Term for a person who disagrees but says the same thingTerm for same root word but words with different meaningTerm for a person who can read but cannot writeName of formal form of addressAntonyms mean the same thing in contextTerm for the person working with chocolateWhat is the term for, “Don't make it a thing if it isn't a thing”The term for a person who “re-joins” an organisationWord for person who dreams big but does much biggerThe term for a person who provides a reference for someone for a jobAnother word for someone who says everything is theirs
Electoral considerations aside, what are potential benefits, for the US, of policy changes proposed by the tweet recognizing Golan annexation?
How to rewrite equation of hyperbola in standard form
What are the advantages of simplicial model categories over non-simplicial ones?
Hero deduces identity of a killer
Why is the "ls" command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?
Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?
Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?
What happens if you are holding an Iron Flask with a demon inside and walk into an Antimagic Field?
Does Doodling or Improvising on the Piano Have Any Benefits?
What is the highest possible scrabble score for placing a single tile
What is the evidence for the "tyranny of the majority problem" in a direct democracy context?
Can a College of Swords bard use a Blade Flourish option on an opportunity attack provoked by their own Dissonant Whispers spell?
How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character
Lowest total scrabble score
15% tax on $7.5k earnings. Is that right?
Invalid date error by date command
Can disgust be a key component of horror?
Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?
Redundant comparison & "if" before assignment
A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?
Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extension
Using substitution ciphers to generate new alphabets in a novel
How to hide some fields of struct in C?
Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank
Term for a person who disagrees but says the same thing
Term for same root word but words with different meaningTerm for a person who can read but cannot writeName of formal form of addressAntonyms mean the same thing in contextTerm for the person working with chocolateWhat is the term for, “Don't make it a thing if it isn't a thing”The term for a person who “re-joins” an organisationWord for person who dreams big but does much biggerThe term for a person who provides a reference for someone for a jobAnother word for someone who says everything is theirs
I am not sure whether there's a clinical term for it but if you can help me find the closest term for such behaviour I can do some research on it.
What do you call a person that disagrees with your statement but then is effectively saying the same thing?
NOTE: The person in question has been exposed to very simple questions that can't be classified as complex and yet failed to notice what he/she was doing there.
I will explain this in practical terms using one example (this example is not the same the person was exposed to)
I: The football match is on Wednesday (saying this Sunday)
He/she: No it's not, it's in 3 days. (which effectively is Wednesday)
I know the example is a bit late but it's to give you the gist of the situation I'm trying to explain.
terminology epithet-requests
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
|
show 6 more comments
I am not sure whether there's a clinical term for it but if you can help me find the closest term for such behaviour I can do some research on it.
What do you call a person that disagrees with your statement but then is effectively saying the same thing?
NOTE: The person in question has been exposed to very simple questions that can't be classified as complex and yet failed to notice what he/she was doing there.
I will explain this in practical terms using one example (this example is not the same the person was exposed to)
I: The football match is on Wednesday (saying this Sunday)
He/she: No it's not, it's in 3 days. (which effectively is Wednesday)
I know the example is a bit late but it's to give you the gist of the situation I'm trying to explain.
terminology epithet-requests
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
3
That's a classical case of someone who must always be right, and who, furthermore, must always prove you wrong. Usually limited to a specific domain, such as sports or politics. "Argumentative" is about all I can think of.
– Hot Licks
Sep 29 '15 at 12:27
You could try something like "kneejerk argumentative" or "hypoargumentative" (the latter you probably won't find in a dictionary but I see no problem with making up a word if it fits) , but it looks like "eristic" below fits the bill pretty well.
– Hannele
Sep 29 '15 at 12:49
2
@Hannele Are you sure you did not mean hyperargumentative?
– Andrew Leach♦
Sep 29 '15 at 14:35
3
Another pretty good word is "jerk".
– MackTuesday
Sep 29 '15 at 18:27
2
The term is "Commentor in a StackExchange answer" :p
– imin
Sep 29 '15 at 19:08
|
show 6 more comments
I am not sure whether there's a clinical term for it but if you can help me find the closest term for such behaviour I can do some research on it.
What do you call a person that disagrees with your statement but then is effectively saying the same thing?
NOTE: The person in question has been exposed to very simple questions that can't be classified as complex and yet failed to notice what he/she was doing there.
I will explain this in practical terms using one example (this example is not the same the person was exposed to)
I: The football match is on Wednesday (saying this Sunday)
He/she: No it's not, it's in 3 days. (which effectively is Wednesday)
I know the example is a bit late but it's to give you the gist of the situation I'm trying to explain.
terminology epithet-requests
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
I am not sure whether there's a clinical term for it but if you can help me find the closest term for such behaviour I can do some research on it.
What do you call a person that disagrees with your statement but then is effectively saying the same thing?
NOTE: The person in question has been exposed to very simple questions that can't be classified as complex and yet failed to notice what he/she was doing there.
I will explain this in practical terms using one example (this example is not the same the person was exposed to)
I: The football match is on Wednesday (saying this Sunday)
He/she: No it's not, it's in 3 days. (which effectively is Wednesday)
I know the example is a bit late but it's to give you the gist of the situation I'm trying to explain.
terminology epithet-requests
terminology epithet-requests
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
edited Jul 23 '16 at 18:17
tchrist♦
109k30294472
109k30294472
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
asked Sep 29 '15 at 9:07
cpu2007cpu2007
17815
17815
3
That's a classical case of someone who must always be right, and who, furthermore, must always prove you wrong. Usually limited to a specific domain, such as sports or politics. "Argumentative" is about all I can think of.
– Hot Licks
Sep 29 '15 at 12:27
You could try something like "kneejerk argumentative" or "hypoargumentative" (the latter you probably won't find in a dictionary but I see no problem with making up a word if it fits) , but it looks like "eristic" below fits the bill pretty well.
– Hannele
Sep 29 '15 at 12:49
2
@Hannele Are you sure you did not mean hyperargumentative?
– Andrew Leach♦
Sep 29 '15 at 14:35
3
Another pretty good word is "jerk".
– MackTuesday
Sep 29 '15 at 18:27
2
The term is "Commentor in a StackExchange answer" :p
– imin
Sep 29 '15 at 19:08
|
show 6 more comments
3
That's a classical case of someone who must always be right, and who, furthermore, must always prove you wrong. Usually limited to a specific domain, such as sports or politics. "Argumentative" is about all I can think of.
– Hot Licks
Sep 29 '15 at 12:27
You could try something like "kneejerk argumentative" or "hypoargumentative" (the latter you probably won't find in a dictionary but I see no problem with making up a word if it fits) , but it looks like "eristic" below fits the bill pretty well.
– Hannele
Sep 29 '15 at 12:49
2
@Hannele Are you sure you did not mean hyperargumentative?
– Andrew Leach♦
Sep 29 '15 at 14:35
3
Another pretty good word is "jerk".
– MackTuesday
Sep 29 '15 at 18:27
2
The term is "Commentor in a StackExchange answer" :p
– imin
Sep 29 '15 at 19:08
3
3
That's a classical case of someone who must always be right, and who, furthermore, must always prove you wrong. Usually limited to a specific domain, such as sports or politics. "Argumentative" is about all I can think of.
– Hot Licks
Sep 29 '15 at 12:27
That's a classical case of someone who must always be right, and who, furthermore, must always prove you wrong. Usually limited to a specific domain, such as sports or politics. "Argumentative" is about all I can think of.
– Hot Licks
Sep 29 '15 at 12:27
You could try something like "kneejerk argumentative" or "hypoargumentative" (the latter you probably won't find in a dictionary but I see no problem with making up a word if it fits) , but it looks like "eristic" below fits the bill pretty well.
– Hannele
Sep 29 '15 at 12:49
You could try something like "kneejerk argumentative" or "hypoargumentative" (the latter you probably won't find in a dictionary but I see no problem with making up a word if it fits) , but it looks like "eristic" below fits the bill pretty well.
– Hannele
Sep 29 '15 at 12:49
2
2
@Hannele Are you sure you did not mean hyperargumentative?
– Andrew Leach♦
Sep 29 '15 at 14:35
@Hannele Are you sure you did not mean hyperargumentative?
– Andrew Leach♦
Sep 29 '15 at 14:35
3
3
Another pretty good word is "jerk".
– MackTuesday
Sep 29 '15 at 18:27
Another pretty good word is "jerk".
– MackTuesday
Sep 29 '15 at 18:27
2
2
The term is "Commentor in a StackExchange answer" :p
– imin
Sep 29 '15 at 19:08
The term is "Commentor in a StackExchange answer" :p
– imin
Sep 29 '15 at 19:08
|
show 6 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
A person who argues for the sake of arguing, who prefers controversy and dispute to discussion and agreement, may be called eristic. A more modern term which could be used in this context is denier. Of course, this type of person could also be called disagreeable.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
Can you include the definitions/descriptions of your terms here? It makes your answer more valuable to those like me who are too lazy to click links.
– iamnotmaynard
Sep 29 '15 at 23:02
This looks like the most appropriate term. Most of the terms that were suggested only describe a portion of a person's behaviour. For example the person disagrees for the sake of disagreeing but those terms don't tell why he/she then reiterates the same thing.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
Online I found this article which talks about a person disagreeing for the sake or argument but they tend to correct whatever the first person is saying(opposite to what happens in my case); apparently it's called oppositional conversational style (not sure if is made up by the author) gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2012/06/…
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
However the term eristic doesn't specify that whoever embraces this behaviour will argue and then state the same thing; it describes more the intention of those argument where finding the truth isn't necessary but arguing is; which I think is the best way to describe such person.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:03
add a comment |
I have often heard people say "We're vehemently agreeing with each other."
vehement:
(1) zealous; ardent; impassioned:
(2) characterized by rancor or anger; violent:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehemently
Another common phrase is "You're preaching to the choir" referring to a pastor directing his sermon to the people in the building who most agree with him.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
10
Also violent agreement.
– Dan Bron
Sep 29 '15 at 12:51
'to vehemently agree' is a bit of tongue in cheek because 'vehement' is usually negative and is usually paired with a negative like 'disagree'. So it starts off sounding negative, but turns positive. Like 'underwhelming', it used to not be a word, and gained currency because of its contrast with the usual 'overwhelming'.
– Mitch
Sep 29 '15 at 13:44
Also phony disagreement.
– Graffito
Sep 29 '15 at 14:27
3
+1 to the first part, but -1 to "preaching to the choir" as relevant here. So I guess 0 overall. :)
– mattdm
Sep 29 '15 at 15:46
add a comment |
I'm not too sure about this but it this may be termed as hypocritical or dogmatic beahaviour, meaning:
hypocritical
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
dogmatic
expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted
In the case of your example, the point brought forth is similar (that the football match occurs on Wednesday) but the other party simply rejects the opposing idea probably believing that he has an answer that is 'more' or 'certainly' correct, of 'higher standard' than the one given or just simple believing the fact that he 'cannot be doubted'.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
add a comment |
I would suggest the phrase "re-contextualizing."
Basically, the person engaging in this behavior is someone who has a very rigid frame of reference or worldview, and is unable to perform simple abstraction of your frame of reference (in the example cited, calibrated in day-name) to their frame (calibrated in days hence).
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
add a comment |
I see two branches to this question.
Branch one assumes that he/she is aware that there is a technical agreement but are continuing to argue for the sake of argument.
Possibilities are:
- Imperative, Domineering - (They just want to win) It appears from synonym descriptions that domineering is more accurate if it's a decision-making argument, but imperative is better as a general-purpose word.
- Ornery, Combative, Argumentative, Eristic- (They just want to argue)
Branch two assumes that the other person is unaware of the agreement already reached
Dogmatic - I think that this one may be the best fit, since many of the examples given mention the futility of arguing with a dogmatic individual. Dogmatic is particularly appropriate if the disagreement is over politics, religion, etc.- Dogged and Dense - requires two words to get the full connotation in print, but in speech either word would suffice
*I have only linked two words, but that's because of rep limits, not laziness
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
add a comment |
This might be a word to consider:
tautology
In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος,
"word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way,
generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different
phrasing or terminology...[a]
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
1
Thank you Michael. My understanding is that the term only describes the reiterating portion of the person's behaviour where as my question is about the person reiterating but after disagreeing; a behaviour that suggest a person being incapable of understanding the question but at the same time understanding it as they do reiterate it correctly.
– cpu2007
Sep 29 '15 at 9:36
add a comment |
con·trar·i·an
kənˈtre(ə)rēən,kän-/Submit
noun
1.
a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
1
Hi Bunniebuns. Please provide your reference.
– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Aug 31 '16 at 6:44
add a comment |
I don't know what to call it, but it's most annoying thing ever. Everyday I have to deal with this, constant. Everything I say he'll disagree, then say same thing I just said in a different way.
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f276716%2fterm-for-a-person-who-disagrees-but-says-the-same-thing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A person who argues for the sake of arguing, who prefers controversy and dispute to discussion and agreement, may be called eristic. A more modern term which could be used in this context is denier. Of course, this type of person could also be called disagreeable.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
Can you include the definitions/descriptions of your terms here? It makes your answer more valuable to those like me who are too lazy to click links.
– iamnotmaynard
Sep 29 '15 at 23:02
This looks like the most appropriate term. Most of the terms that were suggested only describe a portion of a person's behaviour. For example the person disagrees for the sake of disagreeing but those terms don't tell why he/she then reiterates the same thing.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
Online I found this article which talks about a person disagreeing for the sake or argument but they tend to correct whatever the first person is saying(opposite to what happens in my case); apparently it's called oppositional conversational style (not sure if is made up by the author) gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2012/06/…
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
However the term eristic doesn't specify that whoever embraces this behaviour will argue and then state the same thing; it describes more the intention of those argument where finding the truth isn't necessary but arguing is; which I think is the best way to describe such person.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:03
add a comment |
A person who argues for the sake of arguing, who prefers controversy and dispute to discussion and agreement, may be called eristic. A more modern term which could be used in this context is denier. Of course, this type of person could also be called disagreeable.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
Can you include the definitions/descriptions of your terms here? It makes your answer more valuable to those like me who are too lazy to click links.
– iamnotmaynard
Sep 29 '15 at 23:02
This looks like the most appropriate term. Most of the terms that were suggested only describe a portion of a person's behaviour. For example the person disagrees for the sake of disagreeing but those terms don't tell why he/she then reiterates the same thing.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
Online I found this article which talks about a person disagreeing for the sake or argument but they tend to correct whatever the first person is saying(opposite to what happens in my case); apparently it's called oppositional conversational style (not sure if is made up by the author) gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2012/06/…
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
However the term eristic doesn't specify that whoever embraces this behaviour will argue and then state the same thing; it describes more the intention of those argument where finding the truth isn't necessary but arguing is; which I think is the best way to describe such person.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:03
add a comment |
A person who argues for the sake of arguing, who prefers controversy and dispute to discussion and agreement, may be called eristic. A more modern term which could be used in this context is denier. Of course, this type of person could also be called disagreeable.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
A person who argues for the sake of arguing, who prefers controversy and dispute to discussion and agreement, may be called eristic. A more modern term which could be used in this context is denier. Of course, this type of person could also be called disagreeable.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
edited Sep 29 '15 at 18:50
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
answered Sep 29 '15 at 11:42
AndrewNimmoAndrewNimmo
855157
855157
Can you include the definitions/descriptions of your terms here? It makes your answer more valuable to those like me who are too lazy to click links.
– iamnotmaynard
Sep 29 '15 at 23:02
This looks like the most appropriate term. Most of the terms that were suggested only describe a portion of a person's behaviour. For example the person disagrees for the sake of disagreeing but those terms don't tell why he/she then reiterates the same thing.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
Online I found this article which talks about a person disagreeing for the sake or argument but they tend to correct whatever the first person is saying(opposite to what happens in my case); apparently it's called oppositional conversational style (not sure if is made up by the author) gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2012/06/…
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
However the term eristic doesn't specify that whoever embraces this behaviour will argue and then state the same thing; it describes more the intention of those argument where finding the truth isn't necessary but arguing is; which I think is the best way to describe such person.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:03
add a comment |
Can you include the definitions/descriptions of your terms here? It makes your answer more valuable to those like me who are too lazy to click links.
– iamnotmaynard
Sep 29 '15 at 23:02
This looks like the most appropriate term. Most of the terms that were suggested only describe a portion of a person's behaviour. For example the person disagrees for the sake of disagreeing but those terms don't tell why he/she then reiterates the same thing.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
Online I found this article which talks about a person disagreeing for the sake or argument but they tend to correct whatever the first person is saying(opposite to what happens in my case); apparently it's called oppositional conversational style (not sure if is made up by the author) gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2012/06/…
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
However the term eristic doesn't specify that whoever embraces this behaviour will argue and then state the same thing; it describes more the intention of those argument where finding the truth isn't necessary but arguing is; which I think is the best way to describe such person.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:03
Can you include the definitions/descriptions of your terms here? It makes your answer more valuable to those like me who are too lazy to click links.
– iamnotmaynard
Sep 29 '15 at 23:02
Can you include the definitions/descriptions of your terms here? It makes your answer more valuable to those like me who are too lazy to click links.
– iamnotmaynard
Sep 29 '15 at 23:02
This looks like the most appropriate term. Most of the terms that were suggested only describe a portion of a person's behaviour. For example the person disagrees for the sake of disagreeing but those terms don't tell why he/she then reiterates the same thing.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
This looks like the most appropriate term. Most of the terms that were suggested only describe a portion of a person's behaviour. For example the person disagrees for the sake of disagreeing but those terms don't tell why he/she then reiterates the same thing.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
Online I found this article which talks about a person disagreeing for the sake or argument but they tend to correct whatever the first person is saying(opposite to what happens in my case); apparently it's called oppositional conversational style (not sure if is made up by the author) gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2012/06/…
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
Online I found this article which talks about a person disagreeing for the sake or argument but they tend to correct whatever the first person is saying(opposite to what happens in my case); apparently it's called oppositional conversational style (not sure if is made up by the author) gretchenrubin.com/happiness_project/2012/06/…
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:00
However the term eristic doesn't specify that whoever embraces this behaviour will argue and then state the same thing; it describes more the intention of those argument where finding the truth isn't necessary but arguing is; which I think is the best way to describe such person.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:03
However the term eristic doesn't specify that whoever embraces this behaviour will argue and then state the same thing; it describes more the intention of those argument where finding the truth isn't necessary but arguing is; which I think is the best way to describe such person.
– cpu2007
Sep 30 '15 at 9:03
add a comment |
I have often heard people say "We're vehemently agreeing with each other."
vehement:
(1) zealous; ardent; impassioned:
(2) characterized by rancor or anger; violent:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehemently
Another common phrase is "You're preaching to the choir" referring to a pastor directing his sermon to the people in the building who most agree with him.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
10
Also violent agreement.
– Dan Bron
Sep 29 '15 at 12:51
'to vehemently agree' is a bit of tongue in cheek because 'vehement' is usually negative and is usually paired with a negative like 'disagree'. So it starts off sounding negative, but turns positive. Like 'underwhelming', it used to not be a word, and gained currency because of its contrast with the usual 'overwhelming'.
– Mitch
Sep 29 '15 at 13:44
Also phony disagreement.
– Graffito
Sep 29 '15 at 14:27
3
+1 to the first part, but -1 to "preaching to the choir" as relevant here. So I guess 0 overall. :)
– mattdm
Sep 29 '15 at 15:46
add a comment |
I have often heard people say "We're vehemently agreeing with each other."
vehement:
(1) zealous; ardent; impassioned:
(2) characterized by rancor or anger; violent:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehemently
Another common phrase is "You're preaching to the choir" referring to a pastor directing his sermon to the people in the building who most agree with him.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
10
Also violent agreement.
– Dan Bron
Sep 29 '15 at 12:51
'to vehemently agree' is a bit of tongue in cheek because 'vehement' is usually negative and is usually paired with a negative like 'disagree'. So it starts off sounding negative, but turns positive. Like 'underwhelming', it used to not be a word, and gained currency because of its contrast with the usual 'overwhelming'.
– Mitch
Sep 29 '15 at 13:44
Also phony disagreement.
– Graffito
Sep 29 '15 at 14:27
3
+1 to the first part, but -1 to "preaching to the choir" as relevant here. So I guess 0 overall. :)
– mattdm
Sep 29 '15 at 15:46
add a comment |
I have often heard people say "We're vehemently agreeing with each other."
vehement:
(1) zealous; ardent; impassioned:
(2) characterized by rancor or anger; violent:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehemently
Another common phrase is "You're preaching to the choir" referring to a pastor directing his sermon to the people in the building who most agree with him.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
I have often heard people say "We're vehemently agreeing with each other."
vehement:
(1) zealous; ardent; impassioned:
(2) characterized by rancor or anger; violent:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vehemently
Another common phrase is "You're preaching to the choir" referring to a pastor directing his sermon to the people in the building who most agree with him.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
answered Sep 29 '15 at 12:39
ReadinReadin
1403
1403
10
Also violent agreement.
– Dan Bron
Sep 29 '15 at 12:51
'to vehemently agree' is a bit of tongue in cheek because 'vehement' is usually negative and is usually paired with a negative like 'disagree'. So it starts off sounding negative, but turns positive. Like 'underwhelming', it used to not be a word, and gained currency because of its contrast with the usual 'overwhelming'.
– Mitch
Sep 29 '15 at 13:44
Also phony disagreement.
– Graffito
Sep 29 '15 at 14:27
3
+1 to the first part, but -1 to "preaching to the choir" as relevant here. So I guess 0 overall. :)
– mattdm
Sep 29 '15 at 15:46
add a comment |
10
Also violent agreement.
– Dan Bron
Sep 29 '15 at 12:51
'to vehemently agree' is a bit of tongue in cheek because 'vehement' is usually negative and is usually paired with a negative like 'disagree'. So it starts off sounding negative, but turns positive. Like 'underwhelming', it used to not be a word, and gained currency because of its contrast with the usual 'overwhelming'.
– Mitch
Sep 29 '15 at 13:44
Also phony disagreement.
– Graffito
Sep 29 '15 at 14:27
3
+1 to the first part, but -1 to "preaching to the choir" as relevant here. So I guess 0 overall. :)
– mattdm
Sep 29 '15 at 15:46
10
10
Also violent agreement.
– Dan Bron
Sep 29 '15 at 12:51
Also violent agreement.
– Dan Bron
Sep 29 '15 at 12:51
'to vehemently agree' is a bit of tongue in cheek because 'vehement' is usually negative and is usually paired with a negative like 'disagree'. So it starts off sounding negative, but turns positive. Like 'underwhelming', it used to not be a word, and gained currency because of its contrast with the usual 'overwhelming'.
– Mitch
Sep 29 '15 at 13:44
'to vehemently agree' is a bit of tongue in cheek because 'vehement' is usually negative and is usually paired with a negative like 'disagree'. So it starts off sounding negative, but turns positive. Like 'underwhelming', it used to not be a word, and gained currency because of its contrast with the usual 'overwhelming'.
– Mitch
Sep 29 '15 at 13:44
Also phony disagreement.
– Graffito
Sep 29 '15 at 14:27
Also phony disagreement.
– Graffito
Sep 29 '15 at 14:27
3
3
+1 to the first part, but -1 to "preaching to the choir" as relevant here. So I guess 0 overall. :)
– mattdm
Sep 29 '15 at 15:46
+1 to the first part, but -1 to "preaching to the choir" as relevant here. So I guess 0 overall. :)
– mattdm
Sep 29 '15 at 15:46
add a comment |
I'm not too sure about this but it this may be termed as hypocritical or dogmatic beahaviour, meaning:
hypocritical
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
dogmatic
expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted
In the case of your example, the point brought forth is similar (that the football match occurs on Wednesday) but the other party simply rejects the opposing idea probably believing that he has an answer that is 'more' or 'certainly' correct, of 'higher standard' than the one given or just simple believing the fact that he 'cannot be doubted'.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
add a comment |
I'm not too sure about this but it this may be termed as hypocritical or dogmatic beahaviour, meaning:
hypocritical
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
dogmatic
expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted
In the case of your example, the point brought forth is similar (that the football match occurs on Wednesday) but the other party simply rejects the opposing idea probably believing that he has an answer that is 'more' or 'certainly' correct, of 'higher standard' than the one given or just simple believing the fact that he 'cannot be doubted'.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
add a comment |
I'm not too sure about this but it this may be termed as hypocritical or dogmatic beahaviour, meaning:
hypocritical
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
dogmatic
expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted
In the case of your example, the point brought forth is similar (that the football match occurs on Wednesday) but the other party simply rejects the opposing idea probably believing that he has an answer that is 'more' or 'certainly' correct, of 'higher standard' than the one given or just simple believing the fact that he 'cannot be doubted'.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
I'm not too sure about this but it this may be termed as hypocritical or dogmatic beahaviour, meaning:
hypocritical
behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
dogmatic
expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted
In the case of your example, the point brought forth is similar (that the football match occurs on Wednesday) but the other party simply rejects the opposing idea probably believing that he has an answer that is 'more' or 'certainly' correct, of 'higher standard' than the one given or just simple believing the fact that he 'cannot be doubted'.
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
edited Sep 29 '15 at 16:27
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
answered Sep 29 '15 at 16:19
RonaldRonald
1,3861621
1,3861621
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would suggest the phrase "re-contextualizing."
Basically, the person engaging in this behavior is someone who has a very rigid frame of reference or worldview, and is unable to perform simple abstraction of your frame of reference (in the example cited, calibrated in day-name) to their frame (calibrated in days hence).
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
add a comment |
I would suggest the phrase "re-contextualizing."
Basically, the person engaging in this behavior is someone who has a very rigid frame of reference or worldview, and is unable to perform simple abstraction of your frame of reference (in the example cited, calibrated in day-name) to their frame (calibrated in days hence).
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
add a comment |
I would suggest the phrase "re-contextualizing."
Basically, the person engaging in this behavior is someone who has a very rigid frame of reference or worldview, and is unable to perform simple abstraction of your frame of reference (in the example cited, calibrated in day-name) to their frame (calibrated in days hence).
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
I would suggest the phrase "re-contextualizing."
Basically, the person engaging in this behavior is someone who has a very rigid frame of reference or worldview, and is unable to perform simple abstraction of your frame of reference (in the example cited, calibrated in day-name) to their frame (calibrated in days hence).
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
answered Sep 29 '15 at 18:39
dwozdwoz
47025
47025
add a comment |
add a comment |
I see two branches to this question.
Branch one assumes that he/she is aware that there is a technical agreement but are continuing to argue for the sake of argument.
Possibilities are:
- Imperative, Domineering - (They just want to win) It appears from synonym descriptions that domineering is more accurate if it's a decision-making argument, but imperative is better as a general-purpose word.
- Ornery, Combative, Argumentative, Eristic- (They just want to argue)
Branch two assumes that the other person is unaware of the agreement already reached
Dogmatic - I think that this one may be the best fit, since many of the examples given mention the futility of arguing with a dogmatic individual. Dogmatic is particularly appropriate if the disagreement is over politics, religion, etc.- Dogged and Dense - requires two words to get the full connotation in print, but in speech either word would suffice
*I have only linked two words, but that's because of rep limits, not laziness
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
add a comment |
I see two branches to this question.
Branch one assumes that he/she is aware that there is a technical agreement but are continuing to argue for the sake of argument.
Possibilities are:
- Imperative, Domineering - (They just want to win) It appears from synonym descriptions that domineering is more accurate if it's a decision-making argument, but imperative is better as a general-purpose word.
- Ornery, Combative, Argumentative, Eristic- (They just want to argue)
Branch two assumes that the other person is unaware of the agreement already reached
Dogmatic - I think that this one may be the best fit, since many of the examples given mention the futility of arguing with a dogmatic individual. Dogmatic is particularly appropriate if the disagreement is over politics, religion, etc.- Dogged and Dense - requires two words to get the full connotation in print, but in speech either word would suffice
*I have only linked two words, but that's because of rep limits, not laziness
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
add a comment |
I see two branches to this question.
Branch one assumes that he/she is aware that there is a technical agreement but are continuing to argue for the sake of argument.
Possibilities are:
- Imperative, Domineering - (They just want to win) It appears from synonym descriptions that domineering is more accurate if it's a decision-making argument, but imperative is better as a general-purpose word.
- Ornery, Combative, Argumentative, Eristic- (They just want to argue)
Branch two assumes that the other person is unaware of the agreement already reached
Dogmatic - I think that this one may be the best fit, since many of the examples given mention the futility of arguing with a dogmatic individual. Dogmatic is particularly appropriate if the disagreement is over politics, religion, etc.- Dogged and Dense - requires two words to get the full connotation in print, but in speech either word would suffice
*I have only linked two words, but that's because of rep limits, not laziness
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
I see two branches to this question.
Branch one assumes that he/she is aware that there is a technical agreement but are continuing to argue for the sake of argument.
Possibilities are:
- Imperative, Domineering - (They just want to win) It appears from synonym descriptions that domineering is more accurate if it's a decision-making argument, but imperative is better as a general-purpose word.
- Ornery, Combative, Argumentative, Eristic- (They just want to argue)
Branch two assumes that the other person is unaware of the agreement already reached
Dogmatic - I think that this one may be the best fit, since many of the examples given mention the futility of arguing with a dogmatic individual. Dogmatic is particularly appropriate if the disagreement is over politics, religion, etc.- Dogged and Dense - requires two words to get the full connotation in print, but in speech either word would suffice
*I have only linked two words, but that's because of rep limits, not laziness
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
answered Oct 4 '15 at 18:02
JeutnargJeutnarg
875310
875310
add a comment |
add a comment |
This might be a word to consider:
tautology
In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος,
"word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way,
generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different
phrasing or terminology...[a]
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
1
Thank you Michael. My understanding is that the term only describes the reiterating portion of the person's behaviour where as my question is about the person reiterating but after disagreeing; a behaviour that suggest a person being incapable of understanding the question but at the same time understanding it as they do reiterate it correctly.
– cpu2007
Sep 29 '15 at 9:36
add a comment |
This might be a word to consider:
tautology
In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος,
"word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way,
generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different
phrasing or terminology...[a]
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
1
Thank you Michael. My understanding is that the term only describes the reiterating portion of the person's behaviour where as my question is about the person reiterating but after disagreeing; a behaviour that suggest a person being incapable of understanding the question but at the same time understanding it as they do reiterate it correctly.
– cpu2007
Sep 29 '15 at 9:36
add a comment |
This might be a word to consider:
tautology
In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος,
"word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way,
generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different
phrasing or terminology...[a]
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
This might be a word to consider:
tautology
In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος,
"word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way,
generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different
phrasing or terminology...[a]
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
answered Sep 29 '15 at 9:28
Michael RaderMichael Rader
957620
957620
1
Thank you Michael. My understanding is that the term only describes the reiterating portion of the person's behaviour where as my question is about the person reiterating but after disagreeing; a behaviour that suggest a person being incapable of understanding the question but at the same time understanding it as they do reiterate it correctly.
– cpu2007
Sep 29 '15 at 9:36
add a comment |
1
Thank you Michael. My understanding is that the term only describes the reiterating portion of the person's behaviour where as my question is about the person reiterating but after disagreeing; a behaviour that suggest a person being incapable of understanding the question but at the same time understanding it as they do reiterate it correctly.
– cpu2007
Sep 29 '15 at 9:36
1
1
Thank you Michael. My understanding is that the term only describes the reiterating portion of the person's behaviour where as my question is about the person reiterating but after disagreeing; a behaviour that suggest a person being incapable of understanding the question but at the same time understanding it as they do reiterate it correctly.
– cpu2007
Sep 29 '15 at 9:36
Thank you Michael. My understanding is that the term only describes the reiterating portion of the person's behaviour where as my question is about the person reiterating but after disagreeing; a behaviour that suggest a person being incapable of understanding the question but at the same time understanding it as they do reiterate it correctly.
– cpu2007
Sep 29 '15 at 9:36
add a comment |
con·trar·i·an
kənˈtre(ə)rēən,kän-/Submit
noun
1.
a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
1
Hi Bunniebuns. Please provide your reference.
– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Aug 31 '16 at 6:44
add a comment |
con·trar·i·an
kənˈtre(ə)rēən,kän-/Submit
noun
1.
a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
1
Hi Bunniebuns. Please provide your reference.
– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Aug 31 '16 at 6:44
add a comment |
con·trar·i·an
kənˈtre(ə)rēən,kän-/Submit
noun
1.
a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
con·trar·i·an
kənˈtre(ə)rēən,kän-/Submit
noun
1.
a person who opposes or rejects popular opinion, especially in stock exchange dealing.
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
answered Aug 31 '16 at 6:12
BunniebunsBunniebuns
1
1
1
Hi Bunniebuns. Please provide your reference.
– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Aug 31 '16 at 6:44
add a comment |
1
Hi Bunniebuns. Please provide your reference.
– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Aug 31 '16 at 6:44
1
1
Hi Bunniebuns. Please provide your reference.
– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Aug 31 '16 at 6:44
Hi Bunniebuns. Please provide your reference.
– Nagarajan Shanmuganathan
Aug 31 '16 at 6:44
add a comment |
I don't know what to call it, but it's most annoying thing ever. Everyday I have to deal with this, constant. Everything I say he'll disagree, then say same thing I just said in a different way.
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I don't know what to call it, but it's most annoying thing ever. Everyday I have to deal with this, constant. Everything I say he'll disagree, then say same thing I just said in a different way.
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I don't know what to call it, but it's most annoying thing ever. Everyday I have to deal with this, constant. Everything I say he'll disagree, then say same thing I just said in a different way.
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I don't know what to call it, but it's most annoying thing ever. Everyday I have to deal with this, constant. Everything I say he'll disagree, then say same thing I just said in a different way.
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
answered 20 mins ago
Jram13Jram13
1
1
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jram13 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f276716%2fterm-for-a-person-who-disagrees-but-says-the-same-thing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
That's a classical case of someone who must always be right, and who, furthermore, must always prove you wrong. Usually limited to a specific domain, such as sports or politics. "Argumentative" is about all I can think of.
– Hot Licks
Sep 29 '15 at 12:27
You could try something like "kneejerk argumentative" or "hypoargumentative" (the latter you probably won't find in a dictionary but I see no problem with making up a word if it fits) , but it looks like "eristic" below fits the bill pretty well.
– Hannele
Sep 29 '15 at 12:49
2
@Hannele Are you sure you did not mean hyperargumentative?
– Andrew Leach♦
Sep 29 '15 at 14:35
3
Another pretty good word is "jerk".
– MackTuesday
Sep 29 '15 at 18:27
2
The term is "Commentor in a StackExchange answer" :p
– imin
Sep 29 '15 at 19:08