gramirez wrote:
Does anyone feel that no matter what, you simply have to win an argument or a debate? I get this a lot. Usually it's because I feel really strongly about something, or because the other person is so wrong, that they sound like an ignorant hypocrite.
Is this an A.S. intelligence thing?
No it's not an AS thing, and it's not an "intelligence" thing, it's a "defensiveness" thing. There are way too many NTs who feel the need to win every argument without backing down.
Here's an example of an NT who felt the need to win an argument, no matter what the cost.
http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/ex-mcdonal ... e=rss_news There's a tactical advantage in walking away from arguments. It's called "picking your battles". For a lot of petty arguments, sometimes the winning strategy is not to play. Save your winning arguments for debates that really matter.
AmberEyes wrote:
I don't think that there is a single "truth" as such.
Different people have different views, hence there are many different "truths".
If it's possible to be able to try and unite these truths in some semi-coherent way then all to the good.
Exactly. Truth is, and will always be, subjective. Facts are objective, but open to misinterpretation. The key is in recognizing the difference between subjective and objective data.
If John has a headache, it's something only he can experience, so for John, "I have a headache" is a factual statement. If John tells Mary he has a headache, then if Mary believes John, "John has a headache" is a truthful (and subjective) statement, and "John told me he has a headache" is a factual (and objective) statement.
If John is lying about his headache, and Mary believes him, John is lying, but Mary is still telling the truth.