INFPs tend to be known for hating debates and getting really emotional during such conversations. Personally my problem with debate is not that I don't want to examine all sides of a topic and come to a greater understanding, I do want to do that, and I know that is what many people consider to be the point of a debate. My problem is When and How people go about initiating conflict over topics (debate); it's more in the style that I take issue.
Short version: It's the conflict and often arrogant tone people have that make me hate debates, not the part about examining different sides of a matter and refining my understanding.
1. Much of the time my main Objective in conversing with someone is to find where we resonate with eachother and enjoy that sense of mutual understanding and 'togetherness'. My focus is on making a connection with the person moreso than examining an idea - which I tend to do more as an internal personal process than a face-to-face interactive activity. I will read things that offer different ideas, and I will post-process the different ideas that people present to me in conversation, but During the conversation my focus is on Connecting with a Person. Thus, when someone chooses to Not try to Connect with me and instead introduces conflict this is at odds with my objective and I am frustrated by them thwarting my goal.
2. My biggest issue with 'debaters' though is usually the tone of voice and wording that they use. Many people do not seem able to share an oppositional point in a respectful manner. Frequently people will use a dismissive tone of voice, or an arrogant adamancy that precludes any further objections from the other party - even if they actually do want (or claim to want) to hear a counterargument to their counterargument, they often do not express themselves in a way that makes it clear that they are open to hearing and considering more. One of the things that stands out to me is a lack of respect for, or recognition of, people's individual perspectives being individual. Often I will clearly state that this is my personal perspective on something, and I'm completely comfortable with someone telling me that they have a very different personal perspective on that, but instead people will often open a debate (rather than a discussion) by appearing to have the underlying assumption that I and everyone else ought to have the same perspective as they do, or that everyone needs to come to the same conclusions, that there is no room for individuality. I feel that there are some things where a debate is legitimate, but also many cases where there is no reason to argue because our differing perspectives are not mutually exclusive because we are not the same person in the same circumstances etc. Sharing differing perspectives gives food for thought, but I don't see a need to attack and attempt to convert all differing opinions.
3. When someone questions and challenges everything others say I perceive it as arrogant because it appears they believe that I Should run everything by them first, and that I need to get my opinions and ideas approved by them because they-are-my-lord-and-master, oh wait no they're not. To me this is tresspassing on the other person's mental business of thinking for themselves. It also comes off as a bit arrogant in the way it often sounds like someone assumes you Haven't thought about something thoroughly and feel it is their duty to 'help' you think, as if you can't do this without them. Often people will bring up 'but _____' arguments which I have already considered and decided I disagree with or only partially agree with. I don't think we should be required to explain every detail of our thought process, note every possible exception or consideration that we hold in balance with this, and defend our personal conclusions against anyone and everyone on every subject every time it comes up. I think sometimes (much of the time) people should be able to simply state what they believe and others simply register that this is what that person thinks without demanding that person justify themselves to them. I would like the respect that someone will assume I have my reasons for what I believe, I try to grant that to others even when I cannot personally understand why they think that - do I really need to understand their full thought process, who am I to judge it? However, I will note that there is a big difference between grilling someone and demanding they defend themselves as opposed to Sharing differing perspectives on a matter in a way that allows each person to examine the information and draw their own conclusions.
I like conversations when people can mutually show respect for eachother's mental process and individual perspective, while sharing their own in a way that doesn't push it on someone else or blatantly dismiss the other person. It makes a huge difference when people can take the time to try to understand the other person's perspective and acknowledge that, and then provide their own take on things. I don't need agreement all the time, and I do like thinking about things and having my perspective broadened. I just dislike when people initiate a state of conflict when I'm trying to connect with them, or when they show disrespect for me as an individual through adopting a superior role or tone of voice.
No comments:
Post a Comment