You think the conversational branches are needed because they are your process, not because they actually are
Nowhere in my post did I say that they were needed. At all.
They're useful when communicating in some contexts, such as brainstorming, and they're not useful in other contexts.
And, again, I stated that
I tend to
leave out information rather than include extraneous information, so any discussion about such conversational branches,
directed toward me specifically, is moot.
If they were needed why would ESTP be considered the ultimate conversationalist? Edgar even goes so far to say that other types try to pretend to be ESTP just to get a social advantage
Thing is with you guys is you pretty much are better off including everything you want to say rather than finding key points
Even though those key points are what we are looking for, you are always going to find "getting to the point" harder and all the other information will always be included
So, do I include all of the conversational branches that pop in my head, or do I get to the point? You have essentially instructed me to do both, and they're mutually exclusive.
That said, it's often harder for me to get to the point. And that's exactly why I usually take my time so that I have a focused, direct line of reasoning to reach my conclusion.
For the record, a majority of my friends are NFs
I think this whole "communication barrier" with the N/S thing is overrated
I'd like to know why I never hear S's complaining about it
Though thats the whole N thing isn't it? "I'm so misunderstood"
If it helps I'm sorry you were born in a human body with hands and feet and being able to sense when really you wanted to be a brain in a jar dreaming
If you're addressing me specifically, you're generalizing more than you should be. If this is the case, then you're lumping me in with all other NFs, in that we must necessarily think alike. As you do so, consider that you don't want SPs to be lumped in with SJs.
I view communication as a two-way street. I try to accommodate those around me. The method I outlined works for some people and not others.
With some, I don't ask them personal questions before launching into a personal discussion; they'd view it as a waste of time. Others are looking for that connection; I can sense it, so I give it to them.
By and large, however, the method I outlined my "default" mode when talking to a group of people all at once.
Note also that I didn't state that my method was always how I talked to sensors, or that I only talk that way
to sensors. I even explicitly stated that I talk to many people I'd label intuitives in the same way, and I gave my reasons why.