Quote Originally Posted by Logos
But I'm not sure how much is actually type related since it is hard to find students who actually like grades and page requirements (though I do think that since INTjs are structure oriented, they like to have a sort of ballpark estimate, but resent the page requirement itself if it's taken literally). The page requirement was just an example. INTjs are generally to the point, but can suffer in other areas when writing.

For example, I think that when INTjs sometimes present their ideas they see them as being sort of self-evident. This is because they have logically internalized their ideas to such an extent that they have already gone through the arguments in their heads (and often in advance of when they have started the paper). Because of this, INTjs may not properly support their argument with sources and other supplementary reasoning that generally makes for a more cohesive paper. Though I should take this time to say this is merely a level of speculation. Almost all of my high school and collegiate papers have been marked with "Great ideas, excellent analytical and critical thinking, but argument needs more support."
Hell yeah--- look at some of my earlier threads, and even some of my more recent ones. What I underlined at the top is actually the reason why I started the "thread of many small questions"... because I was writing a lot of threads that were so self evident. I played through them so much already that there was nothing to ask, but there was still something I wanted to say, or ask, or thought was important to say, etc, so I posted it anyways.

And INTjs may lack the skill to transition between arguments, not because they can't, but because once they finish an argument they immediately follow to the next. A sort of "It's done. I made my point, and if you don't understand what I'm talking about you're an idiot. So on to my next point." This is obviously an exaggeration, but I do think that there is a level of belief that their ideas should be self-evident.

In a sort of odd twist, I think that INTjs may be better with dealing with people one-on-one than they are with papers, because of the different styles between how an INTj may be accustomed to debating with people and the writing style of papers.

Totally true for me. Because, (......and maybe this has something to do with why Pedro mentions a "mental internet"), I can convey my abstract thoughts best in person, when I can gauge and understand who I am talking to, and relate my concepts to their concepts. Me just stating words really is kind of inefficient, because there are connotations and denotations and all other variables. But at least, in person, I can more easily figure out how to connect my concept to one in your head, and as such actually communicate what I am thinking of. This is especially so when it comes to deeper and more complex things.