Let me reverse that for you: > - don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple qu

Let me reverse that for you: > - don't directly address the point of your question / provide a much complex answer (or even worse, a non-answer) to a simple question - Discusses a point that is not relevant to the subject matter / Expects simple answers to complex questions > - don't stay focused to the point of the discussion - Overly rigid and unable to explore the problem space / Keeps bike-shedding unimportant detail > - don't have some level of clarity in their train of thought and speech - Expects fully formed thoughts and opinions on a new topic > - generally over-complicate matters by wandering off to other related subjects and extending the scope of the discussion - Unable to follow discussion through related topics and unwilling to consider the broader perspective -- There is also a big individual difference, during discussion, some people will quietly think out their entire argument, reach a conclusion and present it, they "think to talk". However, another group of people cannot do this to any useful extend, and will have to speak to make their arguments and conclusions. I am in the latter group, in a discussion, I write (or speak) to think, I'm simply unable to prepare an entirey line of reasoning and then present it, I must make it up as I go, and this naturally leads to a bit of redundancy, backtracking and "moving around" the subject matter before reaching a conclusion. Just like it is unreasonable of me to expect you (the think-to-talk type) to externalize your entire internal chain of thought, it is unreasonable of you to expect me to internalize mine.