# Writing Style and Functions?



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

I hear so many people say things like, "Oh, that author's style just bleeds Ne," or, "That song seemed very Fi-ish". 

Do you think there really is a whole tone of correlation between writing style and function use? I do think there must be some. However, I suppose my main question is, how do you think functions manifest themselves in writing style? 

I know that I've heard that Ne is really random, so a really random writing style seems to ooze Ne. I don't really agree with that, seeing as I think that most human thought patterns are pretty tangential and can appear to be very random. 

Anyway, what do you think?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Yes, it seems very possible. Writing is just another form of communication, and if the way we interact with the world defines us, communication is a huge part of that. 
I would argue that without a doubt, writing style is a great predictor of personality, assuming it is not done for anything other than personal expression on a topic. Memos and technical stuff won't really work..


----------



## Tkae (Oct 15, 2009)

I think you can make the argument theoretically. But in my experience it has a lot to do with exposure, education, and happenstance. My writing has evolved numerous times as I've developed, and it has a lot to do with who my teachers are, what authors I've come into contact with, and what I'm writing. I'm infamous for a chameleon-like writing style, bouncing from both bland and functional to sprawling and imagistic. 

So it has a lot of factors. I think it can be type-influenced, but not type-based.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Tkae said:


> I think you can make the argument theoretically. But in my experience it has a lot to do with exposure, education, and happenstance. My writing has evolved numerous times as I've developed, and it has a lot to do with who my teachers are, what authors I've come into contact with, and what I'm writing. I'm infamous for a chameleon-like writing style, bouncing from both bland and functional to sprawling and imagistic.
> 
> So it has a lot of factors. I think it can be type-influenced, but not type-based.


I definitely agree with that. ^_^ Type influenced, but certainly not type based. When you write, do you sometimes realize you can see those particular aspects of your personality? I know when I look at the things I write, I can't really tell.


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

It also depends on the type of writing. If I'm writing a poem or a song then Ne and Fi are evident. If I'm writing a term paper then you'll see nothing but maybe a trace of Ne Fi and it'll be almost all Te. My college professors on many occasions noted my sparse style. I edited as I wrote and after to refine my perspective and point. I do the same thing verbally but you may see the process rather than the final draft when I'm talking out loud.


----------



## Elaminopy (Jun 29, 2011)

Tkae said:


> I think you can make the argument theoretically. But in my experience it has a lot to do with exposure, education, and happenstance. My writing has evolved numerous times as I've developed, and it has a lot to do with who my teachers are, what authors I've come into contact with, and what I'm writing. I'm infamous for a chameleon-like writing style, bouncing from both bland and functional to sprawling and imagistic.
> 
> So it has a lot of factors. I think it can be type-influenced, but not type-based.


Which begs the question, is chameleon-like writing style type-based? Perhaps having an inconsistent writing style is characteristic of certain functions, whereas others retain their own and are less influenced. I'd imagine the extroverted functions would be responsible for mimicking another style. The extroverted perceiving functions perhaps?

I've been told that my writing style is physically based. I paint an image in the reader's mind. My latest stories all had the underlying motive of making an impact on the reader. These would correlate to me being SP.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

I think so, definitely. As @saffron already mentioned, more informal, expressive writing will reveal more of someone's personality type than writing for a specific purpose will. Someone presenting an argument in writing will, for example, be showing more Te/Ti than they may necessarily be using. If the dominant function isn't an appropriate tool for the topic, the person's thoughts will likely be revealed through other means.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

There might be a connection, sure  Although it's probably a matter of what do you tend to write (and read) everyday; for example, I had to complete a financial report, and then I wrote a whole chapter - it was very cold, dull and devoid of embellishment. On the other hand, as I finished a re-read of LotR, my writing became more poetic and well, Tolkien-ish.

I'm not sure what MBTI type am I (INTP or ISTP), so you might take it with a grain of salt.

My biggest concern is consistency, and it always has been. All my school essays were commented with something like "inconsistent and individualistic style". It's very noticeable in longer works of fiction - first paragraph is a loving, poetic description, the next consists of witty dialogue, the third is hard realism, the fourth unnecessarily complex, the fifth brief and straight to the point etc. Sometimes I begin a paragraph with one thought, and following tangents I end it with a sentence completely unrelated to the first. I have to pay attention to that! After all, I'm planning to publish my fiction (someday, because I've got hundreds of beginnings, a few completed short stories and no completed novels).

The next thing that gives me nightmares is action. I suck at action. I love writing dialogue, I'm quite good with presenting the character's thoughts, feelings and ideas, I've been told many times that my writing is immersive. And before writing, I set a desktop wallpaper with huge letters SHOW, DON'T TELL.

I pay attention to my (actual and hypothetical) readers. I value clarity very much; getting the message across is probably the most important thing. I always write with audience in mind, even if it's something only I can and will see.

Last but not least, I tend to be a grammar Nazi. Even when I was a kid, my spelling and grammar was flawless (in my native language, that is - my English is far from perfect, I haven't even been to an English-speaking country). Sometimes people tell me that I use difficult words when it's not really necessary


----------



## Marac (Mar 26, 2012)

This is a shot in the dark, but I think poetry is something intuitives would like more than sensors.

I'd rather experience something through my senses (like art, music or films) than just think about (OH SO BLUE = THE AUTHOR IS DEPRESSED SOOOO INTERESTING).


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> I hear so many people say things like, "Oh, that author's style just bleeds Ne," or, "That song seemed very Fi-ish".
> 
> Do you think there really is a whole tone of correlation between writing style and function use? I do think there must be some. However, I suppose my main question is, how do you think functions manifest themselves in writing style?
> 
> ...


The only thing I've noticed is a tendency for people to make appeals with their dominant function. So Ti-types often try to make arguments with their understanding of a concept, Feeling types might resort to how they evaluate something, Intuitives reading between the lines, etc. I think there are pretty clear patterns for example in non-fiction literature. A lot of the more journalistic writing seems to me, to be written by a lot of Ne-doms so there's a fair amount of conjecture and hypothesizing that seems to be present. Malcolm Gladwell strikes me as a Ni-dom contrasted with the heavily Ti-oriented approach of say someone like George Will. The writings of Jung and Von Franz clearly show their tendency toward Introverted Thinking, while Freud's sort of reveals his inferior Extraverted Thinking (sort of being obsessed with one idea - that much of psychological problems can be related back to sex -- and making everything fit that). Kant is clearly a Ti-dom, Nietzsche Ni-dom. In a way, one might go as far as to say the four books of the Gospels are presented as Matthew the Thinking type, Mark the Sensation type, Luke the Feeling type physician, and John the Intuitive philosopher (but of course the canonization of these books is not that simple this would be more coincidental than anything else).

In terms of non-fiction I have no idea.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I agree with @LiquidLight. This could be seen in my INTP twin's writing vs. mine I've noticed IRL, where she's mainly focused on conceptually defining and making sense of something and downplays seeking meaning and reading between the lines more (she's always like this in her writing, so it's consistent), while my writing sounds like I'm making assumptions more about underlying meaning, and it appears that I already get the point conceptually, so I just nose-dive into the underlying connections and turning perception on it's back (same with mine). Her writing looks like something one would find in an encyclopedia or manual or critical movie review, lol, while mine...man, I can't even quite place it...perhaps it looks more philosophical.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Kant is clearly a Ti-dom


Could you explain why? I'm not an expert on Kant by any means, but the categorical imperative, in my opinion, is a very good example of Fi. I believe he was most likely an INTJ.


----------



## Hapalo (Sep 4, 2011)

aconite said:


> Could you explain why? I'm not an expert on Kant by any means, but the categorical imperative, in my opinion, is a very good example of Fi. I believe he was most likely an INTJ.


The categorical imperative seems like Fe to me. The way it tries to universalise ethics seems much more extroverted to me. Not sure about his type though.

A noticed a trend among INTPs, they love walls of text. It is almost as if they are deliberately doing that to annoy others.

inb4 some angry INTP responds with a wall of text.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

aconite said:


> Could you explain why? I'm not an expert on Kant by any means, but the categorical imperative, in my opinion, is a very good example of Fi. I believe he was most likely an INTJ.


Well for starters Jung opens up his chapter on the Introverted Thinking type with


> Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.


So it would be hard to argue with that.

Marie Von Franz is a little more vague however,


> Let us take as a practical example a thinking type who primarily couples his thinking with intuition. The philosopher Nietzsche is such a case. One is quite uncertain as to whether he had very good thinking or very good intuition; the latter is the greater in his case, but the two are very well combined and move together. Kant would also be rather on the thinking-intuition side.


Later on she claims Nietzsche for the Introverted Intuitive type


> Of course, the introverted intuitive also has particular trouble in approaching sex because it involves his inferior Extraverted Sensation. You se it most tragically mirrored in the works of Nietzsche, where, toward the end, shortly before he went off his head, very coarse, vulgar sexual allusions more and more penetrate some of his poems and had already also appeared in Thus Spake Zarathustra. When he went insane, he apparently produced material of that kind, which unfortunately was destroyed after his death because of its distasteful character. Extraverted Sensation, in his case, was very much connected with women and sex and in a completely outer concrete way, and he didn't know how to deal with the problem at all.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

I see more structure _within_ sentences and paragraphs from people with Ti/Fi in their top two functions.

I see more structure _between_ sentences and paragraphs from people with Te/Fe in their top two functions.

(I'm only talking about samples from people whose types have been self-confirmed.)


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

Agent Blackout said:


> I see more structure _within_ sentences and paragraphs from Ti users.
> 
> I see more structure _between_ sentences and paragraphs with Te users.
> 
> (I'm only talking about samples from people whose types have been self-confirmed.)


I've been trying to put my finger on what that was. Good catch.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

I think my Ti-dominance is very clear in my writing style. Several professors have commented how analytical my writing is.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

DO YOU MIND READ?

I was thinking about this the other day.


----------



## Yomotsu Risouka (May 11, 2012)

When I'm writing formally, my writing is heavily Te-flavored, but Ne and Fi have always been very evident in my fiction and casual writing.

Negative Fi also tends to bleed in when I'm writing a paper I think is a waste of time... Only one teacher ever noticed that, and she took it pretty well, but she made me rewrite the paper. Haha.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> I see more structure _within_ sentences and paragraphs from people with Ti/Fi in their top two functions.
> 
> I see more structure _between_ sentences and paragraphs from people with Te/Fe in their top two functions.
> 
> (I'm only talking about samples from people whose types have been self-confirmed.)


Can you elaborate? I think you've got a good point there. ^^ What do you mean structure _within _and _between_​?


----------



## Lucky AcidStar (Apr 23, 2012)

Hapalo said:


> A noticed a trend among INTPs, they love walls of text. It is almost as if they are deliberately doing that to annoy others.


Not gonna respond with a wall of text lol.
My guess: has to do with a drive for specificity. Concepts are complex, and if you really want to know EXACTLY what it is... it can take a while to explain. Plus, we like to see the logical basis of things, and that also can take a bit to explain.
Just my guess :kitteh:


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I see more structure _within sentences and paragraphs from people with Ti/Fi in their top two functions.
> 
> I see more structure between sentences and paragraphs from people with Te/Fe in their top two functions.
> _


I'm not so sure that the F functions have anything to do with structuring, since they aren't technical functions. I think the closest they come to "structuring" would be in perhaps creating a certain kind of "flow" attitude, or ambiance within the writing (yet feeling in writing is dynamic is the writing is good though - really cliche writing would probably have a predictable flow or meter to it, like the melodrama gets obvious in a predictable way, etc.), although Fe and Fi are very hard to distinguish in their subtle effects on writing - you almost just have to examine the feeling nature of the writing based on their wording and how "implied" vs. "blatant" the feeling is, even though this isn't easy. I think Fe writers tend to write to conjure definite feeling responses out of the readers, while Fi writers tend to have some personal agenda behind their writing that is less definite and clear, but able to be inferred from "feeling tones" and tone shifts in writing - their aims aren't definite. I've seen Fi and Fe writers resort to both methods you mentioned to get their points across - frankly, I think the T functions of the F types are going to structure their writing the same way they would in a Te or Ti dom/aux. I generally agree about the T functions though - at least Te demonstrates that it's trying to "think" for everyone or "connect the dots" for everyone in a blatant way, while Ti is less focused on demonstrating patterns and connecting the dots with logic and instead is more focused on defining and structuring their thoughts. I think Ti types just write more the way they think and expect the readers to follow their thoughts while relying on a perception function to draw the lines between them, while Te types use a strategic method of structuring that downplays how they think to grasp something and focuses on getting the readers to think about the writers' introverted perception (Si or Ni) underlying the Te framework - getting them to see what they see and how this can be supported.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Of all of the functions, I tend to find Fe and Fi the hardest to distinguish in writing, unless the Fe writer is just making really obvious feeling judgements throughout the paper (e.g. my INTP twin has went on and on before with the opinions about "This is crap" or "That was stupid" or "That was sooooo amazing!" - blatant and definitive feeling judgements and expressions that couldn't be less than Fe, although things like this could be Fi also under various circumstances in Fi types, so it's hard to really make sound deductions of the feeling functions being used, although I think it is easier in the lower F types like I/ENTJs and E/INTPs, for instance, since their feeling expressions are either very black and white, all or nothing if Fe terts or mainly inferiors, or in terms of Fi, it's very very deeply implied within their writing and either comes off as very passionate, or impossible to notice (only they know what lied behind their writing structure) - once again, black-and-white and less exploratory Fi than in the higher Fi types. Examining the T writing style of the writers makes deducing the F function they use much easier than examining the F functions, since the F functions are more gray, rather than black and white, structurally defined functions like the T ones. The subject matter being discussed and how it's being discussed would probably shed more insight into which F function is at work, rather than anything technical about the writing.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> frankly, I think the T functions of the F types are going to structure their writing the same way they would in a Te or Ti dom/aux.


I agree. I can definitely see Te in my INFP brother's writing. His writing style and writing process is much more linear than my own. What I find particularly interesting is our differences in the writing process. He needs to write the paper from the beginning to the end. 

In contrast, I do not usually start with the thesis statement. In fact, the introduction is usually the last thing I write. I usually know the main point I'm arguing, but it's not usually formulated into words until after I write out the main body of the text. I jump around from idea to idea, and flesh them out, then I draw them altogether, reorganize, insert transitions, write a new point that combining the ideas has inspired, etc. 

My brother and I took a class together and we had to write two papers, so we hung out and wrote our papers at the same time (we picked different topics of course; don't want to be seen as academically dishonest). What's funny is my brother was completely incredulous at how I wrote papers, and that I managed to pull A's out of my manic writing process. We're both A students, and write A papers...it's just fascinating to see how our completely different processes bring us to the same end result.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Fi looks like a motivational speech in writing, especially combined with Ne. When a person writes something that you could imagine would be followed by a slow clap (not necessarily because you agree with what they wrote, but because it has that "feel"), then it's probably Fi. 

For example: 
_
People who try to control others are full of fear deep down. At their core, they are fearful of letting others in, being vulnerable, the unknown, etc. etc. This makes them seek control in order to feel safe and secure. The problem is, this will eventually drive anyone away; in other words, they can actually CAUSE their fears to come true in their attempts at stopping it. 

No one has to tolerate being controlled. If you want to put a stop to this, you must first BELIEVE you do not deserve to be treated this way and no longer tolerate it. Free yourself and live your life for you; after all, you only have one shot. I don't know about you, but I plan on living mine to the fullest. 

Cheers to freedom and happiness! _

This paragraph shows heavy Fi, probably Ne too.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

madhatter said:


> I agree. I can definitely see Te in my INFP brother's writing. His writing style and writing process is much more linear than my own. What I find particularly interesting is our differences in the writing process. *He needs to write the paper from the beginning to the end. *


This may be more of a Ne thing. I know an ENTP friend who does this. He can't get started on a paper until he can figure out his thesis and then he just goes on and on until he exhausts his work. I personally just start writing what I feel about a given topic and I wind up with however many pages I need. It's just sort of like a tidal wave. As long as I feel some way about the topic I can talk about it for however long I need to. I need to have an opinion on it or else it just doesn't work. I guess it's a good thing that I am an opinionated person. My ENFP friends also have a hard time getting things together and will often stop and start until they find something they can speak about. That linear process of beginning and end might be something about Ne or "bigger picture" of start and finish that N types may be more prone to. 



Enfpleasantly said:


> Fi looks like a motivational speech in writing. When a person writes something that you could imagine would be followed by a slow clap (not necessarily because you agree with what they wrote, but because it has that "feel"), then it's probably Fi.


I agree. I find that especially true in Fi+Te writing at least in my own and on some forums like the xxFP ones. It is almost like a judgement or gavel has been thrown down and everyone is supposed to agree in a way, at least that may be how it is both perceived or how it feels when a Fi-type writes. I definitely think you have a point there, it either inspires or creates a judgement that is supposed to be upheld I think specifically when it has a cause of meaning to be said. I think it can be more blunt then Fe+Ti.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Arrow said:


> This may be more of a Ne thing. I know an ENTP friend who does this. He can't get started on a paper until he can figure out his thesis and then he just goes on and on until he exhausts his work. I personally just start writing what I feel about a given topic and I wind up with however many pages I need. It's just sort of like a tidal wave. As long as I feel some way about the topic I can talk about it for however long I need to. I need to have an opinion on it or else it just doesn't work. I guess it's a good thing that I am an opinionated person. My ENFP friends also have a hard time getting things together and will often stop and start until they find something they can speak about. That linear process of beginning and end might be something about Ne or "bigger picture" of start and finish that N types may be more prone to.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I find that especially true in Fi+Te writing at least in my own and on some forums like the xxFP ones. It is almost like a judgement or gavel has been thrown down and everyone is supposed to agree in a way, at least that may be how it is both perceived or how it feels when a Fi-type writes. I definitely think you have a point there, it either inspires or creates a judgement that is supposed to be upheld I think specifically when it has a cause of meaning to be said. I think it can be more blunt then Fe+Ti.


I can spot the Fi in Te dom writing as well. A really good example of a Te Dom writing with a lot of Fi is the OP in the "INTJ's aren't Gods" thread. Blunt like you mentioned, also comes from within and directed outwardly (but not because of others; it's because of how it sits inside of the writer), and it can come across as a soapbox speech


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Yeah I find Ti-dom writings as extremly hard to read it is so theoretical, a good example of this is C. G. Jung :laughing:


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Yeah I find Ti-dom writings as extremly hard to read it is so theoretical, a good example of this is C. G. Jung :laughing:


I also find Jung's writing hard to read, and I'm a Ti dominant! I think there could be two reasons for this: 1) It was originally written in German, and there could be translation issues; or 2) the normal writing style of that era is hard to read in general. I find many writers from that era to be long-winded and boring, and I really wish they would get to the point. Even my beloved Lord of the Rings gets this reaction from me.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

madhatter said:


> I also find Jung's writing hard to read, and I'm a Ti dominant!


:shocked:



> I think there could be two reasons for this: 1) It was originally written in German, and there could be translation issues;


We can exclude this. My example of Personalty Types is in German :crazy:


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> We can exclude this. My example of Personalty Types is in German :crazy:


Haha, right you are! Just checked your bio information.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

madhatter said:


> I agree. I can definitely see Te in my INFP brother's writing. His writing style and writing process is much more linear than my own. What I find particularly interesting is our differences in the writing process. He needs to write the paper from the beginning to the end.
> 
> In contrast, I do not usually start with the thesis statement. In fact, the introduction is usually the last thing I write. I usually know the main point I'm arguing, but it's not usually formulated into words until after I write out the main body of the text. I jump around from idea to idea, and flesh them out, then I draw them altogether, reorganize, insert transitions, write a new point that combining the ideas has inspired, etc.
> 
> My brother and I took a class together and we had to write two papers, so we hung out and wrote our papers at the same time (we picked different topics of course; don't want to be seen as academically dishonest). What's funny is my brother was completely incredulous at how I wrote papers, and that I managed to pull A's out of my manic writing process. We're both A students, and write A papers...it's just fascinating to see how our completely different processes bring us to the same end result.


Huh... Well, both my sister (for a while we thought she could be ISTJ but she's ESTJ) and I often find ourselves writing papers together. My sister and I both have to kind of just "go for it". Outlines never work. She has a way of writing that makes sense. She just writes everything out. It takes her a while, though. Her writing style is actually kind of buttery. XD 

Whereas I'm really short and to the point. The part that takes the longest for me is the information gathering, deciding my topic, etc. All that jazz. Then I just write my intro, the hardest part, and go for it. And it's funny. I always finish before my sister, even if she has been writing for hours. XD I can get away with procrastinating and then writing at the last minute. And then we both get the same grade. She jokes around, saying she is Dickens, I am Hemingway. 

Even when it comes to fiction, she's got this sarcastic, hilarious, yet bubbly/buttery kind of writing style. Meanwhile I've got the short sentences. It's all about rhythm for me. It needs to have a good rhythm, good flow, and I always seem to have to have a "message".


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> Huh... Well, both my sister (for a while we thought she could be ISTJ but she's ESTJ) and I often find ourselves writing papers together. My sister and I both have to kind of just "go for it". Outlines never work. She has a way of writing that makes sense. She just writes everything out. It takes her a while, though. Her writing style is actually kind of buttery. XD
> 
> Whereas I'm really short and to the point. The part that takes the longest for me is the information gathering, deciding my topic, etc. All that jazz. Then I just write my intro, the hardest part, and go for it. And it's funny. I always finish before my sister, even if she has been writing for hours. XD I can get away with procrastinating and then writing at the last minute. And then we both get the same grade. She jokes around, saying she is Dickens, I am Hemingway.
> 
> Even when it comes to fiction, she's got this sarcastic, hilarious, yet bubbly/buttery kind of writing style. Meanwhile I've got the short sentences. It's all about rhythm for me. It needs to have a good rhythm, good flow, and I always seem to have to have a "message".


My sister is ISTJ as well. I didn't write papers with her, but I usually edited her papers, but it was mostly accounting and business writing, so you can't get much functional information out of that. Watching paint dry is more interesting than business writing. There is no way you can make it interesting. Anyway, my sister always wrote her paper two weeks ahead (what a good J! haha), while I'm the same as you...procrastinating till the last minute. I'm ashamed to say that I don't remember what my sister's writing style is like.I don't quite know how to describe my writing style...it's analytical, logical, with a big focus on clarity...I really love making pointed arguments that really pack a punch, that makes an impact, and I take great delight in tearing other people's arguments that I don't agree with apart. But professors have also commented on how my word choice and phrasing is almost lyrical (I give credit for that to my INFJ mom, for dragging me to all her poetry readings), and while I love that knock-out argument, a few professors have also commented that I tend to make nuanced arguments...picking apart the fine distinctions of an issue and seeing all sides and angles. I see these qualities as all Ti-Se-Ni all interacting in such way, where I can't tell where one begins and where one ends. I'm not really sure how my Fe factors into my writing though...curse you, inferior Fe! >.>


----------



## Larzcode (May 16, 2012)

I can say for sure that MBTI type does affect the writing style.

I have an ENTJ friend who types out like an unstoppable machine who literally takes no breaks, this being from her Extroverted Thinking function. Her writing focuses a lot on 'action' and 'doing', from her inferior Introverted Feeling function. She struggles to portray inner thoughts.

As an INTP, I tend to take long pauses in between to articulate the sentence before typing it out. My writing style tends to reflect a lot about meticulous details and thoughts, as is expected from an Extroverted Feeling and Introverted Sensing function. My pieces tend to be 3x longer than hers as well.

I'm really quite jealous of the ENTJ and INTJ's speed of communicating, although my writing is more expressive and detailed.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Hapalo said:


> The categorical imperative seems like Fe to me. The way it tries to universalise ethics seems much more extroverted to me. Not sure about his type though.
> 
> A noticed a trend among INTPs, they love walls of text. It is almost as if they are deliberately doing that to annoy others.
> 
> inb4 some angry INTP responds with a wall of text.


Five days late, but I find this interesting. 
The categorical imperative is an attempt to find a universal maxim in ethics that all things can be derived from. The thing that makes it Ti and not Fi is that Kant focuses on purely logical, that is, inherently objective, universals and not subjective ones. The reason it isn't attributed to Fe is that Fe, while it tries to be universal, it is not applicable to everyone.

Which in my opinion, makes Kant's theory obsolete, but I haven't written a philosophical masterpiece, so... lol.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

@Julia Bell Hey, I totally forgot about the site with all 16 Personality Writing styles! Here is the one for ENFP. At the bottom, there's individual links for all the 16 types. I read the ones for ISTJ, ISTP, and INFP (me and my siblings  ) and they all seem pretty close to the mark, give or take a few minor differences.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@_madhatter_ - Yep. x3 That pretty much fits my style of writing. ^_^ Or how I go about writing. That kind of explains why I always gravitate towards flash fiction. 

Edit: Ah, I can actually relate to the ESFP and some of the INFP description. @[email protected] Oh, why must I always be doubtful? x3


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> Edit: Ah, I can actually relate to the *E*S*FP* and some of the IN*FP* description. @[email protected] Oh, why must I always be doubtful? x3


See the common demoninators there? XD There will be some similarities. I often relate to descriptions of ISTP, ESTP, INTP, and ISFP. You seem ENFP to me; I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

madhatter said:


> See the common demoninators there? XD There will be some similarities. I often relate to descriptions of ISTP, ESTP, INTP, and ISFP. You seem ENFP to me; I wouldn't worry about it.


Haha, oh good. ^_^ Just one thing can set me off doubting like that. XD It's always nice to have somebody say I appear ENFP.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Julia Bell said:


> Haha, oh good. ^_^ Just one thing can set me off doubting like that. XD It's always nice to have somebody say I appear ENFP.


It's just your 6-ness getting the better of you! Don't listen to it!

Oooh, that made me think: I wonder how Enneagram types would interact with functions to affect writing style?


----------

