(no subject)

[reenka]

Randomly: I notice that I care more about disproving the minor errors and inadequacies of people with whose philosophy and overall approach to life and things I basically agree, rather than with those I emphatically disagree.
    It's not that I don't like to be disagreed with-- that's quite invigorating, actually; it's more that I feel there needs to be an agreed-upon approach to an issue for it to be open to productive discussion, and more than half the time the approach is already half the battle. So much of the time, the reason people disagree is because at heart, they don't have the same basic ideas about 'what's important in life' (or about the subject). People will even build perfectly logical chains of thought that I'd respect, except their basis is so cracked out there's no saving them.

...Perhaps that kind of says a lot about the joys and pitfalls of my experience in fandom :>

Mostly, though, I am too lazy and also too easily frustrated to try and converse with people who're utterly convinced of things I consider to be utterly idiotic. Which is why I wasn't cut out for a debate about politics with my friend yesterday (which she seemed to want). My friend has a pet issue she was trying to present to me as the Ultimate Solution to Our Ills, and she kept telling me certain things that I could nod at or say small things about (which she discounted because they were 'merely fact'), but in the end, in the face of someone's utter conviction, I have nothing much to say (to their face) unless I immediately and instinctively agree. Alas.

Perhaps she sensed my disagreement & was frustrated by my refusing to voice it; but it wasn't that I refused or was consciously avoiding conflict so much as unable to enter the fray without having a common language. I have no desire to talk past someone, and I'm willing to have a discussion only if I sense the other person's open to if not persuasion then a certain open-endedness of thought. (This is also why I pretty much don't talk about politics with -anyone- and avoid politics in general; it seems there's something about the subject that makes everyone a lot less open-ended and a lot more dogmatic. But maybe that's just me.)

It's just a bit ironic that I have so little of use to say about something so obviously 'meaningful' and applicable as current politics, and yet have so much to say about the ideological details of a fantasy book I'm reading (to the point where I'd easily-- and passionately-- discuss its internal politics with someone who cared). Perhaps it's at least partly that I do agree with 70% of Alison Croggon's cosmology, stylistic concerns & her ethics and think her execution is sometimes off or her follow-through is lazy, whereas I just can't identify to that extent with anything commonly said about current affairs by... pretty much anyone (though I find people have 'good ideas', it's nothing to fire me up). So. I dunno, I don't have a point ;P

I think part of my theoretical willingness to talk fantasy-world politics might be that we can (usually) agree on starting points; in the real world, it seems everyone's much more free to make up their facts (or more specifically, the salient facts) as they go along, and it's a major achievement if you feel you're reading from 'the same canon' >.> I guess that's why so many people have 'causes' and organizations they particularly support; they like to feel they're working with people who have a similar slant on 'salient facts'. Somehow, though, I can never find groups that have around 10 (at least) focus issues from all sorts of different ideological areas (not something like 'human rights', which is just a grouping of related issues), and to me, a holistic understanding is the only one I'm that interested in. Really, I'd like to ideally address as much of the real-world 'canon' as possible, but most people think that's hopeless so I just shut up. Meh. *babbles*

Comments

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

Randomly: I notice that I care more about disproving the minor errors and inadequacies of people with whose philosophy and overall approach to life and things I basically agree, rather than with those I emphatically disagree.

Well, I care about disproving everyone, but when someone whose conclusions I agree with has bad /simplicistic/manipulative arguments to back her/himself up, I can become incredibly frustrated. Because that leads to creating a misunderstanding about my position, and it becomes a clichè and then a myth and ultimately a bullet-proof strawmen everybody and their dog will use without even bother to look at the substance of it anymore.

Conversations about politics can go three ways for me, and I'm kinda excited about the both of them. The other person is fully informed, has clear ideas and can communicate her/himself well, and it can be fruitful and surprising and it's less a debate than it's an exploration, though certain positions I would always argue against, which is my second mode. I'm still approaching it differently than the make-no-prisoners policy I adopt with people with messed-up ideas who have quite the following for various depressing reasons despite the fact that they make no sense at all. I don't even care what they say beside the obvious fact that I need to know what it is to dissect it and discredit it and smash it into pieces so tiny nobody in their right mind would ever give another thought to the idea of equality feminism again. Admittedly, I'm a bit of a coward who often doesn't engage, but when I do, that's how I go about it.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I imagine you two would get along well (better?) in argument since you're both INFJs, ahahah. I was talking about it more here (http://infp.globalchatter.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?p=60304#60304); it's more about the manner in which she presented her opinions than anything else. And I suppose as Wandering said later on in that thread, in order to explore and confront that Ni certainty head on, given I don't feel like chipping away for ages (remember I do disagree), I'd have to know a lot about the subject to 'explore' until I find an aspect she hasn't considered. With most people, you can 'deconstruct' and just 'dissect/discredit' in a reasonable amount of time within the discussion-- at least they'll pretend to listen to you (or not)-- but with an INFJ that's CERTAIN-- good grief. -.-;;;

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

I have to protest. INFJs aren't closed-minded, they're just passionate. And I thought we were pretty fixated with keeping appareances (at least in the sense of "pretending to listen"?)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I never actually said anything about closed-mindedness as such, though-- what I said was that once Ni is certain, I'd have to go through a hell of an effort to budge it an inch ^^; You should know, I actually do that long-term fighting with you, which is how I know ^^;; Sometimes you see my point (a year later) but it always takes a reeeeeally long time if you started out certain. The listening thing is very transparent to me. ^^;

Though to be fair-- I think she listens, it's just the judging of my contributions that goes on-- being immediate and dissecting into nothingness or dismissing utterly. A TJ type won't listen either, say, but often will give me a logical framework to use-- or 'help' me make my point because their structure is so logical & I can see exactly where they're going & how they got there if I try. Also, an INTJ, for instance, will always truly 'consider' your point and give it some abstract (non-emotionally based) attention, whereas for the INFJ the attention is part of the quest to argue and therefore ultimately discredit (it just feels different, more combative). With the FJ approach, because the thinking is based on Ni (intuition), everything is a lot more difficult to untangle from the outside and the discussion is a lot more personal for me because it comes down to values even if the INFJ doesn't want to admit it.

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe the INFJ doesn't change their mind because sometimes they're right.

I could help you with this discussion specifically if you told me what's the topic and what's her position, like offer an argument an INFJ would consider.

(I feel uncomfortable with the idea that you're slowly chipping away at me like I'm in need of enlightenment from high. I'm just telling you because 1) I have half an idea you don't mean it and 2) on the other hand, I think you half mean it, and don't get why it sounds so wrong to me :))

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

No, regardless of whether they're right, if they're convinced they're right, the effect's the same. ^^; As Wandering actually said in the thread I linked you, it's the Ni that does it-- and that's why I said that about the chipping away and deconstructing. The alternative (according to Wandering) is to come up with a piece of data the INFJ hadn't considered yet to make -them- do the deconstructing, but this is difficult as I tend to have no idea what that magical piece of unconsidered data would be, so I keep throwing ideas out there in the vain hope one would 'connect'. ^^;

It's not about enlightening, well, not anymore than it is for the INFJ involved :> I don't come at it from a superior pov, it's merely a realistic description of what I'd have to do to get a point across or 'score a hit' in a long-running debate I'd want to 'win', if by 'win' one means 'get one's point truly considered'. It's not about reform or betterment, those are all weird J-type ideas, it's just about the quest for different listening, the type that happens only when the INFJ hasn't yet concluded their investigation on a topic, so I have to reopen the investigation by long-term persistent force. -.-; I think, if it makes you feel better, we chip away at each other. But in a nice way?? Heh. Eventually we fit each other better :>

...Anyway, if I chip then you drill, now you tell me which is worse :))

Ummm, the argument is her being libertarian and thinking that all the government ills of the US could be solved if we simply had smaller government. ^^;; Apparently it all started to go downhill in 1913 when the US gave less power to the State's legislature and more power to the federal gov't to make decisions. And then she had various points about things like how radical Islam as an ideology isn't an issue (except to Christianity??), only oil is, and how China isn't really the emerging superpower because they're running on others' subsidies and once those run out, they're done for. Not like I actually -want- to argue all this, you understand ^^;;

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

her being libertarian

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

I'm thinking the INFJ vs INFJ battle in this case could be bloody.

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

Anyway, her position seems very US-centric, you could try to introduce the possibility that the solution doesn't necessarily have to come from the US.

(About the chipping, okay, I get it. :) But just to be nitpicky... isn't your listening to me just to slowly chip away the same as me listening just to disprove?)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, the difference is that I rarely bother with the utterly Herculean long-term effort of chipping away. While it may energize an INFJ to debate, it really exhausts me (and eventually makes me twitchy & defensive if I feel the other person isn't letting me gain any ground or admitting my points... um... haha). So it's rare I feel so strongly about something I constantly feel the need to righteously defend it... but when I do, I get to that point of losing my cool too quickly, which is part of what makes the chipping take so long... ^^;;