Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 160 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
In response to this thread, I decided to comment upon the INTP and the INTJ writing styles. This is something I have been thinking about for some time and what differentiates the two. INTP and INTJ writing can sometimes be confused for each other when the INTP for example does the tl;dr comment as mentioned below, which may resemble the NiTe structure of INTJ wr iting. Similarly, when the INTJ is utilizing Te with Se well, the INTJ will look for much more external data that fits their model and come off as wordy. This is probably because the INTJ desires to be like Ti but the INTP desires to be like Ni. At least I know I do. I desire to structure everything inwards into one large, complex model. It's the ideal external form. Similarly, when the INTJ actually relies more on Te and Se, the INTJ will actually start seeking out more and more information and become wordy like an INTP.
However, let's begin with the cognitive differences and why INTJ and INTP writing can appear as similar
because both are INTxs, but is fundamentally different (and I apologize to the INTJs reading this as I am sure you will find my Ne frustrating):









INTJ
--------------------
Ni - Te - Fi - Se


General Description of Functions and Writing Style
While INTPs and INTJs are both introverted thinkers, they way they structure the world is fundamentally different. The INTJ being Ni dominant creates complex intuitive models in their minds. However, because these intuitive models are introverted they must always look for external data to verify their models. This affects INTJ writing in two ways: (a) compression and (b) structure.

The INTJ approaches writing with a reductio ad absurdum approach. This is because of the complexity of the Ni model, wanting to synthesize as much data as possible in one form. Then the INTJ looks for external data supporting the model using Te. The end result is that the INTJ wants to reduce data inwards. They want to say as much as possible with as little as possible. They will refer to known frameworks and look for symbols that can express this abstract data the best. If the INTJ could succinctly summarize the INTJ system with one abstract symbol the INTJ would do it.

The INTJ writing may as such come across as incredibly rigid and well-structured. They put a lot of thought into the exact words they use and systematizes how every piece of data fits into their Ni model in order to provide Ni with structure. When the INTJ is young and is mostly relying on Ni and Te in his or her writing, INTJ writing feels very much like engaging with a brick wall, especially to Ne users. The INTJ writing is an unmovable object that cannot, should not and will not break in time.

How the INTJ Uses Language
Because of the INTJ's need to reduce lexical elements into what the INTJ considers to be the purest form, the INTJ is less likely to use conjunction elements. Words such as "and", "but", "maybe" and others are to be avoided. The INTJ wants to establish certainty because that is how they support their Ni models due to Ni's naturally uncertain nature.

The INTJ is also likely to structure their writing in a very clear-to-follow manner that again is meant to provide with certainty. The INTJ wants to categorize and systematize in the external world. They like lists and will utilize them when they can. This will result writing that often looks like this:


  • Category A
  • Category B
  • Category C
Especially in young INTJs, or Te users who either got Te as tertiary, inferior or as shadow, might add numbers or other symbols and make use of various word formatting methods such as indents and paragraph breaks to separate each category in their actual writing, for instance:
a) Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Fusce convallis ipsum dictum arcu elementum suscipit. Nam lacinia, nisl a scelerisque egestas, nunc tellus lobortis elit, vitae viverra purus velit sit amet leo. Nullam tristique commodo magna vel feugiat. Nulla facilisi. Nullam venenatis felis vel nibh bibendum fermentum. Suspendisse vehicula sollicitudin suscipit. Morbi dolor elit, interdum vel convallis vitae, tincidunt sit amet sem. Proin convallis consectetur tellus commodo malesuada. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc lacus eros, tristique sit amet malesuada in, laoreet eget ipsum. Etiam semper nisl at quam consectetur tristique. Nulla at commodo lorem.

b) Nunc eleifend interdum adipiscing. Curabitur mollis condimentum erat, ut faucibus nisl congue in. Curabitur quis felis lectus, sed eleifend nisl. Sed semper urna id velit faucibus eleifend. Pellentesque diam lectus, iaculis quis placerat et, scelerisque sodales sem. Aliquam erat volutpat. Etiam libero urna, congue eget tincidunt vel, feugiat vel tellus. Nullam interdum, quam eu mattis tincidunt, augue massa suscipit enim, et sodales enim ipsum at lacus. Nam a venenatis orci. Vivamus vulputate nulla id lacus dignissim tincidunt. Pellentesque eros neque, faucibus vitae posuere non, feugiat non dui. Nulla sagittis sem ac libero imperdiet vel ultrices tellus tincidunt.

c) Aenean blandit lacus consectetur erat rhoncus in sollicitudin est pharetra. Integer id elit neque, et sollicitudin risus. Fusce purus nunc, porta et congue pulvinar, porta a ante. Phasellus porta fermentum lorem eu pellentesque. Phasellus venenatis auctor viverra. Suspendisse porttitor condimentum condimentum. Fusce vel nulla sed sapien malesuada condimentum a sed nunc. Morbi volutpat aliquam nulla eu imperdiet. Curabitur non diam magna, eu facilisis dolor. Vivamus sagittis metus vel nibh rutrum id pretium augue congue. Cras est nisl, pretium a auctor volutpat, commodo eu sem. Morbi suscipit, mi quis dignissim vestibulum, ligula quam malesuada eros, non molestie ante ipsum nec ligula. Suspendisse vitae est eget massa lobortis placerat non hendrerit tellus.

Due to the uncertainty of Ni, INTJs will also want to reach out and support the INTJ model by relying on existing frameworks such as those written by various authority figures. As an INTP, I never quite understood the need for references. To the INTJ however, citations, quotations and others means to refer to existing sources of information often play a large role in their writing.

Other things to consider is that the INTJ applies a directive communication style rather than informative. They are more likely to say things such as "do it" than "perhaps we should do something". This along with their chart-the-course interaction style that makes them feel the need to strive for control so they can direct, which often makes them very blunt and to the point. INTJs may therefore be quick to point out what they perceive to be the flaws of others without sugar-coating it. Here we notice a big difference to INTPs because whereas the INTJ will simply say "you don't understand and you're stupid", the INTP will say "I really doubt your intellectual capacity [right now]".





INTP
--------------------
Ti - Ne - Si - Fe


General Description of Functions and Writing Style
The INTP, in contrast to the INTJ, is Ti dominant. This means that the INTP will judge data inwards. While the INTP similarly creates complex models in their minds, the way they do so fundamentally differs to that of the INTJ. Because INTPs use extraverted intuition instead of introverted intuition, the INTP will therefore first study data before judging. Whereas the INTJ seeks out data externally to support their models by applying inductive logic, the INTP first observes existing data and reaches to conclusions, applying deductive logic. This affects the INTP writing in two ways: (a) expression and (b) deconstruction.

The INTP approaches writing with a generalist approach. This is because of the complexity of the Ti model and how Ti wants to connect many seemingly small unrelated dots together to form a structure that they deconstruct in their writing. Because of Ni the INTJ wanting to look inwards into things, whereas the INTP due to Ne wants to look outwards at many things. This is why Ne is thought of as a function that is focused on generating many different possibilities. The typical Ne approach to life is the "what if" scenario. Because of Ne supporting Ti, the INTP often finds oneself having problems expressing the abstract thoughts succinctly enough as there is no existing framework that is capable of fully encapsulating the generalizability of the INTP model. The end result is that the INTP therefore constantly strives for clarity, probably part because the INTP is as confused by his or her own thoughts as the reader might become reading INTP writing. It is therefore not about reducing an element into its inner-most essential part that encapsules "the meaning of everything" as it is for the INTJ, but about making all the connections that makes sense. The INTJ model wants to have everything in as little as possible; the INTP wants to have as much as possible on the largest surface possible. Ne makes it feel as if there are no walls, no rules and no boundaries.

How the INP Uses Language
Just like it is for INTJs, the development of the auxiliary function greatly affects how INTPs use language. The stronger the Ne is, the more likely the INTP is to appear as confused as the INTP discovers more and more possibilities created by Ne. This may make the INTP language appear as superfluous, especially to non-Ne users, as the INTP feels the need to inform about every little detail that made them arrive at their conclusion. Typical NP writing will in general flow something like this:


  • We must first consider X, Y and Z in order to consider A, B and C to finally arrive at G.
If the Ne is strong, the INTP will therefore write a lot of text as the INTP considers all the Ne-generated possibilities, whereas the INTJ wants to write less because to the INTJ less is always better. The non-Ne user may therefore feel experience "but get to your point already" when reading INTP texts. In contrast, the INTP feels that the point is that there is no point, because the points are the many points.

This doesn't mean that INTPs do not put a lot of thought into what they write. The INTP's problem when writing therefore lies in that the INTP feels that there is no way one can succinctly express the complexity of Ti externally. (I have in fact serious issues trying to express INTP writing in this very article because I indeed feel that there is no way any text could fully express what I am trying to say, since I must constantly consider all the INTP details that creates my system.)

On the other hand, the INTP may also use a completely opposite approach that perhaps is best summarized as a tl;dr feeling where the INTP feels the system in their mind is so complex they can't even begin to put it into words. They therefore end up saying something incredibly reductionist and abstract to the point where others cannot even begin to understand what they are trying to say, for instance:


  • The apple is not just an apple.
Here the INTP simply expects everyone else reading this sentence to understand and see all the connections the INTP is seeing. This is of course not true in most cases, especially with sensors with a poorly developed N, which leads to much frustration for the young INTP.

I also want to add that the INTP is more likely to use conjunctions than the INTJ. Words such as "and", "but" and "maybe" are common. The INTP has no problem writing run-on paragraph sentences without any full stops. The INTP also constantly uses words that may imply uncertainty. Words such as "perhaps", already mentioned "maybe", "mostly likely" and so forth are often used to provide with what the INTP perceives as clarity (study how many I've used in this paragraph!). Compare to the INTJ that does not use such words because INTJs want to achieve certainty. INTPs on the other hand strive for uncertainty because they constantly see new connections of data they did not previously consider. The INTP may therefore arrive at the paradoxical conclusion that uncertainty is the only thing they can be certain about and this is often reflected in their writing. As I used to jokingly tell my e-friends: I am born confused made to confuse.

INTPs also often struggle with structuring their texts. While there is an internal logic and coherency to what they write, indeed, the point are the many points, because of their internal judgment they will not refer to external sources to support their models. When added with their informative rather than directive communication style, the INTP may therefore feel the need to inform others about every possible outcome and the likelihood of each outcome in order to achieve clarity. When in conflict, the INTP also uses passive-aggressive language because of the behind-the-scenes interaction style. Instead of saying why they find a person to be stupid they will inform the person about every reason why the person is stupid: "Look, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I am not saying X but Y, and X means A and not C, and Y means D and not O, so therefore X and Y can't be the same and if you don't understand this you clearly don't possess the intellectual capacity to do so".



Conclusions

Because of the differences in how the INTP and INTJ use their Jungian functions, they view the world completely opposite of each other. This worldview greatly affects how they interact with others, including writing. Since INTJs are Ni dominant, they want to look for clarity inwards. To them clarity is only achieved by reducing a symbol to its most complex but simplest form. To the INTP, clarity is only achieved when considering the meanings around the symbol. Clarity is thus achieved by looking outwards and seeing all the connections and possibilities that defines the symbol in question.

Since INTJs have Te as their auxiliary function, they will desire a strong need to structure the chaotic nature of Ni by looking for external frameworks to provide with structure. This need to create an external framework also affects the way the text is structured, making the INTJ writing appear as a brick wall that will stand all the tests of time. The writing is direct, to the point, well-structured and often highly synthetisized. If the INTJ could reduce their writing into one single symbol they would do it.

In contrast, the INTP writing is often seen as incredibly confusing, especially to non-Ne users. This is because the INTP reaches outwards and sees all the connections around the subject they write about, which added with their informative communication style, makes them feel the need to inform others about every little detail as to why the subject is.

Because the INTP uses Ne and Ti as their auxiliary and dominant function, the INTP thinks that clarity can only be achieved when considering every detail that constitutes their system. This makes the INTP writing appear as indirect and round-about as the point are the points that make up the point. It is also often poorly structured while logically coherent and while appearing in a very deconstructed manner - a picture is not just a picture but constitutes of many parts. The INTP feels that it's his or her job to inform others about these parts and why that makes the picture a picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,136 Posts
This can be interesting, I tend to test as an INTP, but I'm far from certain.

The thing that makes me confused about this is the fact that I'm not that much into writing so I write kind of badly (which means I don't show many of those qualities you mention) You should be able to type me after reading some of my posts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
Many good points and but some comments on the conclusions:
Because of the differenes in how the INTP and INTJ use their Jungian functions, they view the world completely differently. This worldview greatly affects how they interact with others, including writing. Since INTJs are Ni dominant, they want to look for clarity inwards. To them clarity is only achieved by reducing a symbol to its most complex but simple form. To the INTP, clarity is only achieved when considering the meanings around the symbol. Clarity is thus achieved by looking outwards.
The symbol is already the best possible representation of the unknown to the subject but in its raw form is not communicable to anyone else in the objective sense. The need for clarity only arises when said symbol must be translated into a concrete form (Se aspiration) and is the reason why Ni doms if left unmolested by the external world can endlessly surf the terrains of their mind. A "reduction" of the symbol is ambiguous as it implies the unknown is already constellated and some of its limbs can be chopped off without altering its essence.

Since INTJs have Te as their auxiliary function, they will desire a strong need to structure the chaotic nature of Ni by looking for external frameworks to provide with structure. This need to create an external framework also affects the way the text is structured, making the INTJ writing appear as a brick wall that will stand all the tests of time. The writing is direct, to the point, well-structured and often highly synthetisized.
I'd argue that Te allows for the decompression of the symbol representing the unknown (imagines a compressed zip file) via an external framework or logical keys (the winzip program). Once decompressed into an understandable language (able to be conceptualized by external means), the content is one step closer to reaching a tangible (sensation based) result.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
This can be interesting, I tend to test as an INTP, but I'm far from certain.

The thing that makes me confused about this is the fact that I'm not that much into writing so I write kind of badly (which means I don't show many of those qualities you mention) You should be able to type me after reading some of my posts.
Writing isn't natural, why would your cognitive functions be related to such a recent technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Many good points and but some comments on the conclusions:

The symbol is already the best possible representation of the unknown to the subject but in its raw form is not communicable to anyone else in the objective sense. The need for clarity only arises when said symbol must be translated into a concrete form (Se aspiration) and is the reason why Ni doms if left unmolested by the external world can endlessly surf the terrains of their mind. A "reduction" of the symbol is ambiguous as it implies the unknown is already constellated and some of its limbs can be chopped off without altering its essence.
Good points. It is possible to analyze this in further detail taking SiFe and FiSe into account. If the INTJ could communicate their thinking into one highly abstract symbol that represented everything they would without question though. I have had many arguments with NTJs about this. An INTJ friend of mine is particularly fond of the idea presented by early Wittgenstein and the ilk about reducing language into its most logical and abstract components and he saw it as the idealized style of communication. I of course sorely disagreed.
I'd argue that Te allows for the decompression of the symbol representing the unknown (imagines a compressed zip file) via an external framework or logical keys (the winzip program). Once decompressed into an understandable language (able to be conceptualized by external means), the content is one step closer to reaching a tangible (sensation based) result.
Good point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
As I see it, citations (in academic writing anyway) are used for the purpose of verification of information. For instance, the academia puts a lot of effort into appearing impartial (impossible, but they like to pretend). The academia is actually a very INTJ place and you can probably see Ni-Te dripping from essay guidelines: Upside down triangle, introduce the reader to one single main idea, then embody into each body paragraph one facet of the idea, then tie everything together in a conclusion. As much as I hate to say it, I think this structure is very easy to read and understand because it's vital to remember that the reader is a newcomer to the terrain and might need to read several things twice, might not be able to follow wandering logic because this is the first time they're encountering the subject, and if they need to refer to something they know where to find it.

Even though they like to be impartial, academics (INTJs or influenced by the INTJ academic culture), they know they're not. They even know they can unconsciously push agendas in their writing. How do I know you're not shitting me? How do I know you're not trying to manipulate me? I don't see citing sources as trying to introduce structure. I often don't like to cite sources and view it as a huge nuisance, but if you're trying to prove something, especially in a debate or an expository piece of writing, you have no credibility unless you cite sources. If you write a thesis, after all, you want it to be accepted, and INTJs write for impact as much as logic and "truth", perhaps even more for the former. Here we see Te coming out. If people are familiar with my posts here, I frequently paraphrase an idea I heard elsewhere but couldn't come up with sources if you asked me and when pressed for sources, sometimes I just leave the debate. To me, if the debate is not very important to me, I would rather quit than have to dig through the internet to find sources (which I know exist. But I'm here for fun. if you make me do extra work I won't play anymore)

If I think I won the debate by default it's not uncommon for me to just leave. I have nothing to prove to PerC members and I engage in discussions here for leisure, and I can opt out whenever I want. However, if I were doing my college's capstone project, I will back up every claim I make. Why? Really, I don't like being questioned in front of a panel of faculty. The shorter the defense, the better. I would rather just leave them speechless, get my diploma and go home. Really, I don't want to hear it. Some faculty feel compelled to say something to challenge your thesis, but I want my logic to be so solid that he would feel like he's saying something just for the sake of saying something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,321 Posts
Writing isn't natural, why would your cognitive functions be related to such a recent technology.
Why wouldn't they? Recent technology or not, writing is a regular exercise of thought expression in modern society, especially in a place like a forum.

It seems only natural to me that your cognitive process in this regard could affect your expression. I'd not take the theory as fact, but as an idea that might be useful to help with analysis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
I read an INTP's essay on a certain controversial subject. He started out saying x, and then y, and then z, and ended with: "So we can see the real question here is who is more beneficial for society. However, which society? A part of society, or the whole?" By this point, you can imagine, he has gone completely off topic. It was actually comical to see him stop himself from writing even more. "But that is outside the scope of this paper." Wisely said. His logic went something like: a, b, c, a1, b1, c1, c1, back to d, a2. It's like he's struggling to contain the many strains of his logic into many side-by-side flowing streams of river. I would be at c, and he would start on a1 and my comprehension starts to fail me. He really might have done better with a diagram. Of course, it makes perfect sense to him and it never occurs to him why I don't understand his writing, but I know I'm not the only one because his INTP friend doesn't understand it either. The writer/reader discrepancy is something we all should be aware of when we right. Know your audience.

A paper progresses linearly, and but his thinking is not strictly linear. It's really a shame there isn't another serious academic format. I have often fought the urge to draw diagrams of my essay myself. I sincerely think they would make better essays. After all, how you arrange your body paragraphs even affects the relative importance you unconsciously assign to ideas that should have been equal! When asked about his footnotes, David Foster Wallace (an INTP) said: (paraphrasing, haha!) They're strains of my thought at one point of my writing. I could insert them mid-sentence and break up my sentences, but then no one would read my stuff.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
As I see it, citations (in academic writing anyway) are used for the purpose of verification of information. For instance, the academia puts a lot of effort into appearing impartial (impossible, but they like to pretend). The academia is actually a very INTJ place and you can probably see Ni-Te dripping from essay guidelines: Upside down triangle, introduce the reader to one single main idea, then embody into each body paragraph one facet of the idea, then tie everything together in a conclusion. As much as I hate to say it, I think this structure is very easy to read and understand because it's vital to remember that the reader is a newcomer to the terrain and might need to read several things twice, might not be able to follow wandering logic because this is the first time they're encountering the subject, and if they need to refer to something they know where to find it.

Even though they like to be impartial, academics (INTJs or influenced by the INTJ academic culture), they know they're not. They even know they can unconsciously push agendas in their writing. How do I know you're not shitting me? How do I know you're not trying to manipulate me? I don't see citing sources as trying to introduce structure. I often don't like to cite sources and view it as a huge nuisance, but if you're trying to prove something, especially in a debate or an expository piece of writing, you have no credibility unless you cite sources. If you write a thesis, after all, you want it to be accepted, and INTJs write for impact as much as logic and "truth", perhaps even more for the former. Here we see Te coming out. If people are familiar with my posts here, I frequently paraphrase an idea I heard elsewhere but couldn't come up with sources if you asked me and when pressed for sources, sometimes I just leave the debate. To me, if the debate is not very important to me, I would rather quit than have to dig through the internet to find sources (which I know exist. But I'm here for fun. if you make me do extra work I won't play anymore)

If I think I won the debate by default it's not uncommon for me to just leave. I have nothing to prove to PerC members and I engage in discussions here for leisure, and I can opt out whenever I want. However, if I were doing my college's capstone project, I will back up every claim I make. Why? Really, I don't like being questioned in front of a panel of faculty. The shorter the defense, the better. I would rather just leave them speechless, get my diploma and go home. Really, I don't want to hear it. Some faculty feel compelled to say something to challenge your thesis, but I want my logic to be so solid that he would feel like he's saying something just for the sake of saying something.
When something just feels right and "logical" isn't that Fi slipping through? I was digging some blog the other time and they said that even in INTPs (or other lead rationals) under the grip of their inferior function feelings can masquerade as logic (lead rationals are the worst at this) as they struggle to make sense of the immediate reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
As I see it, citations (in academic writing anyway) are used for the purpose of verification of information. For instance, the academia puts a lot of effort into appearing impartial (impossible, but they like to pretend). The academia is actually a very INTJ place and you can probably see Ni-Te dripping from essay guidelines: Upside down triangle, introduce the reader to one single main idea, then embody into each body paragraph one facet of the idea, then tie everything together in a conclusion. As much as I hate to say it, I think this structure is very easy to read and understand because it's vital to remember that the reader is a newcomer to the terrain and might need to read several things twice, might not be able to follow wandering logic because this is the first time they're encountering the subject, and if they need to refer to something they know where to find it.

Even though they like to be impartial, academics (INTJs or influenced by the INTJ academic culture), they know they're not. They even know they can unconsciously push agendas in their writing. How do I know you're not shitting me? How do I know you're not trying to manipulate me? I don't see citing sources as trying to introduce structure. I often don't like to cite sources and view it as a huge nuisance, but if you're trying to prove something, especially in a debate or an expository piece of writing, you have no credibility unless you cite sources. If you write a thesis, after all, you want it to be accepted, and INTJs write for impact as much as logic and "truth", perhaps even more for the former. Here we see Te coming out. If people are familiar with my posts here, I frequently paraphrase an idea I heard elsewhere but couldn't come up with sources if you asked me and when pressed for sources, sometimes I just leave the debate. To me, if the debate is not very important to me, I would rather quit than have to dig through the internet to find sources (which I know exist. But I'm here for fun. if you make me do extra work I won't play anymore)

If I think I won the debate by default it's not uncommon for me to just leave. I have nothing to prove to PerC members and I engage in discussions here for leisure, and I can opt out whenever I want. However, if I were doing my college's capstone project, I will back up every claim I make. Why? Really, I don't like being questioned in front of a panel of faculty. The shorter the defense, the better. I would rather just leave them speechless, get my diploma and go home. Really, I don't want to hear it. Some faculty feel compelled to say something to challenge your thesis, but I want my logic to be so solid that he would feel like he's saying something just for the sake of saying something.
You are absolutely right with that academic writing is very INTJ. In fact I can't even seem to approach writing when writing non-fiction at least, any other way. I have tried to do inductive over deductive writing, but I find it to be very hard. I think I have started to apply much more of an inductive approach though. I LIKE to start with a very specific idea and I LOVE case studies. I almost always use some kind of case study element or similar when I open up my essays. Similarly, I've noticed that I prefer inductive writing when I write fiction. It's not quite in medias res but it could be.

You're right about sources. I don't care as long as I know that my reasoning is logically sound and consistent. What's the point citing sources if they do not help you to create a logically consistent argument? Of course, both Ti and Te are required when writing an academic essay, so are Ne and Ni, but Te is definitely what we see.

I thought of something else but I forgot what it was -.-
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,136 Posts
Writing isn't natural, why would your cognitive functions be related to such a recent technology.
If you mean writing isn't natural because you need to learn how to do it, then yes it isn't natural. It seems that our brain have always been able to use language, and the basic structure of the brain hasn't change after we became modern humans so I don't see how your point would be valid. When you write your thinking will manifest itself into the language and how you use it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I read an INTP's essay on a certain controversial subject. He started out saying x, and then y, and then z, and ended with: "So we can see the real question here is who is more beneficial for society. However, which society? A part of society, or the whole?" By this point, you can imagine, he has gone completely off topic. It was actually comical to see him stop himself from writing even more. "But that is outside the scope of this paper." Wisely said. His logic went something like: a, b, c, a1, b1, c1, c1, back to d, a2. It's like he's struggling to contain the many strains of his logic into many side-by-side flowing streams of river. I would be at c, and he would start on a1 and my comprehension starts to fail me. He really might have done better with a diagram. When asked about his footnotes, David Foster Wallace (an INTP) said: (paraphrasing, haha!) They're strains of my thought at one point of my writing. I could insert them mid-sentence and break up my sentences, but then no one would read my stuff.
lol I relate XD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
If you mean writing isn't natural because you need to learn how to do it, then yes it isn't natural. It seems that our brain have always been able to use language, and the basic structure of the brain hasn't change after we became modern humans so I don't see how your point would be valid. When you write your thinking will manifest itself into the language and how you use it.
That's true and we also think in language.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
The INTJ writing may as such come across as incredibly rigid and well-structured.
The INTJ writing is an unmovable object that cannot, should not and will not break in time.
Other things to consider is that the INTJ applies a directive communication style rather than informative. They are more likely to say things such as "do it" ...
This along with their chart-the-course interaction style that makes them feel the need to strive for control so they can direct, which often makes them very blunt and to the point.
This was an unexpectedly arousing read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts
If you mean writing isn't natural because you need to learn how to do it, then yes it isn't natural. It seems that our brain have always been able to use language, and the basic structure of the brain hasn't change after we became modern humans so I don't see how your point would be valid. When you write your thinking will manifest itself into the language and how you use it.
I agree. I don't speak very well, at least not very eloquently. A friend remarked after knowing me for a couple of days: You sound much better online. Gee. Thanks. My writing is how I would ideally speak had I eloquence enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,195 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,605 Posts
Writing isn't natural, why would your cognitive functions be related to such a recent technology.
yea, how could a form of thought expression be influenced at all by cognitive functioning?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,136 Posts
I agree. I don't speak very well, at least not very eloquently. A friend remarked after knowing me for a couple of days: You sound much better online. Gee. Thanks. My writing is how I would ideally speak had I eloquence enough.
I can relate to that, I'm not sure why, but I think it because I can reflect on how I should use the words to get the most out of the language.
 
1 - 20 of 160 Posts
Top