INTP=Long Posts?

[Words]

I've been wondering about this. And I've made a thread for it but people mistakenly(perhaps not) took it as a personal question survey than a discussion of theory of into personality tendency. I'm intellect-wise young and just recently learned of MBTI and other categorizations of personality so I'm not sure I can contribute anything. With Jungian cognitive functions/processes, Ne and Ti are mainly involved. How they actually form long posts is what I don't get. I'm hoping someone with enough understanding would advice.

 

[Toad]

I hate long posts. If I have to scroll down to see your whole post, I just won't read it unless it is a response to one of my posts.

Summarize guys!!!

 

[Auburn]

At least for myself..
My Ti is long-winded because it attempts not to leave out any parts of a concept, and finds it important to portray a complete understanding of how it perceives it. The goal of Ti is to make it's statements as close to truth/axiom as possible; able to stand on their own - as a timeless proverb.

If I don't include all the disclaimers, I feel someone will come by and pick at the 'holes' in my reasoning. It makes it easier to patch those holes from the very start than to have them exposed later, and then need to elaborate when the confusion could have easily been avoided. A great percent of my posts are composed of patches/disclaimers.

And Ne provides the fuel which Ti breaks down, dissects, and analyzes - then presents the complete results of it's analysis in an extensive diagnosis of why certain possibilities wont work, why others are more likely to work, or why others will indeed work.

 

[Negative Space]

How we form long posts is a simple matter...we type lots of words.

Of course if you are asking why...I would wager to say (imo of course) that this is due to more of an in depth understanding of the subject matter (whatever it is the NT types are discussing) that leads NTs (INTPs in particular) to describe and discuss what they are talking about to a greater level of detail than other types, particularly when compared to S types.

On a slight relevant tangent, this is something that I have been mulling over for a while recently. The general level of in depth understanding so necessary for NTs is considered by the more common MBTI types to be excessive and quite annoying. Most people just want the basics, the bottom line. To NTs in general (myself specifically) understanding why the bottom line (or summary) is what it is...is many times more important the the point itself.

My personal opinion is because NTs prefer not to take things at face value, and that includes everything from face to face interaction to forum postings. Reading in between the lines so to speak. In fact, many times I enjoy reading long posts not so much for their content specifically but because of what the writing style and sentence formation tells about the poster. Once I have a feel for the type of writer/person the poster is, I can better decide how to digest the information they are serving me....this creates a more detailed and complex understanding of the subject matter in general.

In comparison:

Generally speaking, if another type reads a long post (s types in particular), they will probably just get annoyed with all the extra words...even if they read over every single word they more than likely lump entire paragraphs into specific summaries in their head. NTs do this as well, but I believe other types to be more prone to a black and white mentality of things, and thus do not require as much background information relevant to the ultimate summary of the post.

Just my two cents.

 

[cuterebra]

I'm with Toad on this one--even INTPs should do some self-editing! If a word doesn't add clarity, it's superfluous.

My leisure time is limited, so I tend to skip/skim through posts that don't get to the point. My posts tend toward brevity for the same reason.

 

[Kuu]

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia

or

~ The Fear of Very Long Words ~

::: A THEORY :::

Relative to the aforementioned Words and Other Similar Constructs commonly involved in the Creation of The Written Word, rigorously adhering to the most strict of Methodologies as is Proper to Science, with the Overall Intent to Dispel the prevailing Animosity to such Things, thus leading to Better Comprehension of the Communication between Independent Entities and the General Increase of Knowledge about all Matters Literate, for the Benefit of None and the Chagrin of Many.​

by

Misanthropist Extraordinaire,
Notorious Necrophiliacmancer,
Posthuman Philosopher,
Knight in Sour Armor,
Paladin of Science,
Head Priest(ess) of the Cult of loveofReason,
First Duchess of #INTPforum.com,
Grand Master of the Order of The Tentacle,
Heir Apparent to the Thrones of Madness, Despair, and Misery,
Destroyer of Suns,
Kuurruptor of Minors,
Creator of Cyborgs,
Baker of Poisoned Cookies,
Great Old One and Ruler of R'lyeh,
Her Most Aberrant Deviantness:

Promiskuus Kuu​

• • •
​

AS IS NOTICEABLE by even the most inexperienced of observers, the ignorant people, who undoubtedly are a plague upon our times, cannot seem to contain their 'emotions' when presented with a word of sizable length, of the kind that might be common for persons of higher enlightenment and superior intellect to utilize, and therefore proceed to express what is best referred to as 'fear', which is the evident reason why after a certain amount of letters they consider the most preposterous thought that perhaps it would have been for the greater good to had utilized a smaller word, and further, they exhibit an even greater and more confounding desire when confronted with a sentence of considerable longevity, to which they would rather put by the means of a grotesque period, to a most violent end, destroying the beauty and flowing grace that can only be brought by the comma, of which the ancients made much use, and to perchance start another one in the odd chance that the complexity of the thoughts therein written would be simpler to discern with their feeble minds, but, as it is obvious to all of us with the knowledge and experience which has been rightfully bestowed upon us, they would soon after encounter such a relentless stream of sentences, each awkwardly separate from the next, yet united in a wall of text insurmountable by the minuscule capacity of their minds, upon which they will once again resume their 'fear' and proclaim the most foul insults for as long as their energy is not depleted, which is fortunately a short moment, after which the most insidious and troglodytic of them of them might then dare continue the unwholesome folly by proclaiming that the literary framework that forms the structure of the message lacks another hierarchical level, a most risible idea, claiming that the average human brain digests data in packets of a certain apparently arbitrary small size, nested within each other on several different scales, and that if these packets are not taken into account the information saturation will render the message increasingly harder to process as the scale of the data surpasses the limit set by the packet, and thus, they arrogantly assert, that to facilitate communication everyone should therefore restrict themselves by a loathsome convention that dictates the segmentation of such admirable long-running prose such as this into ever clearer and more arbitrary groups, ad nauseum, and they even presume that the success of such system, of which naturally there can be none, could even rest not only in the simplification of the written word, but also on the supposed importance of the so called visual component, and even, perhaps the most absurd of the whole litany of nonsense, that there might be a certain mathematical proportion to the length of the packets, considerably susceptible to the geometry of the space upon which they are contained, which they also claim is a rule that happens to appear on everything in existence and serves as a foundational concept to the realization of a fully objective system of aesthetic perception, a summary of which I shall write expediently and concisely in another occasion, concerned now solely with the description of this most curious phenomenon of 'fear of long words' and other similar constructs, approaching in this moment to its untimely conclusion, and after which follows an example of such despicable system as previously described so that the current Scientific understanding of the matter be rendered fully, said example I have bound in tags of spoiler lest the unsuspecting be caught suddenly by the wretched hideousness of it, an action I hope my distinguished fellow readers will appreciate immensely, for they shall be reviewing this text many times in hopes of elucidating further understanding upon this most perplexing 'fear', of which surely a consensus will be reached soon concerning the nature of it, and to which goal I humbly present this theory as a suitable candidate.

Spoiler

My suggestion for long posters would thus be best summarized by the popular saying: "DIVIDE AND CONQUER".

Strategies for achieving the aforementioned victory involve the use of advanced verbal combat methods as diverse as:
(1) large section headers,
(2) moar line breaks,
(3) spoiler tags for large tangents,
(4) colors for sections / distinct trains of thought / emphasis,
(5) numbered lists,
(6) all caps


I know this is pretty basic formatting stuff, but still I felt it is sometimes necessary to restate the obvious, as well as the necessity to satisfy my relentless desire to annoy people by making this post even longer than it already is.

Brevity is certainly a desirable goal, and economy of language is paramount, but even with those, certain subjects require lengthy explanations... ^__^

Fun Fact: it has come to my attention that amongst the many words I abuse, I can now proudly add massive to the list

This was a pain to write, so you must better suffer reading it , and if you didn't read it and jumped straight here, you suck, and shall be now taken as a specimen for further study. ¬_¬

*firehazard I'm looking at you*

 

[echoplex]

^ Kuu, that may be the most awesome tl;dr I've ever come across.

Then again, I didn't read all of it, so I can't be sure.

 

[Oblivious]

I have not written a long post in ages.

 

[BigApplePi]

"How they actually form long posts is what I don't get?", you ask.

Answer: by the ability to go after details.

 

[MattKelevra]

Love of details. Makes texting or chatting with friends kind of annoying to them sometimes I think.

I'm actually annoyed when people don't write enough. It's just a waste of my time having to ask them for more details.

 

[Chimera]

I always contradict myself too much when I start typing. My flow of thought is very convulted and hard to follow sometimes, so I feel like I do a lot of backtracking and unnecessary explaining/specifying.
Then again, I don't exactly post enough for it to be noticed. ​

 

[ohrtonz]

It is the same as when we ramble on about something and then finally say it again to where it makes sense in a shorter version. There is so much data, we write long posts. Unless it is a previous thought, we will be typing as we come up with the response. Only after it is all explained in a long post can we then summarize. I suppose going back and reducing it all is too much effort. Once we have typed it all, we might as well leave it because information is good!

 

[Murphy1d]

Yes.

 

[bananaphallus]

Terseness is arrogant.

^see?

Typically the prolix-and-wandering, imo, is more interesting to read than the 'to the point' and effectively concise, e.g., lab reports/scientific studies, how much fun are they to read? (although I guess it would depend on what you're looking for, but I'm judging solely by the expressivity of the writing) Not very, in fact, I'd rather kill myself than read a lab report.

Although I guess it's a fine line between saying something worthwhile and just filling up sentences with stupid, meaningless words. I don't know where I stand on this.

 

[Jennywocky]

Love of details.

For me, it's a need to include nuance and context for everything... or to write in a way that creates tone and ambiance.


... baker of poisoned cookies?

 

[Chimera]

Love of details.

Love of reason.
(Where has she run off to...?)​

 

[Negative Space]

For me, it's a need to include nuance and context for everything... or to write in a way that creates tone and ambiance.

Basically what I was trying to say above. I love it when other people summarize for me.

 

[Kuu]

... baker of poisoned cookies?

It's an irc thing.

/me gives Jenny some cookies. You should try them, they're to die for.

 

[Rain]

I write what I want to get across. Nothing more and nothing less. Usually it is brief and to the point. Efficient right?

 

[Dead But Dreaming]

I'm actually annoyed when people don't write enough. It's just a waste of my time having to ask them for more details.

Yes. Usually on forums people just form their opinion and state them ("summarize"). Long posts on this forum are often deep explanations and justifications of these opinions, and that's what I appreciate. There are no many benefits of just knowing external manifestation of somebody's thought aside of recognizing or enjoying some social context. OK, such opinion can inspire to see things in different way making new thoughts and justifying or explaining them further, but it's only inspiration, not meaning itself.

It's nice idea to write exactly what is nessecary to explain and justify thought, but there's no certain way to know when to stop writing, because some thoughts can be potentially explained and developed further and more detallically, and INTPs are good in doing it. And for INTP it's easier to see inconsistencies in his statement and work on them, than to see when/if it's nessecary to stop it.

BTW, by thought/opinion I mean statement that is meant to tell something important about world.

 

[lafmeche]

I'm with Toad on this one--even INTPs should do some self-editing! If a word doesn't add clarity, it's superfluous.

My leisure time is limited, so I tend to skip/skim through posts that don't get to the point. My posts tend toward brevity for the same reason.

This is mostly true for me, as well.

Yes. Usually on forums people just form their opinion and state them ("summarize"). Long posts on this forum are often deep explanations and justifications of these opinions, and that's what I appreciate. There are no many benefits of just knowing external manifestation of somebody's thought aside of recognizing or enjoying some social context. OK, such opinion can inspire to see things in different way making new thoughts and justifying or explaining them further, but it's only inspiration, not meaning itself.

Explanations are great, but sometimes people type huge answers even for simple questions, which gets excessive. Especially in a long, fast-moving thread, it can make it needlessly difficult to follow a discussion when you only have a few minutes at a time to read.

It's nice idea to write exactly what is nessecary to explain and justify thought, but there's no certain way to know when to stop writing, because some thoughts can be potentially explained and developed further and more detallically, and INTPs are good in doing it. And for INTP it's easier to see inconsistencies in his statement and work on them, than to see when/if it's nessecary to stop it.

There's no certain way to know when to stop, that's true. Honestly though, if you fill up my whole monitor (normal sized text, reasonably high resolution), you may have typed too much. I'm not sure how to address that because people do have interesting things to say and I'm not about to ask people (much less INTPs) to simplify their posts. I'll just leave everyone with one of my favorite quotes:

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I usually use the quote for engineering related things (I'm an engineer), but he was a French writer and I have to assume he was talking about writing when he said it.

 

[Lyra]

Intra-systemic communication facilitates brevity.

Trans-systemic communication requires the explanation of systemic context.

Most posts are somewhere between the two, or are made between multiple systems which bear enough equivalence* that they may be treated as nearly intra-systemic.

Some posts require length if they are not to be misinterpreted as the intra-systemic communication of something entirely different than they actually are: too few words allows their meaning to be assumed to be the nearest intra-systemic fit. Enough words force the recognition of their trans-systemic nature, and, rarely, an attempt to understand the systemic context from which they originate.

---

*Or are similar enough human sub-systems of larger socio-physiological systems.

 

[Loozer]

i don't type long post or read long posts.... when its too much text i just pick another thread,
like this one... i kinda only read the title

 

[Thread Killer]

Some INTPs make long posts. Some don't. So there is no correlation. This is based on personal observation.

 

[boradicus]

Love of details. Makes texting or chatting with friends kind of annoying to them sometimes I think.

I'm actually annoyed when people don't write enough. It's just a waste of my time having to ask them for more details.

yay

 

[boradicus]

For me, it's a need to include nuance and context for everything... or to write in a way that creates tone and ambiance.


... baker of poisoned cookies?

Yes to nuance... cookies... ehm...

 

[boradicus]

Intra-systemic communication facilitates brevity.

Trans-systemic communication requires the explanation of systemic context.

Most posts are somewhere between the two, or are made between multiple systems which bear enough equivalence* that they may be treated as nearly intra-systemic.

Some posts require length if they are not to be misinterpreted as the intra-systemic communication of something entirely different than they actually are: too few words allows their meaning to be assumed to be the nearest intra-systemic fit. Enough words force the recognition of their trans-systemic nature, and, rarely, an attempt to understand the systemic context from which they originate.

---

*Or are similar enough human sub-systems of larger socio-physiological systems.

Yes... BUT! Whether intra- or trans- systemic, a complex thought is a complex thought, and a 'new' thought - a truly novel synthesis of thoughts previous, often requires such differentiation, that despite a common contextual basis for interpretation (imagining as it were near similar intra-systemic contexts, as it were - and to use your beautifully succinct description), being quite capable of transcending any currently shared contexts, may require the creation of a completely new context within the framework of those (or to say rather built upon the framework of those) contexts currently mutually held. It is therefore not inconceivable, that within such a context (as above described) that the transmission of information could be quite dense and lengthily convoluted indeed.

As well, it should be well noted that much communication between intelligent lifeforms is unfortunately relegated to the mere building of mutually understood contexts so that when communication of the novel, or communication 'proper' actually occurs, that such thoughts are conveyed accurately, if not some alacrity. Herein lies the bandwidth problem of communication, that for all our novel thoughts, that we may perhaps only be able to effectively share a relative few. And for this reason, it is incumbent upon us to write as much as we can, for in so doing we may convey more masterfully what could well be the contextual basis for communication between ourselves and others as well as for future generations to come. That is to say, if we have anything at all worth being communicated...