Thread: INTJ versus INTP writing styles
08-21-2012, 09:20 AM #11
08-21-2012, 09:22 AM #12
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- 5w6 sx/so
I would have guessed Te would cause users to write in long run-on sentences because they think in straight lines of cause and effect reasoning whereas a Ti user would have more structured and organized writing rather than because A is this B must be that which connects the 2 to C of course of which the Ti user would say that this item fits into definition A and that item proves category B under the rules of C.
edit - Warning as I may not know what I am talking about as usaul. This is just my usual uninformed opinion not based on objective evidence!
08-21-2012, 09:59 AM #13
He said this is it
He said this is what is meant to be
The consequences of naïvety
Anyway, I guess we can't really dig deper into it regardless, as it is unlikely we will be able to confirm Chuck's type.
08-21-2012, 10:01 AM #14
08-21-2012, 10:20 AM #15
Yes and no. You have to remember that the way we express our thoughts beomes inverted when interacting with the external world. The thoughts of the INTJ are more jumbled due to Ni. It's like everything is the same thing so to speak. Te helps to build a logical skeleton for the NI model so it makes more sense and makes it possible to split up the several Ni parts. For the INTP, their inner world is very structured (ABC), but externally, we have to work backwards to express this structure. The result is that the INTJ tends to write deductively and the INTP inductively. INTJs want to start with the general and broad Ni question, backing it up with Te facts and data to reach a specific Ni conclusion, whereas the INTP starts with one example to exemplify their principle and then expand upon this idea.
In other words, Te helps the INTJ to deconstruct their thoughts externally, but Ti helps the INTP to connect the dots externally. I think much of the confusion when it comes to both types is how this inversion works out. Not only are INTJs and INTPs inverted function-wise; but the way they think becomes inverted when interacting with the external world as well, as we have to work "backwards" in our thinking-progress.
Another thing to note about Te users which is somewhat relevant here is that especially those that do not seem to be auxiliary and dominant tend to use Te in a way that splits up their text per sentence or idea like this (exceptions being STJs):
I like green applies.
There are green apples in the fruit basket.
I am not sure if I should eat green apples or red apples with my meal today.
Notice the lack of a) conjunctions and b) that while every sentence would normally constitute a paragraph because it's all about the same subject, the tertiary and inferior Te user (not sure to what degree this applies to shadow users) feels the need to rigidly structure each idea (sentence) like this. Of course, in this canse, this paragraph is a bit exaggerated to exemplify my point, but I think you will recognize this once you start to look around. Ne on the other hand tends to create this "stream of consciousness" approach. I can definitely attest that unless I go tl;dr and just become Ti reductionist (and interestingly, only other NTPs seem to somewhat be able to follow me), writing short and to the point sentences are very hard for me. Just notice how many brackets I manage to include in this single paragraph, sigh.
Essentially, an unstructured Ne user's writing is probably a teacher's worst nightmare. I wrote this text sample as spoof on immature NFP writing (mostly as a way to test how far up in the stack Te is for people who are uncertain of their type):
As is mentioned in the OP. Writing run-on paragraph sentences is no problem. This is something I have forced myself to not to do, even though it is sometimes very hard, and I tend to fall back on various editing methods that allows me to insert MORE data into the sentence e.g. footnotes and brackets. Working on reducing those as well...
08-21-2012, 10:50 AM #16
08-21-2012, 10:56 AM #17
08-21-2012, 11:13 AM #18
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
08-21-2012, 11:22 AM #19
And the idea that Ne informs Ti on what rules can be bent? That sounds like convention versus logical correctness, which smacks of a utilitarian interest in getting the "right" outcome rather than internal coherence (which Ti and intps are not known for).
German language is compact, so it speaks more for xTJ thinking. Say less with more.
08-21-2012, 11:27 AM #20
As for language and Ti and logical consistency:
Not sure I agree that strict adherence to grammar must necessarily point towards Ti. External rules point towards Te. Logical consistency is subjective. I don't necessarily get hung up on lexical elements, anyway.
[INTP] INTP Management StylesBy Luke O in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)Replies: 0Last Post: 09-30-2015, 02:04 PM
By CuriousFeeling in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)Replies: 1Last Post: 05-24-2015, 02:43 PM
[NT] INTJs vs. INTPsBy MerkW in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)Replies: 52Last Post: 09-05-2009, 04:46 PM
By Seamrog in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)Replies: 43Last Post: 10-12-2008, 08:34 AM
By The Ü™ in forum Welcomes and IntroductionsReplies: 19Last Post: 06-07-2007, 01:18 PM