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.Originally Posted by Logos
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.