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

[IndigoSensor]

They have so much influence over how people behave and interact, and yet may have little to no rational basis to reality.

To the individual though, it is usually quite rational.

 

[Ecton]

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.

Ahh, that statement I am more inclined to disagree with. But probably because I perceive reality as the thing I observe through intuition, and Te and Fe as only lenses that try to condense and process it into an inherently imperfect (Godel's incompleteness theorems) but useful form.

Do you feel that a rational and logical model of reality, produced by the collective scientific world applying Te, is a closer model of reality than your own intuition's? I ask because that is the concept of reality of my brothers and many of my science colleagues. It's the most accepted model in the scientific community by a long shot.

<<< EDIT: I don't mean "by a long shot," I mean "by a large margin." oops. Its the accepted model on which scientific progress is based.

 

[Satya]

To the individual though, it is usually quite rational.

Every individual rationalizes their values. Even though all values seem to come from emotional responses to the world and prior socialization, some people give considerably more value to their values than to their ability to reason from the available evidence. This invariably leads to distortions of thought.

 

[Soulful]

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

I think objective measurement is necessary but can be equally limiting when it constricts one's perspective.

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.

Whose reality?

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

Can you explain this further?

 

[TheLastMohican]

Every individual rationalizes their values.

Don't you mean, rather, that every individual rationalizes moral beliefs based upon basic values? Thinking about my own core values, I don't see them as being rational or irrational; there simply is no logical basis for making such a judgment one war or the other. Since I share those values with most other people, however, I am still able to argue for or against more complex moral/ethical stances, using them as premises.

 

[Satya]

Place holder.

 

[Roger]

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


Debate has many forms.

I do this way and remind should respect each others opinion. We can't always be right.

 

[Reon]

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.

That's Te for you. We build systems and some INTJs don't particularly like playing outside of the systems they have built. That's an over reliance on Te though, and not Ni.

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 .

That seems like a combination of functions. Like, for example, I (being an INTJ) can use Te and Ni together to make it 'look' like I was using Ne with out being taxing to me.

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.

It can be, at a point. Metaphors are teh fun though.

 

[Morgain]

"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?

I agree on this. I don't like debates because people are not focused on what you are saying. They don't consider that what you are saying could be correct or as some value/truth in it, they focus on what in your statement is incorrect. And more of the times it is about the spelling and wordings and not about what is really intended.

If I say "I feel that "this or that" is true to me" and someone answers:
"feelings are not a reliable source of knowing the truth, you can only know the truth rational"

then i'm done talking.
It is a disregard on the meaning of my words. In my experience debating is al about the wordings. You have to answer in the correct rational context/form like as if it is a mathematical definition or your point of view is not considered

and for your information:

Every individual rationalizes their values.

my values are anything but rationalized. And my point of view in debates is never rational or written in the right form or wordings and so people brake it always down on that and never concider the content of my opinion.

And like you say Barnabas, most people debate to "win the game" and not to learn something. It is not a game it is a contest and the one who wins is most of the time not the one who is right. Debates are about right or wrong while in my opinion no answer is the right one!

 

[Krumplenump]

I must admit I sometimes like debate for the opportunity to word the English language in satisfying ways, but I do not maintain engagement in debates that drag on. I will make my points, though, even if the opposing figures are clearly pig-headed and stubborn - ie, I wouldn't get anywhere with them.

I can get quite passionate and also quite blunt, and some find my methods offensive; though I usually find people start playing that card when they don't have a proper retort.

I apply the live and let live attitude to other peoples opinions in practically all topics of debate (and thus do not actively defend my position), but not with those that I feel adversly affect the wider society I live in. In those cases I feel a moral and human duty to offer opposition at almost every opportunity.

 

[Krumplenump]

And like you say Barnabas, most people debate to "win the game" and not to learn something.

Depending on the subject being debated, there are some people from which nothing of value can be learned. In those instances I would see debate with them as both a means of exposing idiocy and also as an opportunity hone ones oratory skills. Not everyone who doesn't wish to learn something from a debate is out to 'win a game'

 

[randomsomeone]

I'm not much for debating either, especially on-line. It is a game for some and generally produces little outcome for the effort required.

 

[dark_angel]

And more of the times it is about the spelling and wordings and not about what is really intended.

+1

 

[Satya]

Ahh, that statement I am more inclined to disagree with. But probably because I perceive reality as the thing I observe through intuition, and Te and Fe as only lenses that try to condense and process it into an inherently imperfect (Godel's incompleteness theorems) but useful form.

Do you feel that a rational and logical model of reality, produced by the collective scientific world applying Te, is a closer model of reality than your own intuition's? I ask because that is the concept of reality of my brothers and many of my science colleagues. It's the most accepted model in the scientific community by a long shot.

<<< EDIT: I don't mean "by a long shot," I mean "by a large margin." oops. Its the accepted model on which scientific progress is based.

I think objective measurement is necessary but can be equally limiting when it constricts one's perspective.

Whose reality?

Can you explain this further?

Reason and measurement are the best tools for understanding the objective, physical reality and intuition is the best tool for understanding subjective, human realities. When reason is applied to human beings, you are certain to be surprised how irrationally humans will act. When intuition is applied to the physical world, you are certain to understand very little of the objective world.

For a religious person, this rational is almost certain to be insulting as they will likely place significant weight on their ability to intuitively perceive and understand the physical world, usually through their religious beliefs and moral constructs. But for me, this philosophical understanding of religion represents a significant leap in cultural and spiritual competence, because I can now relate to the intuition that individuals utilize through their religious belief systems, even if I don’t agree with how they are attempting to utilize it to understand absolutes in the physical world.

To simplfy my explaination.

Reason/measurement = good for perceiving and understanding the objective, physical reality that we all live in.
Intuition = good for perceiving and understanding the subjective, human reality that each person has.

 

[SpoofyMcPoof]

Does anyone see the irony here? Because I do and it's hilarious.

 

[Ecton]

Yeah, its pretty funny.. but I firmly believe I can keep it at the conversational level ... tryring to pull up before crash...

ahhhh. that's better!

Satya, for me, a physics problem is a problem I turn into intuition, and then I use the intuition to eject methods of solution. I had a bunch of professors ask me how I came up with such different ways of solving things. They ended up giving me a prize (not gloating, but instead trying to point out that THEY valued the weirdness) But it takes me FOREVER to solve anything. It takes forever to digest the information until I can 'feel' (Fi or Ni, I donno) the problem inside, and then I have to churn over the math to find the right form to represent the feeling. Is that Si or Ti or something being translated into Te? And in the end, those professors didn't want really want to know how I did it. I don't think they liked the 'rabbit hole' (Alice themes for March 2010) that I went down, cause it wasn't easily reproducible. Can't say I blame them. This pattern repeated itself throughout my grad student years. I eventually became comfortable in it. And I got used to making sure I translated back into a rational form.

Satya, when you solve a problem like in physics, how do you perceive yourself working out the solution? I'm assuming you see it as a more rational process, but what is it like?

I guess to summarize all of my thoughts, for me, a debate becomes about trying to keep up with the other 'runners'. Its not so much fun when the processes you value can't be externalized. And I definitely empathize with the others here who feel the same way.

I'm not claiming justification, just how I feel.

 

[Satya]

Yeah, its pretty funny.. but I firmly believe I can keep it at the conversational level ... tryring to pull up before crash...

X2

Satya, for me, a physics problem is a problem I turn into intuition, and then I use the intuition to eject methods of solution. I had a bunch of professors ask me how I came up with such different ways of solving things. They ended up giving me a prize (not gloating, but instead trying to point out that THEY valued the weirdness) But it takes me FOREVER to solve anything. It takes forever to digest the information until I can 'feel' (Fi or Ni, I donno) the problem inside, and then I have to churn over the math to find the right form to represent the feeling. Is that Si or Ti or something being translated into Te? And in the end, those professors didn't want really want to know how I did it. I don't think they liked the 'rabbit hole' (Alice themes for March 2010) that I went down, cause it wasn't easily reproducible. Can't say I blame them. This pattern repeated itself throughout my grad student years. I eventually became comfortable in it. And I got used to making sure I translated back into a rational form.

Interesting.

Satya, when you solve a problem like in physics, how do you perceive yourself working out the solution? I'm assuming you see it as a more rational process, but what is it like?

When it comes to tough problems, I usually just wing it. I hate doing redundant work like homework so I usually just improvise. I don't really like math and I got through Statistics by teaching myself with the final exam. I got a B without having to do much work or go to class so I was happy. I've done a lot of reinventing the wheel over my life. I actually have no idea what process I go through. I just feel out patterns and try them out to see if the work. If they do, then I go with it, if they don't, then I try something else.

 

[dark_angel]

Yeah, its pretty funny.. but I firmly believe I can keep it at the conversational level ... tryring to pull up before crash...

ahhhh. that's better!

Satya, for me, a physics problem is a problem I turn into intuition, and then I use the intuition to eject methods of solution. I had a bunch of professors ask me how I came up with such different ways of solving things. They ended up giving me a prize (not gloating, but instead trying to point out that THEY valued the weirdness) But it takes me FOREVER to solve anything. It takes forever to digest the information until I can 'feel' (Fi or Ni, I donno) the problem inside, and then I have to churn over the math to find the right form to represent the feeling. Is that Si or Ti or something being translated into Te? And in the end, those professors didn't want really want to know how I did it. I don't think they liked the 'rabbit hole' (Alice themes for March 2010) that I went down, cause it wasn't easily reproducible. Can't say I blame them. This pattern repeated itself throughout my grad student years. I eventually became comfortable in it. And I got used to making sure I translated back into a rational form.

Satya, when you solve a problem like in physics, how do you perceive yourself working out the solution? I'm assuming you see it as a more rational process, but what is it like?

I guess to summarize all of my thoughts, for me, a debate becomes about trying to keep up with the other 'runners'. Its not so much fun when the processes you value can't be externalized. And I definitely empathize with the others here who feel the same way.

I'm not claiming justification, just how I feel.

well said