With these types of convos you can go usually one of two ways:

1. Re-iterate your points, counter points, data, etc. 2. Acknowledge their point, assume it to be true and ask questions to clarify their point by digging further into the details

In my exp, method 1 generally does not lead to much. Method 2 will either give YOU a new perspective on things OR the other person will back off once they hit rock bottom and think twice before bringing up nonsensical points with you.

It is MUCH MUCH harder going down path 2 as it requires you to put YOUR point/perspective aside for a while and empathize with their view. But being able to cross-question people like this is an incredibly useful skill worth developing.

As an introvert, you are inherently more curious. Use that to your advantage.

#2 is basic practical conversation -- i.e. put your damn ego aside and actually interact with the person in front of you.

Granted this can become exhausting with people who socialize without any care for those around them; but this is basic soft skills 101 lesson... 3.

One great piece of advice that I heard is "it takes two to miscommunicate". Communication is fundamentally two-way, and if there is miscommunication happening, either you or the other person needs to figure out how to communicate better and close the gap. If they're not doing that, then you need to step up.

Like you say, sometimes that can be exhausting if you're dealing with a particularly bad communicator. You don't want to be the one doing all the work, all the time. On the other hand, if communication needs to happen, then you need to figure out a way to get that communication to happen otherwise you're going to really struggle.

I don't think the Socratic method is basic, but it sure is practical.

Option 2 has high risk of making enemies. People don’t like to be shown that they are idiots even if true.

There is a reason Socratic method is used primarily in a class room setting

You don't have to make them look like an idiot. It's simply a matter of asking why they believe what they do. Maybe they ha r some kind of personal experience or education you're not aware of.

Might be more complicated than introvert/extrovert, probably has some spectrum as well, but a lot of people talk just to talk and not to exchange information and that doesn't work well when they are trying to talk to someone that talks to exchange information. I'm pretty introverted if someone is talking about nothing, but get me in a room with people who actually know what they're talking about and I open right up. People who know something about a topic are so interesting and talking with them is super refreshing because you are able to learn stuff and challenge your existing knowledge and what not.

You can be right about a specific and wrong about its role in the big picture/abstraction. Left brain dominance if a thing.

Also the flip side that a lot of people miss:

You can be right about the big picture/abstraction and wrong about a specific. Just because you argued or proved part of an argument wrong doesn't make the whole thing wrong.

It sounds like you told them they were wrong first!

I think this frequently happens because people aren't making the same assumptions. Ask about assumptions so you find out why two people who are both probably reasonable apparently have such a hard point of disagreement. It's very possible you agree on more than you think.

I find that extroverts try to get in "slam dunks" that attempt to shake your logic with zingy type of folk knowledge. "Well nobody knows nothing anyways" etc. Or they will confidently repeat what they hear on the news with the expectation that if nobody corrects them they are right.

I have some techniques that I utilize when dealing with people who are vague and hand wavy usually pointing out some barely relevant counter example that supposedly debases your point and proves them right. These conversations typically come up in scientific or health related fields.

1. Remind them that the world is not black and white. Just because an argument has a counter example or isn't 100% for certain a known fact doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to make our models of the world more consistent and move towards being less wrong.

2. Just because one person says something doesn't make it so. There is a spectrum of authority. In a particular field, yes laypeople like youtubers can be right sometimes and people in high authority can be wrong sometimes, that doesn't mean that a layperson's opinion is equally valid to a professional in all circumstances in that field

While this article uses the term "concrete" for introverts and abstract for extraverts, in my experience extraverts are looking for much more "binary" views of the world that they can quickly memorize, express, impress and move on. Introverts are a bit more "rational" and lean towards consistency between arguments as they speak less and thus the views they express are a bit more constructed as opposed to regurgitated.

I feel exactly the same. And it is obvious to myself, but I have realized that I must let other people know this, since many people are much less stringent in handling certainty, confidence etc. A gross oversimplification: some people seem to throw confident statements of facts around just to see what sticks.

Regarding introversion and fear of social consequences, I am definitely introverted but have been told that I speak my opinion too much sometimes, so I cannot agree that introversion is related to fear of making statements other may object to. In my case at least.

Actually you're wrong, you don't find that annoying.

Best technique I learned for this is to get good at remembering the points you made clearly, then counter-attacking using specifics, "oh so on [point X], what have you found to be the case?".

Basically you're trying to force them into positions where they reveal they don't know what they're talking about.

They'll then commonly start trying to squirm out of it by talking around the topic or using dishonest techniques. Each time you do, you just make sure to softly bring attention to the fact, in your very next response, that they haven't addressed your previous point, and the importance of it. You never let them sidestep or squirm away for a split second.

Their game is to go vague and talk shit, yours is to keep asking for details and pointing out why they're needed, revealing to others that they're a "fake it til you make it" idiot, until they either back off or others do something about them.

Doesn't work though if they're in a clear position of power over you, as this behavior is indicative either of stupidity or narcissism, and in which case you nod your head, and save your energy for breaking out.

It seems like you're assuming that the other party's goal is to deceive, bullshit, bluster, etc.

Is it possible that in some cases they're talking in good faith, but using an approach to communicate or collaboration that you misunderstand?

I'm talking about the case I replied to, where one side explains something, and the other rejects it without reason - that's an absence of communication and collaboration. And no, usually the other party's goal is to reject change that comes from someone other than them, due to ego, arrogance, anxiety, apathy, laziness, etc.

Or that they're misunderstanding (something about the topic, or the communication about it).

The approach to communication is deception and bullshit