I do think being concise is a real INTj talent when they focus on it.
I do think being concise is a real INTj talent when they focus on it.
Rambling becomes a natural problem for LII when circumstances require that they externalize their thought process. But in all cases, LII are typically economic with their words.Originally Posted by labcoat
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Just for the record, I don't have anything remote to this problem.
Don't you wonder why? (ps because you wouldn't have this problem as an LII)
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Years of experience with socionics have made evident to me that there is a lot of variation possible within the confines of a single type.Don't you wonder why? (ps because you wouldn't have this problem as an LII)
Yes -- there are two main reasons for why I can't be as concise as I would wish.
The first is that my aim isn't to convey an idea to someone else, but to relate an idea with perfect correctness. For example, I rarely speak in absolutes, even if it's perfectly normal to do so. A politician might say something like, "Despite our political differences, we all love America"; if I were in such a position, I would say, "While our political viewpoints may inform our opinion of America, causing those with more radical outlooks to be more prone to disgruntlement, the majority of Americans nonetheless have a nationalistic attachment to their country" (obviously, I'm not a politician). I also structure my sentences in a rather unnatural way -- while other people have a rather direct way of speaking, I have a tendency to use appositives, varied verb tenses, unnecessarily long clarifying phrases, and other linguistic quirks that give my speech a more meandering quality. I think I do so because I care about the accuracy of my statements to a ridiculous extent, inducing me to choose my words as I go along so as to minimize ambiguity.
The second is that I wish to relate many issues to some underlying, fundamental principles, to give broad overviews, and to examine issues from multiple perspectives. So if someone were to ask me about (say) a political matter, I would refer to the pertinent axioms in justifying my stance and would place the matter in the proper empirical context; moreover, I would do the same for certain contrary views to illustrate their shortcomings. If someone were to ask me about unemployment, I might reply, "Unemployment isn't a problem per se; rather, the problem is that many people are unable to earn a livelihood. We do not need to ensure that everyone toils for a certain amount of hours per week, but that everyone has access to a comfortable standard of living. Therefore, unemployment is only a problem insofar as its impact cannot be ameliorated by other means, such as a social safety net". I might then go on to explain the structural reasons for unemployment by pointing to the increases in output that accompanied the rise of mechanized labor and did not require any considerable amount of additional manpower. I would also show how it was in the interest of businessmen to have a high unemployment rate, as a greater supply of labor would lower its price by making people more desperate for jobs and more willing to tolerate worse employment conditions. Given this basis, I could then describe why tax cuts misidentify the central problem -- the inadequacy of the economic system to distribute benefits equitably -- and therefore would have a deleterious effect on the economic situation. The amount of time I focus on each point (whether principles, overviews, and alternative views) varies from topic to topic; on political issues, I might largely neglect the first point while on philosophical issues I might neglect the second. The general theme, however, is that I want to impart to my listener a greater understanding of the topic we are discussing.
Also, I have a (probably annoying) habit of saying things like, "I understand your idea, but consider the following: blah, blah, blah...", whereby I put my audience to sleep with my long-winded pedantry.
On the other hand, I can be quite concise in certain circumstances. I don't focus on what I believe to be minor details; if someone gives an overly ponderous explanation of something, I am good at weeding out the fluff and rephrasing the idea in a more succinct form. Basically (from my perspective), my problem isn't that I say unnecessary things, but that I have many necessary things to say, and I necessarily have to present them in a logically rigorous manner; others might think that a lot of what I have to say is unnecessary and that I explain it in too complex a manner.
Just abstract it to a higher structure that can account for the outlying data
HAHA
You talk like this yourself jxrtes
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
