ideas can be freely exchanged it's quite enjoyable.

 

[TomasM]

But I'm at a point now in my life where I've come to understand that people are mostly all just trying to say the same things.
The core essences of any particular conflict always boil down to a handful of relatively boring human traits.

&

But needing to be right is a very strong tell that the content is far less important than the outcome.

A PsyD friend of mine that does psychodynamic therapy (predominantly Freudian theory) once told me that all couples have only one fight and everything that triggers the argument isn't really relevant because it all goes back to that one issue. When I heard @John K talk about "need," and @Wyote, "boil it down to a handful," it reminded me of that discussion. The hard part is finding out what your issue is and then recognizing it when it starts to bubble to the surface.

@Pocky I read your posts and it feels like you mostly understand the value of your conflict and debate, but I suspect there is a, "need," that drives you toward that same type of engagement repeatedly. There are many ways to get what someone wants without conflict or debate. Sure, there may be other benefits to your process, but that you "like debating," when you know it can, "cause conflict," suggests that you need it more than you may realize.

 

[Wyote]

it all goes back to that one issue.

No dishes, no problems

 

[John K]

Hmm ya'll didn't really read my other posts.. I might start off a debate thinking I'm right but if someone proves otherwise I'm ready to adjust my stance.

Maybe it’s the title of the thread that we are responding to because it’s a bit like a mission statement that colours things strongly. There is a difference between a discussion that leads to people clarifying and understanding where others are coming from, and a debate including some level of conflict of ideas that is often aimed at winning as much as clarifying and sharing. At least, even if that was not intended, it’s likely to be received that way by many on the receiving end.

I’m reminded of the tales told about Socrates who used a questioning and clarifying approach to an extreme - but in his hands it was a weapon he used as a means of publicly exposing fools, as he saw them. By the sound of things, many of them were fools who resented it - and his approach led to serious conflict which eventually led to disaster for him.

 

[Asa]

Debate is a sport. Some people like playing that sport.

I cannot stand debating. I like to hold informed opinions*. I think things over, I look at evidence, listen to experts, etc, and the idea processes through Ti, and I churn out a point of view. After that, I'm done. I will listen to your well-formed thoughts, but I'm not debating. I'm the kind of person where, if someone makes an interesting point that sounds facts-based, I will look it up and may change my mind if they present solid evidence for their claim. I'm not glued to being right whatsoever because knowledge is infinite and the human brain cannot possibly know everything.

I won't listen to straw man arguments, ad hominem, etc, and I do not believe eloquence, Te, fast-talking, or an ability to remember dates makes people "right." It only makes them better at debate.

All this said, I enjoy intellectual conversations where people share or discuss information without acting competitive or conceited. It's one of my favorite social activities. I love learning, and I love discussing topics I enjoy with others who enjoy the same topics. I learn so much this way.

*Edit: During debates, people inevitably start winging it just to keep up or "battle" and I dislike doing that.