# INTP and INTJ writing styles



## Entropic

_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.


----------



## Madman

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.


----------



## nonnaci

Many good points and but some comments on the conclusions:


LeaT said:


> 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.


----------



## Boolean11

Madman said:


> 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.


----------



## Entropic

nonnaci said:


> 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.


----------



## Persephone

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.


----------



## Entropic

Boolean11 said:


> Writing isn't natural, why would your cognitive functions be related to such a recent technology.


By recent technology you mean the past couple of thousand years at least, right?


----------



## Flatlander

Boolean11 said:


> 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.


----------



## Persephone

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.


----------



## Boolean11

Persephone said:


> 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.


----------



## Entropic

Persephone said:


> 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 -.-


----------



## Madman

Boolean11 said:


> 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.


----------



## Entropic

Persephone said:


> 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


----------



## Entropic

Madman said:


> 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.


----------



## StellarTwirl

LeaT said:


> The INTJ writing may as such come across as incredibly rigid and well-structured.





LeaT said:


> The INTJ writing is an unmovable object that cannot, should not and will not break in time.





LeaT said:


> 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" ...





LeaT said:


> 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.


----------



## Persephone

Madman said:


> 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.


----------



## Persephone

StellarTwirl said:


> This was an unexpectedly arousing read.


 @LeaT has some rare insights. I love this thread.


----------



## Madman

LeaT said:


> That's true and we also think in language.


Yes we think in language, but we can sometimes think visually by using images.


----------



## nujabes

Boolean11 said:


> 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?


----------



## Madman

Persephone said:


> 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.


----------



## Entropic

Madman said:


> Yes we think in language, but we can sometimes think visually by using images.


Yes. And we also think in sound and sensual sensation.


----------



## Emerson

I've had my INTP friends pull me up on the fact that my writing always assumes things are true without proper analysis, which my Te see's as self evident thus pointless to question but that pesky Ti of theirs still wants to look at it, which I see as a waste of time, they see as a chance to forge something from. I dunno its interesting. This is a great thread that should be stickied I think. Or at least NT articled.


----------



## nonnaci

Madman said:


> Yes we think in language, but we can sometimes think visually by using images.


Yea, but 5 seconds of visual imagination would translate into several paragraphs of writing to approach a faithful reconstruction.


----------



## Entropic

nonnaci said:


> Yea, but 5 seconds of visual imagination would translate into several paragraphs of writing to approach a faithful reconstruction.


I think that depends what your learning style is. I don't think I could put images into words all that well. Sound however, I can write endlessly about.


----------



## Boolean11

Madman said:


> 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.


It isn't natural in the same way driving isn't, its a generally a skill that can be enhanced over time. You can't use that as a basis for being able to absolutely judge the person in question. Sure you may have statistics that point to the likely hood of a person with writing style X indicating cognitive behaviour C, but those aren't absolute. People's cognitive functions and behaviours aren't straight forward, they don't have a deterministic relationship.


----------



## Figure

I would add a few things to the INTJ side, particularly in regards to _hedging_:

Firstly, length. I'm not sure that a generalization can be made about INTJ's desiring "more with less." This is definitely true as a _desire_, but I very often end up rambling on through paragraphs via perceiving function - the entire piece ends up looking like my stream of conscience, one point after another, after another, quasi-unrelated. Jane Austen, whom I suspect to be an INTJ, did this frequently. I want impermeability, to account for every possible rhetorical crevice that I can imagine. Everything I write is supposed to be its own, self-sufficient means to an end. To go back and re-circuit or re-explain - it reminds me of that awkward moment you get in a tourist trap souvenir shop when the clerk comes back every 10 seconds to tell you more about some stupid piece of junk you never intended to buy anyway. No. Writing should stand up on its own. This is why, if I had to guess, INTJ are sometimes "blunt." I'm just not so sure that it always ends in long length (see, here?)

Second, _emphasis_. I have bunny sex with italics. Occasionally I will use dashes as well, and on fora, "........" These are intended to supplement the text in a way that essentially begs you to follow my Ni conclusions. The dashes are more auditory, and I use them to illustrate the "jumping" from one portion of thought to another. Oh, and that reminds me. Quotations. Yes, I'm a whore to these as well. I use them frequently to hedge certain words, since I can see arguments against their use, specifically, but still want to use the word. 

Structural hedging. Ti users are more fluid with it, I find. Though I will, from now and then, frame my arguments by more generalist paragraphs, especially if I know someone different from myself is going to read it. I very often tailor the structure of my writing to those who will read it. As far as citations go, I only use what I am comfortable with - no ridiculous dissertations on the hegemonic qualities of pickles. I will, however, frequently qualify commonly-held beliefs and conclusions on things that might be seen as counter-arguments to my own, then explain why they are not relevant as a way of further validating my own, less-substantiated points.


----------



## Madman

LeaT said:


> Yes. And we also think in sound and sensual sensation.


That's right, how silly of me.


----------



## Boolean11

Emerson said:


> I've had my INTP friends pull me up on the fact that my writing always assumes things are true without proper analysis, which my Te see's as self evident thus pointless to question but that pesky Ti of theirs still wants to look at it, which I see as a waste of time, they see as a chance to forge something from. I dunno its interesting. This is a great thread that should be stickied I think. Or at least NT articled.


Well I've noticed that I become very rigid when my Te is on fire and logical precision is demanded. But usually I see myself as being frustrated with the work, whenever I have to prove the obvious or assume that other people know (that is university in a nutshell); but either way I slave on since to get 70+ in an assignment it is a necessary requirement. That is when I write my essays multiple times, due to my general issue with sporting mistakes when typing (I chose not to do that here obviously since it requires too much effort), I'd always make sure that I re-write my essay the final time with grammar, spellings and expressions absolutely clarified.


----------



## nujabes

Boolean11 said:


> It isn't natural in the same way driving isn't, its a generally a skill that can be enhanced over time. You can't use that as a basis for being able to absolutely judge the person in question. Sure you may have statistics that point to the likely hood of a person with writing style X indicating cognitive behaviour C, but those aren't absolute. People's cognitive functions and behaviours aren't straight forward, they don't have a deterministic relationship.


So... it is coincidence that my writing is usually dripping with Ne? It has nothing to do with Ne as my dominant function?

@LeaT just _happens_ to write in a highly deconstructive manner? I'd like an explanation, since at this point all you're doing is "NO"


----------



## nonnaci

LeaT said:


> I think that depends what your learning style is. I don't think I could put images into words all that well. Sound however, I can write endlessly about.


Tangential question: Do you read with sound or do you read with "understanding"? Example: From watching a lot of foreign films with subtitles, what happens is that I will comprehend the contents of the subtitles a second before the "sound" of the words in my own mind echo.


----------



## Boolean11

LXPilot said:


> As far as citations go, I only use what I am comfortable with - no ridiculous dissertations on the hegemonic qualities of pickles. I will, however, frequently qualify commonly-held beliefs and conclusions on things that might be seen as counter-arguments to my own, then explain why they are not relevant as a way of further validating my own, less-substantiated points.


My lecture said he would mark people down if they weren't on a fishing spree on Google scholar.


----------



## Madman

Boolean11 said:


> It isn't natural in the same way driving isn't, its a generally a skill that can be enhanced over time. You can't use that as a basis for being able to absolutely judge the person in question. Sure you may have statistics that point to the likely hood of a person with writing style X indicating cognitive behaviour C, but those aren't absolute. People's cognitive functions and behaviours aren't straight forward, they don't have a deterministic relationship.


I don't know what to say really, but language is natural and writing is a way to express language.


----------



## Boolean11

gingertonic said:


> So... it is coincidence that my writing is usually dripping with Ne? It has nothing to do with Ne as my dominant function?
> 
> @_LeaT_ just _happens_ to write in a highly deconstructive manner? I'd like an explanation, since at this point all you're doing is "NO"


Statistics may point to that but there is no guarantee that every or any type will necessarily behave in a very predictable manner. There is an equal chance that you could be an ISTJ with a rich Ne, those guys exist.


----------



## nujabes

Boolean11 said:


> Statistics may point to that but there is no guarantee that every any type will necessarily behave in a very predictable manner. There is an equal chance that you could be an ISTJ with a rich Ne, those guys exist.


And what evidence do you have for that claim, that there is an equal chance I'm an ISTJ with heavy Ne? Where is the Te? Where is the Fi?

You don't seem to have thought this through...


----------



## Boolean11

Madman said:


> I don't know what to say really, but language is natural and writing is a way to express language.


All forms of language aren't natural, they have to be learnt. Apparently feral (at list some) children can never learn how to speak; I'm not sure the degree to which that stereotype is true but regardless I'm inclined to think that all forms of language aren't equal. Some like speech are more "natural" to say than other forms.


----------



## Entropic

nonnaci said:


> Tangential question: Do you read with sound or do you read with "understanding"? Example: From watching a lot of foreign films with subtitles, what happens is that I will comprehend the contents of the subtitles a second before the "sound" of the words in my own mind echo.


With sound.


----------



## nujabes

Boolean11 said:


> All forms of language aren't natural, they have to be learnt. Apparently feral (at list some) children can never learn how to speak; I'm not sure the degree to which that stereotype is true but regardless I'm inclined to think that all forms of language aren't equal. Some like speech are more "natural" to say than other forms.


None of this has anything to do with a link between JCF and writing style. Your original claim that, because language isn't "natural," it can't be linked to brain function, remains unsubstantiated.


----------



## Madman

Boolean11 said:


> Statistics may point to that but there is no guarantee that every any type will necessarily behave in a very predictable manner. There is an equal chance that you could be an ISTJ with a rich Ne, those guys exist.


Of course they exist, but the more thought put into the text the more it will indicate how your reasoning.


----------



## Entropic

LXPilot said:


> I would add a few things to the INTJ side, particularly in regards to _hedging_:
> 
> Firstly, length. I'm not sure that a generalization can be made about INTJ's desiring "more with less." This is definitely true as a _desire_, but I very often end up rambling on through paragraphs via perceiving function - the entire piece ends up looking like my stream of conscience, one point after another, after another, quasi-unrelated. Jane Austen, whom I suspect to be an INTJ, did this frequently. I want impermeability, to account for every possible rhetorical crevice that I can imagine. Everything I write is supposed to be its own, self-sufficient means to an end. To go back and re-circuit or re-explain - it reminds me of that awkward moment you get in a tourist trap souvenir shop when the clerk comes back every 10 seconds to tell you more about some stupid piece of junk you never intended to buy anyway. No. Writing should stand up on its own. This is why, if I had to guess, INTJ are sometimes "blunt." I'm just not so sure that it always ends in long length (see, here?)
> 
> Second, _emphasis_. I have bunny sex with italics. Occasionally I will use dashes as well, and on fora, "........" These are intended to supplement the text in a way that essentially begs you to follow my Ni conclusions. The dashes are more auditory, and I use them to illustrate the "jumping" from one portion of thought to another. Oh, and that reminds me. Quotations. Yes, I'm a whore to these as well. I use them frequently to hedge certain words, since I can see arguments against their use, specifically, but still want to use the word.
> 
> Structural hedging. Ti users are more fluid with it, I find. Though I will, from now and then, frame my arguments by more generalist paragraphs, especially if I know someone different from myself is going to read it. I very often tailor the structure of my writing to those who will read it. As far as citations go, I only use what I am comfortable with - no ridiculous dissertations on the hegemonic qualities of pickles. I will, however, frequently qualify commonly-held beliefs and conclusions on things that might be seen as counter-arguments to my own, then explain why they are not relevant as a way of further validating my own, less-substantiated points.


Of course. It is possible to go a deeper analysis than I did and consider how Fi and Se affect INTJ writing and Si and Fe respectively for the INTP. The results will be different. That's currently a little beyond my personal understanding and I need to mull over that and see how that fits into a pattern before I dare to write anything conclusive about it.

You mentioning that each word, clause, sentence and paragraph standing on its own is a good point though. Again, it relates to Ni looking inwards. I think the last paragraph in this post does show your NiTe tendencies quite well. I think I was unclear and this is perhaps something I should add is that the real confusion over INTJ and INTP writing is that when the INTP does the tl;dr, it can come across as INTJ writing. 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.


----------



## Boolean11

gingertonic said:


> And what evidence do you have for that claim, that there is an equal chance I'm an ISTJ with heavy Ne? Where is the Te? Where is the Fi?
> 
> You don't seem to have thought this through...


Perception is not rational and neither is "logic" absolute, as we perceive it. I'm largely walking on a slippery slope with my incarnation to accept the probability of that point of view being true; but that is the world we live in. We make predictions and usually rely on inductive reasoning. Being absolutely certain is largely drifting from the regular world requiring a dose of faith (which has its advantages and disadvantages).

You did get my main point though that there are ISTJs with rich Ne. I've seen some when Googling who were saying that they struggled to accept being an S type since they were actively aware of their Ne.


----------



## Entropic

Sollertis said:


> I find this odd, I never write an outline. For the most part I start writing and at some point it becomes the archetypal essay you presented in the OP. The essay itself is quite structured, but the process that goes into it is, not random, but primarily intuitive.


Depends on the INTJ? I know one NTJ, I think he's ENTJ although I think that he thinks of himself as an introvert, and I remember that he happily announced his thesis outline on Facebook and even uploaded it. 



Persephone said:


> @_LeaT_: interesting observation about always having sources at hand. Aside from academic papers, whose authors always have those weird names no humans actually use (apart from researchers, apparently! Sorry for the jab, researchers), I can remember my sources pretty well. I can even tell you the chapter, subsection and in some cases line number, though mostly for biblical references. I don't remember them just for debate purposes. It comes sort of naturally, but my main goal is so if I ever need to use that information I can pull it out and read it again because memory is always imperfect. I identify a lot with Hamlet and naturally quote him a lot, but even having read the same quotes dozens of times I still get the wording wrong. So I gave up and got a copy of Hamlet on my phone. True story. My phrasing always sounds more stupid than Shakespeare's. I defer to the master. INTJs are action oriented, even if in a highly abstract, whimsical and impractical way. We know how useful information can be, that's why one of our titles is "The Expert". Of course, in a debate, that means they are ammunition to be fired at a less knowledgeable opponent.
> 
> Many people make lots of statements about Hitler. Especially in that debate about whether Hitler was INFJ, I always badger them: But have you _actually_ read his works though? They get nervous and try to prove they don't need to read his works. INTPs seem to try to discount factual evidence sometimes in favor of their logic. When I argued with an INTP, he presented to me his logic. I said: "ah, but you're wrong. Here's another way to look at it, and this fact is why you're wrong." He said: "the fact can't possibly be right! You must have misremembered!" I told him with utter confidence: "I know what I know. Go look it up." I have a feeling he never did. But in my typical Te fashion I let the argument go. I know I won, whether or not my opponent acknowledges it. This INTJ just likes to win.


That's interesting because I think Dario Nardi actually mentioned how INTJs seem to always be unable to remember the exact details of their sources. 

Similarly, I can remember quotes well if I do remember them at all, but I can't remember where they are from for most of the part unless it's something I enjoy e.g. Fight Club. I am Jack's broken heart. I ran. And then I ran some more. We just had a near-death experience! And so forth. I could continue ad finitum ad nauseam almost. 

And about Hitler: That's one of the reasons why I don't want to engage in that debate :tongue: I find it to be such a futile endeavor either way. It's not like finding out his type is going to change anything which I feel is one of the driving motivations why so many seem to obsess. It's as if they can explain why things happened if they can just know his type. I don't see how that explains anything since it's all there in Mein Kampf already if people are willing to read it. 

But that's my personal view on Hitler and the MBTI. And I Ne rambled.


----------



## nonnaci

LeaT said:


> That's interesting because I think Dario Nardi actually mentioned how INTJs seem to always be unable to remember the exact details of their sources.


This is with regard to Jung who alludes to Ni doms whose inferior Se ignores facts in favor of their own intuitions.


----------



## tangosthenes

@LeaT _
Really_ cool post.

I tend to do the tl;dr thing, and cite only moderately-related references because I hate doing it. Page constraints, time constraints, assignment constraints, self-constraints, one thing after another conspires to keep my thoughts in mediocrity in college 

I wonder if you could say more about the Ni writing style, I didn't really get it. For example by symbols, what do you mean, like projections, or like literally how +=<>! etc work.


----------



## iscem42

LeaT said:


> Of course. It is possible to go a deeper analysis than I did and consider how Fi and Se affect INTJ writing and Si and Fe respectively for the INTP. The results will be different. That's currently a little beyond my personal understanding and I need to mull over that and see how that fits into a pattern before I dare to write anything conclusive about it.


One thing I do a lot that may be Si-related is to use a specific remark in one post as a jumping off point for some related ideas. But then that could be Ne engaging a "coincidence" / seeing whether the hints of connections that popped up at that time can be elaborated upon in a way that'll ..... come up with a solid understanding and / or suggest more paths for more understandings. Which is what just happened here, I guess.* 

Your analysis of the INTP in the OP was definitely spot-on for me, very closely echoing the metaphor of our writing process being like someone exploring an area of wilderness and finding what he's writing about as he writes about it. That's when I notice my Ne use the most, when I start to try to act on it in some way and then find the branches yanking me in various directions that may or may not be clear-cut new "directions." It comes across in my body language as well, especially if the issue is complex and not something I've spoken about before. And the tl;dr'ing is such a great way of expressing my experience of high school english classes before I really started bothering to try to spell out my thought processes. My teacher saw that everything had its own sense and was leading to something but had trouble finding the connections. 

*This also seems indicative of the long-windedness of Ne-Ti structure. I use long sentences with lots of subclauses and such (and, when I can get away with them, such as on a forum ... parentheses), and paragraph breaks don't come naturally to me at all. Part of this seems to be because my underlying thought process wasn't structuring things to be paragraph-y in and of themselves .... they weren't meant for being split up like that but for interconnecting in a way that'll drive home at Ti's firm, grounded "knowing" of the thing I'm communicating while showing the web of connections and implications for possibilities for paths to connections.

And then these paragraphs become really long again by the time I've sort of run through things ... like striving to give a tour that can give an idea of what's going on, even if it can't realistically cover everything. And the long-winded structure is in spite of learned skills, since I was a pretty well-regarded editor at my college newspaper for a couple years. Perhaps when there's an external expectation (but not an expectation per se; maybe more of an obligation combined with an inherent simplicity in the subject matter .... this doesn't even begin to cover everything, but this is the sort of thing I would — and do, when the papers allow it — put in a foot note), I can whittle things down to be more "Te-like." But even then I had a much more long-winded, "everything relates to everything else" style than the other writers and editors, and yet was considered a clear communicator in spite of it. 

Erm .... this could also be that my most parenthetical style happens when I feel like I really have to communicate in my most efficient, "straight-line" way possible (because of time constraints. otherwise I'd pause way too much and forget what I'm talking about. I also forget what I'm talking about even when I do this. I even forgot to write this sentence and had to go back and put it in) .... ironically, though, that doesn't really involve a straight line, which is something I can only create when I go back and do a lot of revisions. Even then it's still foot-note-y. Or whatever

EDIT: This post is utterly indicative of everything I just wrote about. I think the very fact that I put in a footnote with an asterix, and that all the text after the asterix ended up being almost twice as long as the text before it, kind of says a lot.


----------



## Figure

LeaT said:


> Of course. It is possible to go a deeper analysis than I did and consider how Fi and Se affect INTJ writing and Si and Fe respectively for the INTP. The results will be different. That's currently a little beyond my personal understanding and I need to mull over that and see how that fits into a pattern before I dare to write anything conclusive about it.


Right, no, it's good stuff you've got there, for sure - I enjoyed the read! I just think this is a really interesting topic, definitely worth digging deeper into. Here's an interesting piece to use as a negotiation between the rhetorical tendencies of both types (actually all types):

Hedging in Scientific Research Articles - Ken Hyland - Google Books

Ken Swales is a writing genius, and his stuff is very aware of rhetorical patterns across different kind of writing - and, by extension, type too. I do believe this is a useful "field guide" of sorts for both INTP and INTJ, who both pay careful attention to technique in writing. 



> You mentioning that each word, clause, sentence and paragraph standing on its own is a good point though. Again, it relates to Ni looking inwards. I think the last paragraph in this post does show your NiTe tendencies quite well. I think I was unclear and this is perhaps something I should add is that the real confusion over INTJ and INTP writing is that when the INTP does the tl;dr, it can come across as INTJ writing. 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.


Hmm, that's an interesting theory. I certainly feel as though I have to _accommodate _Ti when I write, hence heavy hedging (maybe, perhaps, "", often, it seems, etc). Nobody likes to be picked apart when they write about something they care about. Even though Ni and Ti are of the same orientation, I'm a bit intrigued to think about the ways they create desire among INTP and INTJ respectively, given their different in attitude. Why is it, do you think, that Ni must be accommodated, if it is not a judging function? I have heard of INTP trying to accommodate Te, to make sure nobody can cut their work down to impractical follyschmuck, but not Ni until now. Interesting. 

Heh, when I use Te and Se in writing, I write curtly. (see what I just did there?) 

But here's another facet, and I think this _might_ relate to both Ni and Se - I'd be interested to see if there is an inferior Fe parallel. I aspire to write in away that _demonstrates its point while it's making it_. For example - the above. I'm making a point about Se, and the rhetorics of it match the concept. I want to show that Se is brief and that I use it. The words are performative. Another example would be writing about each cognitive function, using only language that would demonstrate that function's usage. I have noticed some INTP appeal to common points of interest as a way of drawing their readers into the conversation, usually with quirky humor, if that's Fe. Perhaps the inferior _does _creep into our writing styles?


----------



## FillInTheBlank

It all makes sense now. This is exactly why I've always been so bad with timed, in-class writing assignments. :crazy: All too often, I have found myself barely getting to my point before time runs up. 

The INTJ writing style described is a complete time saver compared to how I write. My gosh.


----------



## Sollertis

I realize the theory obviously doesn't necessarily apply to everyone, but again I feel compelled to mention that, for me at least, writing is such a natural thing. The structure you see doesn't come as a result of some sort of preconceived plan, I just start writing and then at some point it becomes a nice neat essay with plenty of reliable sources. The majority of the planning involved isn't so much in the organization of the essay itself, as in the pre-constructed framework (or the sources) I choose to support my thesis.


----------



## nujabes

This makes me want to demonstrate ENTP writing...


----------



## Flatlander

gingertonic said:


> This makes me want to demonstrate ENTP writing...


Ideally, it'd be nice to represent all the types in something like this.

You ought to. It'd be interesting to see how it differs from INTP writing.


----------



## nujabes

Flatlander said:


> Ideally, it'd be nice to represent all the types in something like this.
> 
> You ought to. It'd be interesting to see how it differs from INTP writing.


Would you like a debate case I wrote? Otherwise just give me a topic and I'll do a little exposé


----------



## Flatlander

gingertonic said:


> Would you like a debate case I wrote? Otherwise just give me a topic and I'll do a little exposé


Which do you prefer? Either would be fine.


----------



## Flight33

> If the INTJ could reduce their writing into one single symbol they would do it.


!


----------



## Empty

Persephone said:


> 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.



Would you be so kind as to send me to a copy of the highlighted paper? I am very curious to see it.


----------



## Empty

Persephone said:


> 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.


----------



## Serak

Speaking as an INTJ who writes fiction as his profession this was a very interesting read. I found many of your insights hit the nail on the head in a single cross-section of cases: Those of the type who do not write _often_. Dedication to this art, or any, will build a natural level of skill. Given that skill is simple repetition until it becomes second nature there is no wonder here. Beyond skill exists an insight into the art that really allows someone to play with their craft. So while your analysis, extremely well communicated as it may be, was accurate for most I think it would benefit from trying to find those of the type who break that norm.

An INTP who writes technically or academically would be a very interesting find, for starters. Or more INTJs (perhaps a bit farther in life) who write fiction and stories from their imagination. Allows you to see the other side of the coin more clearly and gain a greater understanding of those who go outside what is typical for a type. I think this can apply in any manner: A guide for the MBTI always benefits when it includes insights for those who have developed their type beyond the things that create these stereotypes we so often see.

Food for thought, but you really did great work with this!


----------



## Persephone

LXPilot said:


> Heh, when I use Te and Se in writing, I write curtly. (see what I just did there?)


I emailed my dad about my travel expenses: "paid." my ISTP dad was not pleased. He wrote back that I was disrespectful and rude. I was, at that point, really tempted to show him what disrespectful and rude really means.


----------



## Flatlander

Persephone said:


> I emailed my dad about my travel expenses: "paid." my ISTP dad was not pleased. He wrote back that I was disrespectful and rude. I was, at that point, really tempted to show him what disrespectful and rude really means.


Sounds like a clash of the inferiors waiting to happen.


----------



## Persephone

Flatlander said:


> Sounds like a clash of the inferiors waiting to happen.


He specifically wanted me to write more and be less business-like. Its a common complaint that I'm too business like. If I send an email to my school's finance director, it's: 

Dear madam, 

Sallie Mae claims it disbursed this months installment, but the bill does not reflect it. Please correct.

[name]

So it was: 

Dear dad,

I apologize for my shortness. I went to class and learned about linear transformations.

[name]


----------



## Flatlander

Persephone said:


> So it was:
> 
> Dear dad,
> 
> I apologize for my shortness. I went to class and learned about linear transformations.
> 
> [name]


Win.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

@_LeaT_ : Still haven't read your thread yet, because I don't want my reply to be influenced by 'stereotypes'

Here's how I used to write essays in school and at uni:

1. I did a lot of reading
2. I developed some categories for structuring the information, collected all the quotes in a word document put coloured labels on them depending on the category
3. I started writing with no particular structure in mind and waffled quite a lot
4. I broke up my waffle into sections and subsections
5. I wrote the conclusion
6. I wrote the introduction ('This paper _is going to _address....' LOL)
7. I wrote the table of contents

My INFJ friend does the same, she says she can't write the intro and talbe of content first because "How do you know what's in the paper until you've written it? It develops while you write it."

Usually my essays sound fine to me when I first proofread them, but if I read them again a few months or years later, I have no idea what they say  I always got top marks, though, so my teachers must have known what it says/ must have been too intimidated to give me a bad mark.
LOL, I could send you one of my more recent essays if you want to analyse it and get a headache.


Nowadays when I write something for work, I start writing but then come up with a structure relatively soon and put a list/ table of contents at the top of the document before I go on writing.

*edit to add:
*I don't always draw a clear conclusion at the end, but there is a lot of nastiness against my enemies (=theories that I don't agree with) in between the lines


----------



## Haldir

Amaterasu said:


> It's a fucking typo, dude. Stop automatically assuming this is about _you_. If you take personal offense to something he wrote in 2012 and may not even agree with now, the "condescension" you're perceiving is really just your problem. For real, though? He just literally stated a _fact_.


Is that so? Then what is your problem? Am I not allowed to call someone out on their BS but somehow you're allowed to kiss this dude's ass? I disagree with what he had to say and therefore I said something about it. Kind of an INTP thing to do. If homie cares to defend himself then he will, if he doesn't give a shit about it then he won't, but he certainly doesn't need your help.


----------



## Aha

We could just name it xNTP - xNTJ writing styles. It is almost the same for extroverts and introverts in basic principles

Although, I should say that INTP write much more details concerning the issue at hand whereas ENTP try to put in more tangent ideas


----------



## Entropic

Haldir said:


> Is that so? Then what is your problem? Am I not allowed to call someone out on their BS but somehow you're allowed to kiss this dude's ass? I disagree with what he had to say and therefore I said something about it. Kind of an INTP thing to do. If homie cares to defend himself then he will, if he doesn't give a shit about it then he won't, but he certainly doesn't need your help.


It's her problem because she's my fucking girlfriend and she thinks you're being offensive. It's a bit more important to her than just kissing my ass.

And oh, by the way: She can do whatever she wants on this forum because I don't control her or set up any rules for her to how to be. It was her own idea to respond and so she did. It's not an issue that I can't fucking defend myself because I'm well capable of doing that. She did it because she felt like it and that's all there is to it.


----------



## Vermillion

Haldir said:


> Is that so? Then what is your problem? Am I not allowed to call someone out on their BS but somehow you're allowed to kiss this dude's ass? I disagree with what he had to say and therefore I said something about it. Kind of an INTP thing to do. If homie cares to defend himself then he will, if he doesn't give a shit about it then he won't, but he certainly doesn't need your help.


LOL. Don't fool yourself man, I have a personal problem with how retarded you are to bring up something from 2 years ago and assume people are still going to agree with it after having been on a long journey through typology which may more likely that not change their views. 

Considering how useless you seem at picking an informed argument, I think I'm infinitely more qualified to call you out on this. Kind of an ESFP thing to do.


----------



## Haldir

ephemereality said:


> It's her problem because she's my fucking girlfriend and she thinks you're being offensive. It's a bit more important to her than just kissing my ass.


Fair enough. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I thought the point of this site was the ability to be somewhat contrary in a fun way. Like it's kinda just fun to have a real conversation with someone. If this is just a country club circle-jerk then what are we doing here?


----------



## Entropic

Haldir said:


> Fair enough. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I thought the point of this site was the ability to be somewhat contrary in a fun way. Like it's kinda just fun to have a real conversation with someone. If this is just a country club circle-jerk then what are we doing here?


People make friends on a forum and friends form groups of people that may or may not end up appearing or coming across as circlejerk. That's only natural human social formation and organization. She does what she wants; that's her thing. If it comes across as circlejerking then so be it. She does it because she cares, as would I, because that's what people do when they like each other.


----------



## Haldir

Amaterasu said:


> LOL. Don't fool yourself man, I have a personal problem with how retarded you are to bring up something from 2 years ago and assume people are still going to agree with it after having been on a long journey through typology which may more likely that not change their views.
> 
> Considering how useless you seem at picking an informed argument, I think I'm infinitely more qualified to call you out on this. Kind of an ESFP thing to do.


*sigh* Okay.


----------



## Vermillion

Haldir said:


> Fair enough. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I thought the point of this site was the ability to be somewhat contrary in a fun way. Like it's kinda just fun to have a real conversation with someone. If this is just a country club circle-jerk then what are we doing here?


What you think is fun isn't going to be necessarily fun for everyone else. Some people, for instance, think being serious is what constitutes a "real conversation".

Amusingly it's always the ITPs who end arguments this way, by saying something about how backlash and argument in discussions is "fun" or "interesting". In my experience, anyway. Is it a weak fledgling Fe reaction, or what?


----------



## Haldir

ephemereality said:


> People make friends on a forum and friends form groups of people that may or may not end up appearing or coming across as circlejerk. That's only natural human social formation and organization. She does what she wants; that's her thing. If it comes across as circlejerking then so be it. She does it because she cares, as would I, because that's what people do when they like each other.


I think perhaps we're misunderstanding one another. Being protective of someone you love is not exactly unheard of; however, under no circumstance did I make any sort of statement about your relationship.

I don't know you, I don't know her, and quite honestly I have no desire to mess with you guys, but I did think that possibly you'd be willing to have a discussion.

I was quite obviously wrong. If the two of you want to fight with me then feel free to PM me. I would have no problem with that at all. But this passive-aggressiveness is frustrating to no end.


----------



## Haldir

Amaterasu said:


> What you think is fun isn't going to be necessarily fun for everyone else. Some people, for instance, think being serious is what constitutes a "real conversation".
> 
> Amusingly it's always the ITPs who end arguments this way, by saying something about how backlash and argument in discussions is "fun" or "interesting". In my experience, anyway. Is it a weak fledgling Fe reaction, or what?


Hehe.


----------



## Psychopomp

The irony of seeing the OP as somehow biased against INTP is quite excellent. 

My posts from 2 years ago (year and a half, whatever) are like "Keirsey iz da best.... wuts a function?!" and getting into long arguments about how my stereotypical minutia was so much better than someone else's stereotypical minutia. Terrible. 

@_Haldir_ - Why assume the worst? Why match and escalate from that perception? What does it serve?

Does the problem/enemy you've imagined actually exist?


----------



## Haldir

arkigos said:


> @_Haldir_ - Why assume the worst? Why match and escalate from that perception? What does it serve?
> 
> Does the problem/enemy you've imagined actually exist?


Nah, not at all. It's just fun to talk about these things, especially with INTPs. I had no idea that I was going to be ambushed. Whatever the F though.

Strangely I do find these types of discussions enjoyable, and thought I was safe with a fellow INTP. WRONG.


----------



## Vermillion

Haldir said:


> I think perhaps we're misunderstanding one another. Being protective of someone you love is not exactly unheard of; however, under no circumstance did I make any sort of statement about your relationship.
> 
> I don't know you, I don't know her, and quite honestly I have no desire to mess with you guys, but I did think that possibly you'd be willing to have a discussion.
> 
> I was quite obviously wrong. If the two of you want to fight with me then feel free to PM me. I would have no problem with that at all. But this passive-aggressiveness is frustrating to no end.


I honestly think you're the passive-aggressive one rather than either of us, lmao. We're being pretty direct here -- if you want to assume things about people, it's really your problem. If you want to have a discussion, then say it that way, because on no account was your first post indicative of that. If you'd asked about a discussion directly and nicely, I'm sure anyone would have been willing to respond in kind. 
All it seemed like, however, was you wanted to fight. And amusingly you're the one feeling victimized. Yes, it is most probably a difference in cognition that's causing this. It's not the first time I've seen it happen.



arkigos said:


> The irony of seeing the OP as somehow biased against INTP is quite excellent.
> 
> 
> My posts from 2 years ago (year and a half, whatever) are like "Keirsey iz da best.... wuts a function?!" and getting into long arguments about how my stereotypical minutia was so much better than someone else's stereotypical minutia.



Excuse me while I go stalk the fuck out of all your previous posts and cackle. And thanks for letting that fact slip out


----------



## Haldir

ephemereality said:


> It's her problem because she's my fucking girlfriend and she thinks you're being offensive. It's a bit more important to her than just kissing my ass.
> 
> And oh, by the way: She can do whatever she wants on this forum because I don't control her or set up any rules for her to how to be. It was her own idea to respond and so she did. It's not an issue that I can't fucking defend myself because I'm well capable of doing that. She did it because she felt like it and that's all there is to it.


Oh, wow. Alright, dude. When you're ready, go ahead and PM me.


----------



## Haldir

Amaterasu said:


> And amusingly you're the one feeling victimized.


Ha! Not even remotely close. Good attempt though. What I was feeling is that I was talking to an INTP. In no way would I speak that way to an ESFP, because, well, it turns out this way.




Amaterasu said:


> Yes, it is most probably a difference in cognition that's causing this. It's not the first time I've seen it happen.


Seriously, I can't stop smiling while reading this.






Amaterasu said:


> Excuse me while I go stalk the fuck out of all your previous posts and cackle. And thanks for letting that fact slip out


And here I thought I was the bad guy. Take it easy on @_arkigos_. He seems like a decent guy.


----------



## Entropic

Haldir said:


> I think perhaps we're misunderstanding one another. Being protective of someone you love is not exactly unheard of; however, under no circumstance did I make any sort of statement about your relationship.
> 
> I don't know you, I don't know her, and quite honestly I have no desire to mess with you guys, but I did think that possibly you'd be willing to have a discussion.
> 
> I was quite obviously wrong. If the two of you want to fight with me then feel free to PM me. I would have no problem with that at all. But this passive-aggressiveness is frustrating to no end.





Haldir said:


> Oh, wow. Alright, dude. When you're ready, go ahead and PM me.


No, you misunderstand why I reacted in the first place. You spoke ill of her, and then you also suggest that she's circlejerking with me. I explained why she's behaving the way she did which is because she's my girlfriend. The you also suggest that she's doing it because she's defending because implicitly I'm apparently too weak to defend myself. Please tell me why I should react differently?

I simply explained why and that's all there is to it. I have no interest to PM with you. 

Also for your information, I type as an INTJ because my cognitive function preference is NiTe, not TiNe though I used to think I was an INTP when I wrote the OP. 



arkigos said:


> The irony of seeing the OP as somehow biased against INTP is quite excellent.


Yes, because I was typed as an INTP at the time and I do think highly enough of myself to not purposefully look down on my own type whatever that type has been in the past. I got nothing inherent against INTPs except that some TiSi-heavy types really hurt my brain.


----------



## Vermillion

Haldir said:


> Ha! Not even remotely close.


Are you sure you're an INTP, by the way?



> Seriously, I can't stop smiling while reading this.


Why?



> And here I thought I was the bad guy. Take it easy on @_arkigos_. He seems like a decent guy.


No one said you weren't the bad guy. Plus, it was a joke I aimed at him -- with any luck he will be likelier to take it in the right spirit.


----------



## Haldir

ephemereality said:


> No, you misunderstand why I reacted in the first place. You spoke ill of her, and then you also suggest that she's circlejerking with me.


No, dude. I get it. I even explicitly said so in the post of mine that you quoted.



ephemereality said:


> I explained why she's behaving the way she did which is because she's my girlfriend. The you also suggest that she's doing it because she's defending because implicitly I'm apparently too weak to defend myself. Please tell me why I should react differently?


I'm not in any sense trying to imply that you're "weak" or unable to defend yourself. What I was saying is that if you cared to talk about possible disagreements with another human being that was up to you. As such, if you don't want to talk about it then that's fine. I realize now that this is some old shit for you and if you don't want to rehash it I can't blame you.



ephemereality said:


> I simply explained why and that's all there is to it. I have no interest to PM with you.


The entire reason that I proposed such a thing is that it seems unnecessary to me to pepper other people with some interpersonal BS. If you're done with the fracas then I can certainly tell you that I am.



ephemereality said:


> Also for your information, I type as an INTJ because my cognitive function preference is NiTe, not TiNe though I used to think I was an INTP when I wrote the OP.


In my not-so-humble opinion questioning yourself isn't a bad thing whatsoever. I can't say anything negative about that.

Live well, man. Seriously, I'm not out to get you or your GF. I felt blindsided and brought out the claws instinctively. That's all there was to it.


----------



## Haldir

Amaterasu said:


> Are you sure you're an INTP, by the way?


Yup.




Amaterasu said:


> Why?


Because it made me want to smile. Is that acceptable?



Amaterasu said:


> No one said you weren't the bad guy. Plus, it was a joke I aimed at him -- with any luck he will be likelier to take it in the right spirit.


Thanks!


----------



## Grain of Sugar

Was the OP typed as an Intp back then? Because he stated two years ago that he use deduction which is Ti


----------

