I think all introverts prefer written communication, especially with the T function. It's because their thinking tends to be reflective, and writing allows you to do that--as opposed to the spontaneity of conversation, where you might say something that is not as precise or carefully considered as you would want it to be.
I'd generally agree with that. Introverts need a period of reflection, especially T's (to check all their "thinking"), before responding. it gives more control over what one wants to say, so that we know it's accurate.
Some of the more people-centered introverts actually enjoy the warmth/interaction with others, but there's more focused on the relational aspects of the ongoing exchange rather than the technical content.
I'm more careful with what I say around people I know less. The more that someone knows me, the less I need to worry about something being taking incorrectly, so I can be more relaxed and spontaneous in my communication.
I slightly plagiarized a George Carlin bit once, adding my own extras, (the cuss word thing, can't say these words on TV) in the middle of a discussion about racist words/speech and I was taken serious and it got really ugly on the part of the other person (and i was nearly banned because she was a mod!) before she realised she was being silly about my joke. (not here)
Yes, that's one of the things I'm careful about. I've developed enough skill at restraining my natural impulses along those lines around people who might not grasp what I'm doing/saying and misinterpret my character. With people who know me, I tend to veer into humor/joking that those who don't know me might think some terrible things about me if they overheard...It's the dry sense of humor / sarcasm where the humor is saying things that are extremely inappropriate as if serious.
Definitely. "But what about..." is how I do it 90% of the time. Often though it probably sounds like I'm arguing my own point when really just setting up a mental game of tennis so I can learn the game by playing it.
Yes, there's the ability to argue both sides of the debate.
Also, if one side is being heavily pushed in a discussion, I will automatically find myself playing devil's advocate in order to lend balance / push back again the extreme.
Sometimes it sounds like I already have my mind made up because I can present a point of view firmly and even with conviction; but the reality is that I'm more just spitting out the rational answer based on what information is known, so if someone presents new information or a new angle, then my answer will automatically change to accommodate it. So even when I seem to be favoring a side, I'm very open to change if the parameters are changed; it just all has to be coherent to me and fit together.
When they want a discussion, they won't really give you a question or anything.
it's always a prompt. They wont give you a question, they wont give you an emotional point of view to spark your intuition.
its just a prompt and normally, it ends along the lines of "whats your input on this?"
Well, sometimes it's not so clumsily delivered, but basically it's the bent toward autonomy for ourselves and others. I don't want to hear your answer based on my interference; I want to hear your natural answer so that you can bring who you are and your own ideas to the table, and not control the outcome.
Plus, I'm lazy... I mean, efficient. Why waste lots of time on a setup if you're not yet invested? Based on your response, I'll invest a certain level of reply.
