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

[BrokenDaniel]

One of my best friends is an xNTP, and we usually find ourselves in arguments of these kinds, heated but still friendly and lighthearted. He demands precision, and his point of view is strongly grounded on logic, or what he sees as logical, which more often than not, happens to be correct. In the other hand, i think he sees me as very precise in thought too, and we are both very stubborn but we tend to differ on key points. He tends to zoom on what i say, and analyze it, not really because he wants to "win" an argument. It seems like a genuine need to make sense of what i say, and he gets stuck on that, he haves an amazing memory, and he stores information like a computer, with a ridiculous ability with math (i suck at it) and kind of a street-smart attitude too.
While INFJs and NTs tend to get along well (ime), and our interactions tend be very beneficial for both, or at least for me. But this nitpicky thing tends to get on my nerves, my thought it's usually "you're not getting what i'm trying to say". Ni is abstract, but it's also very precise, so it's unnerving to see someone still doing math with what i say like "this equals this, and if you say this, you should say this, and if you do that, then that will happen", i'm not saying that Ti users are like that, but still it's kind of in a nutshell version of what i perceive his speech somethimes, it's probably much more intrincate than that anyway. Although i must admit that it's also a rewarding interaction, specially when you need someone to keep your feet on the ground once in a while and tell you the truth of what's really happening.

 

[grt$5vb]

From the examples provided, it sounds like you are dealing with sexism, ignorance and immaturity. Why not delve into the subjects themselves instead of trying to gain insight here? You could psychoanalyze them, but is it more important to win? If they have no better comeback, haven't you won anyway? I would probably just agree sarcastically, then ignore them.

 

[Matt3737]

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?

Good questions.

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.

I said 'may' because validity is simply what logically follows from the premises. A sound argument is one in which both validity and the truth of the premises is established. Two different arguments may both be equally valid, yet come to mutually exclusive conclusions, because one may be sound (true premises) while the other is unsound (false premises) or one might be unsound while another invalid.

An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid".

An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:
All cups are green. Socrates is a cup. Therefore, Socrates is green.

No matter how the universe might be constructed, it could never be the case that these arguments should turn out to have simultaneously true premises but a false conclusion. The above arguments may be contrasted with the following invalid one:
All men are immortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

In this case, the conclusion contradicts the deductive logic of the preceding premises, rather than deriving from it. Therefore the argument is logically 'invalid', even though the conclusion could be considered 'true' in general terms. The premise 'All men are immortal' would likewise be deemed false outside of the framework of classical logic. However, within that system 'true' and 'false' essentially function more like mathematical states such as binary 1s and 0s than the philosophical concepts normally associated with those terms.

Validity is a contextual construct dependent upon its premises and conclusion:

A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises or premisses along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure. More complex arguments can use a series of rules to connect several premises to one conclusion, or to derive a number of conclusions from the original premises which then act as premises for additional conclusions.

The rules of a formal debate dictate how the debate shall be entered into, conducted, concluded, but also how failure to abide by the rules are to be resolved. In a formal debate, decontextualization aids participants' ability to follow the rules (the newly established context), but should a participant 'break' the rules there is a clear course of resolution.

An informal debate has neither a clearly established set of rules to dictate how it shall operate, nor how deceit, biases, errors, or 'cheating' is to be resolved (the forum rules would be the established context for this, but may be too broad and hence informal). This means that not all ad hominem accusations are necessarily valid or invalid or even an acknowledged part of the forum's rules (if so, then there should be clearly established means of resolution or consequence for doing so). The validity or invalidity is entirely dependent on what is entailed by whatever the given premises are, which are defined informally, possibly vague, or even hidden (implied).

Your complaint is simply that you don't want people to make such statements. We might say that this is a valid complaint given your premises (if it were a formal debate). The forum's rules may entail a different, yet equally valid conclusion given different premises.

The rules state to not commit fraudulent activity.
I state that I wish to sell you a particular bridge for a certain amount.
You accuse me of being a con artist and a fraudster.

This is a valid argument with a hidden premise:
You state that particular bridge is a publicly owned property not subject to private sale.

As to the specificity of your question and as an example:
I was once told that 'If you believe in gender equality, then you are a feminist' to which I replied that I did not agree with that. I would rather label myself a gender egalitarian or simply egalitarian than a feminist, i.e. I was using my argument to demonstrate the invalidity of their argument. This is in a certain sense an example of what you were asking for, but it isn't decontextualized by being hypothetical. It has a context that causes it to be valid.

 

[Matt3737]

Remember:

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

I called you a liar because I had produced factual statements as contradictory evidence against statements you made that you twice refused to acknowledge as being true. Debates allow for the other rhetorical modes of persuasion, ethos and pathos and not just logos, yet you twice tried to deny this.

 

[Sequel]

People are fragile.

 

[Sequel]

Perhaps, I project

 

[Basildon]

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

The phenomenon known as biased assimilation practically guarantees that such an arbitrary point will likely be reached, given enough time. The harder you push against someone's belief system, the more dogmatic and convinced they will become of that belief system. That is why it is fruitless to push arguments much past the point of stating your case once the butt-hurt starts. The only way to even attempt to usurp the beliefs of another is to proceed in a way that does not set off defensiveness...and good luck with that!

Belief systems, at their core, are about an ability to cope with the external environment, and when that is threatened, a survival instinct takes over the brain and it goes into the staunch defense of the existing belief system. The stronger it is held, the less information that contradicts it is allowed in, which is responsible for confirmation bias. Imagine those in the media who have figured this out and employ it against the unsuspecting. No wonder we are more polarized politically than ever before. Divide and conquer.

 

[la boheme]

Good questions.

I said 'may' because validity is simply what logically follows from the premises. A sound argument is one in which both validity and the truth of the premises is established. Two different arguments may both be equally valid, yet come to mutually exclusive conclusions, because one may be sound (true premises) while the other is unsound (false premises) or one might be unsound while another invalid.

Validity is a contextual construct dependent upon its premises and conclusion:

I don't know what you mean by "contextual", but validity, as you yourself stated above, simply means "logical".

The rules of a formal debate dictate how the debate shall be entered into, conducted, concluded, but also how failure to abide by the rules are to be resolved. In a formal debate, decontextualization aids participants' ability to follow the rules (the newly established context), but should a participant 'break' the rules there is a clear course of resolution.

An informal debate has neither a clearly established set of rules to dictate how it shall operate, nor how deceit, biases, errors, or 'cheating' is to be resolved (the forum rules would be the established context for this, but may be too broad and hence informal). This means that not all ad hominem accusations are necessarily valid or invalid or even an acknowledged part of the forum's rules (if so, then there should be clearly established means of resolution or consequence for doing so). The validity or invalidity is entirely dependent on what is entailed by whatever the given premises are, which are defined informally, possibly vague, or even hidden (implied). Your complaint is simply that you don't want people to make such statements. We might say that this is a valid complaint given your premises (if it were a formal debate). The forum's rules may entail a different, yet equally valid conclusion given different premises.

Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies and are not valid. Period. And because logic is not something used only in debates, formal or otherwise, ad hominem arguments are not valid anywhere logic is used.

The rules state to not commit fraudulent activity.
I state that I wish to sell you a particular bridge for a certain amount.
You accuse me of being a con artist and a fraudster.

This is a valid argument with a hidden premise:
You state that particular bridge is a publicly owned property not subject to private sale.

No. Until you state the hidden premise it is not a valid argument because your conclusion (that I am a fraudster) is not supported by your stated premises (that there are rules against fraud).

As to the specificity of your question and as an example:
I was once told that 'If you believe in gender equality, then you are a feminist' to which I replied that I did not agree with that. I would rather label myself a gender egalitarian or simply egalitarian than a feminist, i.e. I was using my argument to demonstrate the invalidity of their argument. This is in a certain sense an example of what you were asking for, but it isn't decontextualized by being hypothetical. It has a context that causes it to be valid.

I don't recall you ever saying anything about "gender equality", but maybe I missed it. In any case, the question still remains: why is it ever legitimate so dismiss someone's argument by saying, "he's just saying that because he's a gender egalitarian"?

 

[la boheme]

Remember:

I called you a liar because I had produced factual statements as contradictory evidence against statements you made that you twice refused to acknowledge as being true. Debates allow for the other rhetorical modes of persuasion, ethos and pathos and not just logos, yet you twice tried to deny this.

You produced statements. Whether they are true is another matter. And because I didn't have first-hand experience or know if they were true, I did not address them and simply stated my own answer to the question. Also, the cited description of debate doesn't show that ad hominem is permitted in debate. And that was the point of this discussion. In fact, as I wrote above, ad hominem is a logical fallacy is not valid wherever logic is used, including in debates.

 

[Matt3737]

I don't know what you mean by "contextual", but validity, as you yourself stated above, simply means "logical".



Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies and are not valid. Period. And because logic is not something used only in debates, formal or otherwise, ad hominem arguments are not valid anywhere logic is used.



No. Until you state the hidden premise it is not a valid argument because your conclusion (that I am a fraudster) is not supported by your stated premises (that there are rules against fraud).



I don't recall you ever saying anything about "gender equality", but maybe I missed it. In any case, the question still remains: why is it ever legitimate so dismiss someone's argument by saying, "he's just saying that because he's a gender egalitarian"?

Wha.....what......what is all this stupid drivel....!?

Logical fallacies are fallacious dependent on context. If you think all post hoc reasoning is fallacious then you don't believe in causality. Good luck winning your Nobel Prize.

 

[Erlian]

My question is do you ever do this yourself?

Yeah, sometimes.

And what prompts you to do it?

Uncovering the source. Getting all the relevant info.
Or more evilish: twisting their words to make their intentions look bad (this is more ad hominem than the first goal)

Why do you think it is relevant in an impersonal discussion to bring up "hidden agendas" that cannot usually be proven?

To uncover the entire story. If you want to solve a problem, you need all the information.

How do you justify doing this?

Curiosity.
Getting a proper framework to see where the person is coming from.

How do you support your suspicions?

"I get the idea that ..."
"I have the feeling that ..."
"I don't know, it's just a hunch."
"Because you said X."

And in personal discussions I assume you do this.

Yeah, I do.

I would be annoyed to have my supposed motivations thrown in my face, especially when I think they are wrong or irrelevant.

If they are wrong or irrelevant, I can counter their arguments and learn them that it is wrong or irrelevant. Or instead, my discussion-partner will teach me something about my own motivations. I love learning new stuff, so I won't put aside any opportunity to do so.

How do you go about broaching such touchy subjects w/o derailing the discussion and upsetting your partner?

The trick I use is putting my suspicions in a question. This way you do it very subtle. I ask: "I get the idea that your motivations are X. Am I correct?" "Is this important to you because Y?"
I'm still putting them out there. I'm still confronting you with them, but I'll give you all the space you need to counter them. And I'll never make the presumption that I'm correct or that I know better what your motivations are than you do. We might get a new discussion going and derail, but I honestly don't mind that very much. If I think we're too offtrack I'll simply state so and agree to disagree on the current topic and move back to the original discussion.

I know a girl who I was close with who later commented that I had to many ideas or assumptions about her and her topics/problems. And probably I did. And she told me I was right a lot of the time, but she still didn't like it.
One example was her relation with her parents. She had some issues and one time when we were talking about it she was describing her dad. So I, wondering if I understood her correctly, imitated what her dad would say to her if she came to him. Apparently I used some of the exact same words that he used and she was slightly surprised/shocked by that.

I can imagine that even if I was correct it's weird to have someone do that. I try to do it less, but on the other side it's who I am. I try to do it nicely and not presume that my suspicions are truth. I'll test them by sharing them though.

 

[Blind Bandit]

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.

I bolded part of your quote because more people need to read it. Too many T types hide behind logic. They assume if they use logic it means they are right and your wrong. They don't acknowledge their own motivations. Or the fact that they do have a bias that also effects them.

 

[la boheme]

Wha.....what......what is all this stupid drivel....!?

Logical fallacies are fallacious dependent on context. If you think all post hoc reasoning is fallacious then you don't believe in causality. Good luck winning your Nobel Prize.

You argue in very bad faith. First you accuse me of being a "liar" without any proof. Now, you call me "stupid" when it is you who are contradicting yourself. I am going to ignore these insults and continue in my arguments.

You stated that an argument if valid when the conclusion follows from the premises. That is the meaning of validity. Then you stated that "not all ad hominem arguments are necessarily valid or invalid...The validity or invalidity is entirely dependent on what is entailed by whatever the given premises are, which are defined informally, possibly vague, or even hidden (implied)." An ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy which is invalid by definition. That's what a fallacy is. An invalid form of argument. Notice I said "form". Form is the abstract relation of premises to conclusion that is independent of the particular concrete details of any given argument. So ad hominem fallacies are not dependent on context. They are invalid in their form.

I think my exchange with you has gone as far as it is advisable to go. I have been very patient and forbearing. But I don't enjoy your habit of attacking me nor your evident and immature need to "win at all costs". Please don't respond to my threads in the future. Have a good day.

 

[Matt3737]

Now, you call me "stupid" when it is you who are contradicting yourself.

I called your argument "stupid drivel" since that appears to be your preference.

 

[la boheme]

I called your argument "stupid drivel" since that appears to be your preference.

"Stupid drivel" is a convincing argument, isn't it?

Like I said. Have a nice day. Good-bye.

 

[Matt3737]

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.

You produced statements. Whether they are true is another matter. And because I didn't have first-hand experience or know if they were true, I did not address them and simply stated my own answer to the question.

Way to not contradict yourself there, champ.

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.

My so called statements were direct quotes from the wikipedia pages on 'debate' and 'ad hominem' respectively. I'm sure I can easily gather more from any other source.

I quote from an outside source, you dismiss it as if it were my personal belief, state your own incoherent belief in response, and then claim that you believe that dismissing other's arguments on the basis of their personal beliefs or stance is invalid.

You're just chock-full of surprises, aren't ya? I enjoyed all the neg reps and thumbs down. It's good to know you're butt-hurt. It makes it seem less likely that you're trying to troll me.

 

[la boheme]

Way to not contradict yourself there, champ.

My so called statements were direct quotes from the wikipedia pages on 'debate' and 'ad hominem' respectively. I'm sure I can easily gather more from any other source.

I quote from an outside source, you dismiss it as if it were my personal belief, state your own incoherent belief in response, and then claim that you believe that dismissing other's arguments on the basis of their personal beliefs or stance is invalid.

Where did I say the wiki quotations were your "personal beliefs"? I said I was not familiar with some of the content from my own experience and did not know if they were true. Just because you present something from an external source doesn't mean it is automatically true or doesn't need to be vetted. That statement, in particular, about creating a "context" makes it sound like an art and not a science that is described by well-known and rigorous rules. So it needs further elucidation before I can say it makes sense.

Also, as I said, creating a context sounds like it is probably done by means of facts and reason and not by use of ad hominem arguments. So that definition still doesn't support your claims even if we accept it on its face.

You're just chock-full of surprises, aren't ya? I enjoyed all the neg reps and thumbs down. It's good to know you're butt-hurt. It makes it seem less likely that you're trying to troll me.

"Troll you"! What planet do you think you're on?

And don't sell yourself short: you earned the negs and thumbs down.

 

[Matt3737]

So it needs further elucidation before I can say it makes sense.

So it is not legitimate (or persuasive) to argue, "I believe this is right because I believe it"

You don't say....

 

[la boheme]

You don't say....

So? The two statements are not equivalent. And the definition doesn't even support the use of ad hominem arguments!


Fair warning: I've already asked you to never post in my threads again. You have ignored my request and continue posting here and harassing me. I have reported you to the moderators. Your choice.

 

[Elis]

Not to be that person, but I think you're throwing rocks here.

Your main point in this thread was regarding a correlation between ad hominem and Ni-dom, and from what I see you've used it yourself on several occasions. Not that it should really matter if you discern it from the main question, but is it really all bad?