I say, most writing classes say, most compelling authors I know of say.
It's not interesting to be purely conceptual in all things. Experience, and description of it, in addition to the abstract, is far more compelling.
The INTX was not imitating the "SP style." That was his style.
I know what you are saying meshou. But, you are speaking of one INTX. And, yes, I agree that when you are writing a story, especially, that you must have concrete descriptions for writing to be good.
I was refering to what one writes about. Like Carl Rogers is a very typical NF who writes about psychology. As I said, the Self Help book section is filled with NFs writing. The vast majority of novelists and story writers are SP. This is according to stats that have been taken by CAPT. They are not anywhere on the internet, or I'd post a link. But I have a book of stats like this that I purchased through CAPT and anyone here can too. It has stats of all sorts of careers and stuff, and what percentage of types go into those careers and much, much more.
I could write that way, also. It would take a little effort on my part to make sure I include concrete information, but it would take effort. My suggestion and opinion is that the majority of NFs, if they write a book, will write about how to help people. Psychology, self-help books, that sort of thing. Of course, they can and do write other types of things. And when they get out of typical territory, they do great things. It's because they are unique in a different type territory and won't produce the same ole' same ole'. That is true of any type who operates out of their type.
The vast majority of novelists and other types of story writers are SP. And would it not make type sense to say that SPs would indeed include more sensing material and be attracted to that type of writing? And would it not make type sense to say the NFs would be more abstract/meaning writers and focus their writing on helping people?
To me it does make total sense. And the stats do back that up.
But, again, I know what you are saying about good writing. That is writing that is telling a story. What I am saying is that most NFs don't write about that. And good writing can be like Carl Rogers writing, which is great stuff about human psychology, and does not have to include sensing details.
And Johnny Depp was not even writing a story, but introductions. He could have chosen a different way to write. A different approach. A more analytcal approach, or a personal approach about how the book or whatever affected him. I know that if I wrote an introduction to a book it would be from a personal, abstract, how this book affects the world, and how it affects the reader, etc. It would be a totally different way of writing than what Johnny Depp wrote. But it would not, necessarily be "bad" writing. Just not the same kind of approach.
Edit: And remember, I'm not just refering to Johnny Depp's writing when I claim him to be ISFP. I am also referring to the types of movies he is attracted to. "Pirates of the Carribean", "Never, Never Land", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". To me, these are very SP kinds of movies. I like them, but it's not comparable to say, "Dead Poets Society", which includes great depth and meaning. An INFX would be attracted to a different set of movies than I see Johnny Depp in. Also, given that the vast majority of actors are SP, my chances of being right are much greater.