Interacting with "Winners"

[7Wannabe5]

I can't find to quote but I believe that Jacob once posted or quoted something that could be paraphrased as "When a topic/problem is being discussed or debated, different people are more or less motivated to either win, reach agreement, reveal truth or exert no energy because they don't care about the item at hand." My question is if you are primarily motivated to reveal truth and secondarily motivated to reach agreement what is the best way to interact with a person who is primarily motivated to win? I am not satisfied with the solutions I have come up with so far which would be:

1) Strictly limit interaction with people who are primarily motivated to win. For example, interact with them as sexual partners or personal fitness trainers but do not choose to share house-space with them.
2) Work on repressing my ENTP tendency to not just reveal truth but also speak it (since it is not always in alignment self-aware, self-care because this is the kind of behavior that might get you shot dead in the town's square if you yell out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes, etc.) and my tendency to hold on to one side of an issue too long in debate and thereby give the impression that I am also somebody who cares about winning more than truth.

I am interested in the INTJ solution to this problem because I am also interested in Efficiency (and Efficacy?) vs. Enjoyment and how this relates to Truth vs. Winning resulting in Agreement. Also has something to do with Competitive vs. Ambitious.

[Scott 2]

I ask questions or for help, in a leading way, that let's them take credit for the final "right" answer.

It's rare there is truly one right answer. Very important to remember that.

[George the original one]

Sabotage the person who wants to win in a way that can't be traced back to you in order to remove their presence from your life.

I'm being half-facetious, but the reality is that removing sources of conflict is the best option. Winners, because winning is most important, are not straight-forward in their presentations (which is what undermines their longevity).

Alternatively, if you can move them along to another goal where your interests are co-aligned, then they might forget the original conflict.

[jacob]

Well, INTJs tend to drive towards scoring wins for the truth. That's a lot of work so indeed some efficiency is required in terms of picking which wars to fight.

You were looking for this:
http://earlyretirementextreme.com/simpl ... havio.html

See the comment by senryo.

http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm
Read the entire thing but especially player interactions (killer vs explorer).

Another way of seeing it is to use the basic laws of human stupidity (Cipolla). Assuming that the winner is mainly hurting themselves (by arriving at false conclusions that nobody believes anyway ... e.g. debating a 12-year old about whether Santa exists), they can be ignored (yo, whatever, dude). If the winner is just "debating to win" (mainly hurting you), either crush them [rhetorically] if you can (they'll stop since they're rational and look for an easier target) or avoid entirely. If the winner is hurting themselves and others (e.g. creating believable lies), they're stupid and you need to put the hammer down ASAP. The sooner the better because it's much easier to get the ship back on course if the correction is made early. It's highly recommended to avoid stupidity if possible because it's such a huge hassle to deal with. In addition, it's a ongoing problem that'll never go away because "you can't fix stupid".

[Dragline]

Is this about Charlie Sheen?

Seriously, my first choice would be avoidance of such people. But that is not always practical.

Second strategy is to frame the issue such that your preferred option looks the most attractive and let them choose. It takes more skill, but is well worth learning. It also gets you to a decision/agreement point faster if you don't really care, but just need a decision. You need to be able to explain (1) here's what we have done/where we are; (2) here are our options at this point [make sure you always include the "do nothing" option if that is what you might prefer]; and (3) here are some potential outcomes. Then say "what do you think?" Avoid actually saying that one option is better than the others before you hear from them. But it should be obvious from your description of the outcomes.

A little practice at this and you'll become a Jedi master at mind tricks. "These are not the droids you are looking for . . ."

[Tyler9000]

I tend to seek either truth or agreement in conversations. We all have our pet topics where you feel driven to win, but I've learned over time that winning and agreement are not always possible. Which leaves me with truth.

My rhetorical tool of choice for sticking to truth is to carefully use qualifiers like "in my experience". Grand statements of fact will be quickly challenged by winners, but personal statements of experience generally cannot (unless you lie, but then you're a cutthroat winner and really have no interest in truth). This technique has the added benefit of lending credibility to your position, as it speaks from experience rather than theory. It also is a good way to bring up tradeoffs and gray areas that winners prefer to ignore.

[IlliniDave]

I tend to just avoid conversations where one or more participants are primarily interested in "winning". Sometimes that forces me to examine my motivation to "reveal truth". I sometimes find that is a self deception and I'm really just trying to "win". At that point I am even more inclined to bow out.

I am perfectly happy to "agree to disagree" and have no issue being around people that take different points of view than mine; and I have no compulsion to bring anyone around to my way of thinking. The only time I would avoid a person is if they habitually insist on being correct about everything and won't let it drop until I capitulate. At this point in my life I have very little tolerance for annoyance.

[7Wannabe5]

Thanks for your many helpful responses. I would first like to concede that, as IlliniDave noted, it is sometimes difficult to determine the difference between the desire to reveal the truth vs. the desire to win. Also, there can be a subtle difference between wishing to gain benefit and wishing to win just for the sake of winning. Obviously, everybody is driven to gain benefit in some way.

Jacob said in original post: I know as a “truth”-type that I carry an internal dialogue at all times never being particularly pro nor con. I suspect a winning-type carries a lot more certitude, is less flexible, and more permanent, in other words, a winning-type will not grow. An agreeable type will not grow by himself but could be pulled along, especially by a winning-type. An person who doesn’t care is unlikely to be moved by anything and provides the constant or reference point of the system.

From mud link: Killers get their kicks from imposing themselves on others. This may be "nice", ie. busybody do-gooding, but few people practice such an approach because the rewards (a warm, cosy inner glow, apparently) aren't very substantial.

Okay, my "problem" is that I am interacting with the rare type of killer who is often in busybody do-gooding mode (ESTJ on the cusp of ESFJ.) Like a big guard dog that also has a very strong herding instinct or the benevolent dictator type. I have virtually no S myself (2% is the highest I have ever tested) and not very much J either so it is beneficial for me to partner with others who do have these abilities so avoidance is not my best option. What I want to do is explore and invent so it is handy for me to have somebody who is like a human multi-tool with a lot of practical abilities around but this results in a conflict between the truth of "what is known to work" and "what could work in theory and might be fun to explore." Like if there was a monster in the backyard, my plan might be something like "According to this new study, monsters are very sensitive to light so maybe we could design a system that would detect the approach of the monster and trigger floodlights around the perimeter of the yard." but before I even finished expressing this thought, the Killer-Engineer would have already gone out into the yard and shot the monster to bits with some kind of conventional weaponry, leaving guts scattered all about my garden patch where I was growing an interesting new sort of purple pumpkin and if I make any sort of objection, the response I would get would be along the lines of "I love you so I killed the monster so it couldn't hurt you using the most practical, efficient method at hand and here is some money so you can go to the store and buy some pumpkin in a can. Don't make this a pissing contest."

[tommytebco]

I have learned that the phrase "You know, you may be right." is very valuable. then segue along to the next subject.

It legit to think to yourself "In a pigs eye!!" or "Your ass!!" <G> but don't grin while thinking it.

[GandK]

My husband (G) is an ESTJ, pretty close to the ENTJ line. He's got a lot of the tendencies you're describing. Trial attorney, likes to win. Loves situations where he can swoop in and save the day. Even the shows he watches are in that vein... heroes fighting to save the world from total anarchy. Walking Dead, et. al. (ESTJs really are trying to help when they pull out the 12-gauge, BTW.)

I've found that the solution to dealing with him when he's overbearing is... laughter. Not laughing at him, but rather exaggerating his attempts at "helping" me to such a great degree that he's forced to laugh.

Example from my everyday life: the dishwasher.

G insists that there's a single right way to load the dishwasher. And by this I mean something more than just putting dishes in the slots where they fit best and making sure there's enough room left over for free water movement. Plates must be organized in descending order from largest to smallest, right to left. Cups on the top row should go glass, plastic, glass, plastic, and so on. That sort of BS. And that wouldn't bother me at all except that he's inclined to fuss when the children and I don't do it his way.

My response to his "help" goes something like this: "You got another one last night, didn't you? You got another fax from God. God must really love you. No, no! Don't tell me! I got this! This one said [in my best Michael Palin voice], 'Thou shalt load thy dishwasher in sections. By thine own hand shall thou load it. Thou shalt load the top section first; from back to front, load thy dishes. Only then shall I make them clean. Otherwise they shall remain unclean, and unfit for thy use.' Amirite?"

By then he's laughing.

He continues to insist that his way is best, of course, but (a) the abrasiveness is gone, and (b) he's gently received the message that he's being overbearing. Which he truly doesn't want to be. ESTJs want to be a hero, not a nagging fishwife. They tend to back off if you can let them know that they're heading in that direction without getting in their face, which they see as something akin to insubordination.

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: Example from my everyday life: the dishwasher.

G insists that there's a single right way to load the dishwasher. And by this I mean something more than just putting dishes in the slots where they fit best and making sure there's enough room left over for free water movement. Plates must be organized in descending order from largest to smallest, right to left. Cups on the top row should go glass, plastic, glass, plastic, and so on. That sort of BS. And that wouldn't bother me at all except that he's inclined to fuss when the children and I don't do it his way.

My response to his "help" goes something like this: "You got another one last night, didn't you? You got another fax from God. God must really love you. No, no! Don't tell me! I got this! This one said [in my best Michael Palin voice], 'Thou shalt load thy dishwasher in sections. By thine own hand shall thou load it. Thou shalt load the top section first; from back to front, load thy dishes. Only then shall I make them clean. Otherwise they shall remain unclean, and unfit for thy use.' Amirite?"

By then he's laughing.

He continues to insist that his way is best, of course, but (a) the abrasiveness is gone, and (b) he's gently received the message that he's being overbearing. Which he truly doesn't want to be. ESTJs want to be a hero, not a nagging fishwife. They tend to back off if you can let them know that they're heading in that direction without getting in their face, which they see as something akin to insubordination.

Must be twins separated at birth except mine is a manufacturing engineer not an attorney so he is even more invested in being right about the correct way to load the dishwasher. When I objected to being "hassled" on this matter, I received a 20 minute demonstration with a syringe on how the jets on a dishwasher function. If I can overcome my tendency to react along the lines of "I don't care. Leave me alone! You are sucking the light out of my universe by making me focus on such tedious matters." this method of interacting can be constructive for us because I am actually very curious about how things work and I respond to logic much, much better than I react to being ordered about. I also agree that the "make him laugh" method will work well sometimes. I'm more likely to play like I am juvenile delinquent to his cop. As in, "Damn, busted again. You got to watch me every minute or who knows what mayhem may ensue. Better get out the cuffs, mister man." which will cause him to become somewhat flustered if not amused or just juvenile as in "Grouchy, grouchy, grouchy bear." which will generally at least get him to change his manner of address if not his message.

If it is purely a practical matter such as how best to load the dishwasher, I am generally willing to concede to his druthers, the problem is when there is some issue of "truth" usually along the lines of science vs. engineering or science vs. conventional practical wisdom or an issue of aesthetics vs. practicality. For instance, "This is the best method for rinsing the sink out thoroughly so no soap scum to which germs may adhere remains." or "All the walls in this house shall forever be painted only with one shade of off-white paint." We agreed in couple's therapy that he would let me redecorate the bathroom as a first step towards making his house feel more like my home but he simply can not let go of his controlling tendencies although he is trying (in way that is almost painful to watch because so unnatural) because he knows that I am unhappy with the status quo. I love him dearly and there are many great things about being in relationship with him but I am going to go nuts if I am not able to exhibited more autonomy while in his presence or have more of my preferences honored in our shared environment.

[George the original one]

LOL, okay, now I get where you're coming from!

"I have to figure this out on my own" or some variation should deflect the swooping in.

[stand@desk]

If I was in the dishwasher situation with my significant other (we wash the dishes by hand in our household), I would offer the ESTJ to take responsibility of all dishwashing duties when they are home to ensure it will be done their way. If they are not home, then the other partner can do the dishes their way. If the ESTJ wants the other partner to load the dishwasher when they are home, then they have to let the other partner do it their way (and not complain) OR the ESTJ can change their mind and do the chore and do it their way. (Ideally, both types can see the value of a best way to complete a task and do it that way and the potential for disagreement is over, but if it can not be agreed upon by both partners, I'd suggest using the method above to handle the situation.)

This is how it works in our home but with making dinner. My wife likes her cooking better than mine. I prefer hers too but I'm not as fussy with food as she is. On the very rare occasion my wife does not want to make dinner, I tell her she can accept my making dinner however I want to make it, or she can change her mind and make us dinner. Those are her options. I will not make dinner the way she wants me to (complex recipes & ingredients, may require extra shopping and prep work).

The more anal partner has the option of doing it their way, or letting the other person do it their way. But they do not have the option of telling someone else they have to do it their way. I would not accept treatment like that in my private life, I need the autonomy. (When it comes to work I know this likely would not be acceptable, you work with the boss depending on their preferences).

Disclosure: I am INTJ, Wife ExFJ (probably more on the ENFJ side).

[Dragline]

The more anal partner has the option of doing it their way, or letting the other person do it their way. But they do not have the option of telling someone else they have to do it their way. I would not accept treatment like that in my private life, I need the autonomy. (When it comes to work I know this likely would not be acceptable, you work with the boss depending on their preferences).

Yup - whomever it means more to ought to do the job. That's fair, although obviously it does not account for more difficult personalities.

I've always been very fortunate because DW and I tend to care more about different things and just "let the other person lead" on whomever its more important to. Letting go of some personal preferences is part of marriage, though.

[jacob]

I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_H ... ein-Equord

Along with s@d and Dragline... our household is also composed of one diligent person (DW) and one lazy person (me). We each have different areas where we are stupid and clever. The trick is to steer the diligent towards the work where they are clever (well-established procedures) and away from the work where they are stupid (novel and dangerous work for which there are no procedures) or at least in the latter case seek to contain the damage (they might even not think of it as such, e.g. the time spent organizing dishes in the dishwasher). Also, the lazy should be steered towards areas where they are clever (planning and avoiding danger) and away from areas where they are stupid (routine work such as eating, lawn mowing, and paying bills) because in the latter case only the bare minimum effort will be put in if that.

[Scott 2]

Another pattern I've picked up, is to speak what I am thinking with authority and confidence, even if I am uncertain. It's much less likely to be challenged by a winner.

Since it's mirroring their pattern for similar levels of uncertainty, I don't feel bad about it. Though it is lame when the same behavior stream rolls other reasonable people.

[7Wannabe5]

stand@desk wrote:
The more anal partner has the option of doing it their way, or letting the other person do it their way. But they do not have the option of telling someone else they have to do it their way. I would not accept treatment like that in my private life, I need the autonomy. (When it comes to work I know this likely would not be acceptable, you work with the boss depending on their preferences).

Gotcha. This is the juncture where it may be the case that my desire to "win" kicks in because if I made this play, my SO would counter by saying "Okay, I will hire somebody else to do it." and I can't deal with that. One of the things he offered which I never even asked for in order to get me to move back in with him was that I wouldn't have to do very much housework. He isn't really particularly anal about housework. He is just driven to supervise whatever activity happens to be going on in his vicinity. I actually don't mind doing routine housework as a form of exercise if I can just space out and do it my way and I enjoy the creative aspects of housework such as cooking. Since he pays virtually all the bills and I am a fair-minded person, I am willing to do most of it if he would just stop hassling me. Otherwise, I feel like I am going to turn into the spouse who hides out in some basement hobby shop and/or engages in some sort of defiant juvenile behavior (since I am a mild-mannered 50 year old woman who does not drink or smoke, I am not sure what this might be except one time I went out to my car and blasted "Cherry Bomb" full-blast.)

Jacob said: Along with s@d and Dragline... our household is also composed of one diligent person (DW) and one lazy person (me). We each have different areas where we are stupid and clever. The trick is to steer the diligent towards the work where they are clever (well-established procedures) and away from the work where they are stupid (novel and dangerous work for which there are no procedures) or at least in the latter case seek to contain the damage (they might even not think of it as such, e.g. the time spent organizing dishes in the dishwasher). Also, the lazy should be steered towards areas where they are clever (planning and avoiding danger) and away from areas where they are stupid (routine work such as eating, lawn mowing, and paying bills) because in the latter case only the bare minimum effort will be put in if that.

Hmmm.... I would say SO and I are different flavors of intelligent and lazy. I am energetic and quick-witted and cheerful while working but easily bored and distracted. He is slow and exacting and grouchy while working. Typical interaction for us might be I would say "Let's go on a bike ride!" and if he agrees, it's like these massive cogs start moving very slowly in his brain while he thinks about everything that might possibly go wrong on an hour long bike ride in the form of a gigantic flow chart. Then there is this long period of preparation for all these eventualities during which he is giving me grouchy instructions. Then so much time has gone by that I have forgotten why I even wanted to go on a bike ride in the first place but if I complain something will happen like maybe I will need a band-aid on my knee and he will be right and I will be wrong but if I was by myself I would probably just wipe the blood off with a leaf and still be cheerful.

[GandK]

I love him dearly and there are many great things about being in relationship with him but I am going to go nuts if I am not able to exhibited more autonomy while in his presence or have more of my preferences honored in our shared environment.

I hear you. I'm all for give and take, but I don't want to bend on every issue.

IIRC you spend more time in the home than he does. Logically, that's a strong argument for your preferences to be honored. Could you maybe appeal to his sense of chivalry regarding home improvements? Something like "The color yellow lifts my mood. I've been down a lot lately. I spend a lot of time in this room... I think painting it yellow would make me happier. You'd really be helping me."

(Yes, INTJs... I agree, jumping through these hoops to do what you want in your own home is not a trivial thing. It's just the price you pay to have otherwise amazing ESTJ partners. IME this is the best way of communicating with guys who see themselves as knights - turn everything into a quest. You get your way, they get to save the day. It makes both of you happy at once.)

[stand@desk]

Gotcha. This is the juncture where it may be the case that my desire to "win" kicks in because if I made this play, my SO would counter by saying "Okay, I will hire somebody else to do it." and I can't deal with that. One of the things he offered which I never even asked for in order to get me to move back in with him was that I wouldn't have to do very much housework. He isn't really particularly anal about housework. He is just driven to supervise whatever activity happens to be going on in his vicinity. I actually don't mind doing routine housework as a form of exercise if I can just space out and do it my way and I enjoy the creative aspects of housework such as cooking. Since he pays virtually all the bills and I am a fair-minded person, I am willing to do most of it if he would just stop hassling me. Otherwise, I feel like I am going to turn into the spouse who hides out in some basement hobby shop and/or engages in some sort of defiant juvenile behavior (since I am a mild-mannered 50 year old woman who does not drink or smoke, I am not sure what this might be except one time I went out to my car and blasted "Cherry Bomb" full-blast.)

When 7Wannabe5 puts it this way, I would say that you have to let SO win. Winners gonna win. Rationalization or compromise is not an option, so this is how they will behave. And since his desire to win is stronger than yours I think he has to have the wins. A person who's SO is a overbearring winner, the only way I could see them winning in the end is by doing something escalating rebellious that hurts them and their SO, which if it gets to that point, there needs to a re-evaluation of the relationship if it is actually adding value to one's life or is it really taking away value. One needs to be honest with one's self.

I can relate to your position because my Dad is very much the same way. Rationalizing doesn't work. I love my Dad but really I have to let him be the way he has to be. I've tried too many times to ask him to declutter my parents' home, finish the bathroom re-modelling (it's been like 10 years since he started) clean out the garage & basement to standards I'd like (like get rid of the 50 year old couch in the unfinished basement and empty the garage so they can get a second car in there), but he just won't and I have accepted it. And from his end, he keeps telling me to drive slowly (I am a very slow driver already), to buy my wife flowers (it's not necessary for me to be told this every time I talk to him on the phone), and to visit old friends from my childhood that I haven't seen in years and lays guilt trips on me and gets emotionally upset. It puts me in a situation where I have to brush this stuff off or not address it for as long as I can until it passes and he gets over it. That is my defense when it comes to those matters. It works somewhat well but it is fatiguing. The hard thing is to tolerate this type of psychological dissonance for periods of time. I can only tolerate in smaller doses and then I need my space. Fortunately with my wife, I don't need nearly as much space to myself at all. (That's why I married her ) But I do appreciate the things my Dad does do for me (very generous, a great cook, handy with repairs etc. fun to watch hockey with) and that is what the relationship will amount to. My wife and I currently live a few hours away so our visits are from time to time and not so regularly. You can brush things off here and there but more space than less may be required. But if your SO is like my Dad, he is still very loyal and loves to do things for you. I realize I am fortunate to still have my Dad and there are other good attributes about him but I think you get the idea. My Mom adapts by spending stretches of time in her room listening to the radio or going on the computer & gardening outside.

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: IIRC you spend more time in the home than he does. Logically, that's a strong argument for your preferences to be honored. Could you maybe appeal to his sense of chivalry regarding home improvements? Something like "The color yellow lifts my mood. I've been down a lot lately. I spend a lot of time in this room... I think painting it yellow would make me happier. You'd really be helping me."

He is retired so we both spend most of our time in the home. One thing that helps me keep my sanity is the fact that we have extremely different sleep schedules. I am up pre-dawn and he isn't ready to engage until around noon most days. He retired in his early 50s while his two daughters were still young and after he was divorced from their mother (who he believes to be a lousy parent) so he is very firmly entrenched in Mr. Mom /Paterfamilias/House-Herr role.

I think we have read some of the same books on the topic because I know that using feeling words is the best way to get your preferences honored by a dominant type. I am more T than F but not to the extreme so I can do that. One insight I had recently was that I have a hard time overcoming early training which informed me that it is wrong to say that you are feeling bored but I have to be able to express that if/when I am interacting with somebody who values security/comfort/order more than I do.

s@d said: But if your SO is like my Dad, he is still very loyal and loves to do things for you. I realize I am fortunate to still have my Dad and there are other good attributes about him but I think you get the idea. My Mom adapts by spending stretches of time in her room listening to the radio or going on the computer & gardening outside.

Right. He is extremely generous and he loves to do things for me and with me but he always has to be in charge. He is so incorrigible in this regard that he tends towards deeming any activities in realms where he is ignorant simply not worth doing at all. For instance, if I was sitting in front of him knitting a sock, he would likely say something like "That seems like a waste of time. We can buy socks very economically." or if I was sitting in front of him trying to learn some potentially lucrative computer skill, he might say something like "Why are you doing that. We don't need the money and I asked you to start managing my investment account."

Anyways, I gave some more thought to the quote about officers Jacob posted. Putting aside whatever may be the objective, universal, underlying truth of the matter, the fact is that my SO would like to see himself as the clever, lazy officer who is most fit for highest leadership and I know that he does see me as a very clever and diligent person who makes an excellent member of General Staff or Chief Aide or whatever is the name of the military position where you are the person to whom the lazy leader delegates everything. So, given this perspective and premise, the problem might be that I really am not very diligent. I only give the appearance of being somebody who is diligent because I am energetic and I have trained myself in adulthood to adopt and stick to various routines and practices in order to combat my natural tendency towards lapsing into a state of thoroughly distracted procrastination and dilettantism.

So, my SO is grouchy when he has to work because he is lazy but he is driven to be in charge and he is inclined towards being generous. I am not naturally diligent but I have determined that whether or not I am in relationship with anybody, it is in my own self-interest to adopt the practices of the naturally diligent but my tendency towards being easily bored is a limiting factor. Ergo, I am only motivated to engage in tedious tasks (or follow tedious instruction) if I believe I will be amply rewarded/compensated with fun/stimulation/excitement/something-interesting etc. My early training being that if I tell my mother that I am bored she will reply "I am not your clown. Go clean your room if you are bored." and if I tell my father that I am bored, he will reply "If you clean your messy room then I will take you sledding." Since I am currently in a relationship where I feel like I am more in the "child" role (in my previous 19 year marriage, I was more in the "parent" role and I really did not like that either) it is important that I think about my early training so I can transcend it and adopt a more "adult" perspective while in the presence of other. IOW, I need to examine why it is easier for me to take on and manage the responsibility of "keeping myself entertained" when I am single than when I am coupled.