Defending positions you don't agree with

[ddspada]

It's pretty clear to me that XNTPs tend to do this, or at least can be reasonably comfortable doing it: defend a position about which they (we) do not feel strongly. Sometimes an XNTP will even try to defend the position contrary to his/her own (mental sparring/devil's advocate). Some INTP descriptions go ahead and say that an INTP trying to convince his opponent (in a debate/discussion) might very well be trying to convince himself (this has sounded asinine to a couple of people who have read as much, but somehow it sits just fine with me and with who I think I am).

In the past, I've argued (with friends, mostly) for and against bullfighting, for and against abortion, for and against the death penalty and for several radically different approaches to education. These are usually topics on which I do not see myself as having a strong opinion one way or another.



...Why do we do this? Is it because we believe that taking the opposite stance and understanding it will help us better understand our own stance? Does it allow for a deeper understanding of the topic at hand, thus providing grounds on which to actually base a decision if one is not yet existent? Does it just sometimes get particularly boring when no one argues so as to shake things up a little?

What's your experience on this?

 

[Anktark]

Is it because we believe that taking the opposite stance and understanding it will help us better understand our own stance? Does it allow for a deeper understanding of the topic at hand, thus providing grounds on which to actually base a decision if one is not yet existent?

Reasons quoted above, plus (at least for me):

~Huge disconfirmation bias/scepticism. If the topic interests me, I will take an argument/discussion point and disintegrate it to see if it has any rational value and how it relates to everything else.

~ I look for flaws in the argument or try and clarify. That process might make me look like I am in opposition to the source of the argument. That is, I might be against your arguments, but on the same side.

~ What is best in life? Understanding your opponents position, his/hers way of reasoning and then beating the hell out of his/her position with his/her own arguments. But at such moments, the topic/gaining knowledge rarely matters anymore.

 

[Teax]

I can relate, I will sometimes initiate a debate by from the very beginning playing devils advocate. without even realizing it. Later often having to make clear that I'm totally on his side.

in retrospect: when im unsure about something, then theres an angle which doesnt make sence, which can be put in form of a question so that the other party feels obliged to a response.
that question is simply what I start with.
once said out loud, it souuunds like I'm defending the opposite stance, while what I'm actually doing is testing the limits and robustness of an argument or position.

...Why do we do this? Is it because we believe that taking the opposite stance and understanding it will help us better understand our own stance?

I came to conclude that, it only looks like I'm "taking the opposite stance" from the outside. I did not actually feel this way while in the debate, rather felt like a bricklayer, filling the holes between the big established bricks, by blowing 'hot air' to find the holes.

Spoiler

metaphors are fun!!!

 

[riptide4]

Devil's advocate is a very useful skill in business, science, philosophy etc. I think it's a skill to be proud of. However, it can be problematic, for obvious reasons.

 

[Grayman]

Same as me.

 

[Black Rose]

i defend the correct understanding of what the position actually is but also state if i think it is true or undecided.

 

[The Gopher]

I don't think I've ever argued from my own opinion, (although I have a very short memory for these things) I tend to argue on the side of both people arguing with each other at once. More fun that way.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

it's automatic and compulsive, particularly in discussions with black/white seers.

i enjoy the exciting thrill of defending child molesters, religious fundamentalists of any ilk and politicians in the presence of people who hardly know me.

 

[Reluctantly]

I have a natural proclivity to side with the underdog position, mainly because I know the topdog is ignorant of many things. That's about it though. If a topdog shows an appreciation for the underdog, but can still make a convincing case for why they are right, I feel no need to defend the underdog positions.

But I wouldn't use the word "agree". I can agree and disagree with both positions on many levels and on different things. But arguing usually requires a side to be picked, so taking the underdog usually allows more potential to get rid of ignorance and I usually learn more myself that way as well because I'm considering both positions and not just the topdog's.

 

[Pyropyro]

Devil's advocate is a very useful skill in business, science, philosophy etc. I think it's a skill to be proud of.

I agree

However, it can be problematic, for obvious reasons.

It's usually not that problematic if you agreed with your opponent to be the devil's advocate. It becomes problematic when you are backed in a corner during the discussion and then you say "oh I was only playing devil's advocate".

@OP
Personally though, I'm quite open on playing another side if it will make arguments more interesting. I do feel comfortable with the devil's mask on since I'm sure that by the end of the discussion, I'm free to discard it and be myself again.

 

[Brontosaurie]

seldom indulged in "devil's advocate". what i usually do is cultivate parallel and (seemingly) mutually exclusive propositions which are attempts at extracting the essential principles of ideas i find substantial, promising and truth-like. the supreme goal would then be to achieve a synthesis. this involves a lot of internal messing around with counter-arguments, but in the external it shows merely as polite reservations, if at all. what i present is adamant defense of my best approximation thus far.

that being said i'm often perceived as unserious when just being blunt or rhetorically provocative, and i do have a proud and stubborn contrarian tendency. Anktark called it disconfirmation bias, nice angle. flattering but not excessively so. in fact all of Anktark's post is very lucid.

 

[Reality is Optional]

I always argue for things I don't believe in. I think this is because I'm constantly afraid of contradicting myself, and because I feel the other person has a lapse in knowledge. If I think someone's opinion is too strong about something, even if I agree with the opinion, I'll argue with them. Sometimes it's for nothing more than the sake of arguing, because I like to debate so much. Buuuuuut, the other person usually ends up taking it personally and gets mad at me, which is highly irritating.

 

[ddspada]

Very interesting responses so far.

I believe I myself do it because it's fun to baffle people (ddspada doesn't think bullfighting/marihuana/abortion is wrong!?). It's also a good way of changing the dynamics of a debate so as to poke at people's defenses and prompt them to pick up the pace, so to speak. Often the debate will not go full speed if the participants don't believe their positions can be seriously threatened.

 

[Happy]

For me, it's that I want people to see that there is another side to whatever they are arguing for. They may have some good points, but there are always other factors at play.

Plus it's satisfying watching people squirm when you catch them off guard with something they didn't consider that threatens their entire position.

 

[yaleha]

I believe when people have a strong opinion on an issue they are not actually able to argue very well because they are emotionally involved. It's easy enough to exploit people's prejudices to gain their trust. It's also fun ))

When I was taking a public speaking class, I would come up with the most ridiculous topics. For my persuasive speech I tried to convince people that green is the best color.

 

[Latte]

Personally I will sometimes do it when I find someone argues in so flawed ways against something that it irks me, especially if the implications of their argumentation lead to other conclusions that are just... poop.
Not usually to troll, I do dislike unfounded or bad criticism as a thing in itself, also I sometimes feel like I have to "kill" "my conclusions" being represented by bad arguments.

When I do this I usually eventually follow up with "switching sides" if there is an audience, to make clear that that was not the best case that could be made for "my conclusions".
If there are no one there who are actually against "my conclusions" I often won't "switch sides", though.

I-is this a Ti-thing mbti-san ?1+