In Myers-Briggs, xNTP's (ENTP's & INTP's) and xNFJ's (INFJ's & ENFJ's) both see multiple perspectives, and they both use logical analysis to decide which of those perspectives make the most sense.
As an ENTP, that's awesome, but it can get in the way too sometimes.
We ENTP's might be known online as edgelord debaters (consequences be damned!).
But a lot of those memes are created by teenagers (or other types who have projected their wounding onto typology).
Debate is still fun. But I'm an adult ENTP with a professional career.
When my reputation is on the line, sharing ideas that haven't been exhaustively thought through can feel scarier.
I'm lucky enough to be respected in certain circles due to the knowledge and expertise I've worked to develop.
And there's a voice in my head that says: My reputation is that I'm someone people can rely on for accuracy.
When I write about something, they trust that I've done my research. I've explored many perspectives, and I cite my sources.
Writing about complex subjects (like anti-racism, crypto, or COVID safety), I often end up with massive 5,000-word blog posts.
Part of that is good: It's because I have a legitimate desire to avoid missing the important nuances of a topic.
But there's also a part of me that's afraid of being embarrassed.
What if someone points out a flaw in my logic? What if there's a glaring hole I missed?
To protect myself, I often spend weeks editing and polishing so that there are no leaks for anyone to find.
Each personality type will have a different specific fear around this:
For ENTP's, it might be that my voice won't be welcome anymore;
For INTP's, it might be being proved logically incorrect;
For INFJ's, it might be harsh self-judgment for making a mistake;
For ENFJ's, it might be being looked down on by social connections;
So how do we typically protect ourselves?
Over-explain (e.g., those massive blog posts) to make sure you've covered every angle, or
Keep quiet and simply not share your ideas online.
Here's why I'm trying out the opposite instead:
This is Day 2 of my journey through the #ship30for30 challenge to write a short post every day for 30 days.
That means no time for hours of editing and polishing.
I've realized what "armoring up" with my giant over-explaining posts costs me:
They take forever to write and edit. And even then, the huge posts might still not be "perfect." I usually spend many more hours polishing a post than writing the first draft. But just releasing the first draft (or a lightly-polished version) would probably give my readers at least 80% of the benefit (and much sooner too).
As xNTP's and xNFJ's, it's easy to think that our logical analysis (the Ti cognitive function) is objectively accurate. But without external input, our logic is only based on our own personal experience. To improve our accuracy, we need feedback—meaning frequent short posts, not infrequent longer ones.
If I release a shorter post with imperfections, that actually invites interaction. If a reader points out something I missed, that's not a bad thing. It's actually great because it shows that someone read it and cared enough to comment. It's a sign that I'm on the right track with my writing.
By the way, there's still very much a place in the world for longer posts (e.g., if one of my shorter posts gets a lot of traction, I can expand it).
But it's valuable for me to practice working under different constraints sometimes.
(And I'm actually cheating a bit here because these 30 short posts are supposed to be less than 250 words. This one is shaping up to be around 600... oops. But better than my usual 5,000!)
Thanks for reading. Now, what about you? Are you in the habit of over-explaining in your writing or speaking?