Conflicting types: which types ENFps don't get along with?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

What types do ENFp not get along with? And is it possible for 2 ENFps to not get along?

[Elro]

What types do ENFp not get along with?

Most notably ISTjs, I'd imagine, but there are probably exceptions.

And is it possible for 2 ENFps to not get along?

Yup. Although if you're noticing conflicts with a lot of ENFps, that might be signs of something fishy.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Yup. Although if you're noticing conflicts with a lot of ENFps, that might be signs of something fishy.

I live with two E_FPs. We can get along. One is in authority and one is under mine (at times). The first one I can get have lots of fun with, but she irritates me with her jumping to wrong conclusions/overreacting/hyperness. The second tries to exert authority he doesn't have, which gets on my nerves. I have other issues with him, though, that are more psychological.

[Park]

One is in authority and one is under mine (at times).

As long as you think/reason/act/behave in any form of "authoritarian" or hierarchical way I would probably not get along with you.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

As long as you think/reason/act/behave in any form of "authoritarian" or hierarchical way I would probably not get along with you.

*laughs* Authority simply is. *realizes what's she's getting into here* I dunno. I have no problem with authority as long as it doesn't restrict me from doing what I want to.

[xyz]

ENFp's hate dream killers and nay sayers.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

ENFp's hate dream killers and nay sayers.

*grins* Sometimes the dream needed to be killed or the nay needed to be said... but I get what you're saying. *shrugs* I have a tendency to rain on someone's parade if I think they're being unrealistic. That said, it's not pleasant to be on the receiving end.

[Park]

ENFp's hate dream killers and nay sayers.

I don't like 'em either.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Are you talking about a rational sort (sometimes I've got to be shot down for realism's sake, but it still hurts) or an irrational sort (don't tell me it won't work even if it won't)?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Are you talking about a rational sort (sometimes I've got to be shot down for realism's sake, but it still hurts) or an irrational sort (don't tell me it won't work even if it won't)?

I don't believe in killing dreams. Infact I would encourage people to have them. I would be concerned with the practical steps to make that dream into a reality for the person. I'd be more inclined to approach that practicality from a positive rather than negative..ie here's what we *can* do it rather than how we can't do it. But then the reality of the dream, and hence the effort required to make it so, is proportional to how much that idea means to the person, so the more important, the more I would encourage, by presenting what I see as practical suggestions to obtain that, ie if it was really important to them I would back them all the way

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Hm. Provided I know the person well enough, I have little problem bursting their bubble is the thing seems impractical or impossible. For example, my mother has this very expensive house that she wants. She sees "great house". I see "house we have to clean" and "very expensive bills". This said, I haven't seen the inside of the house .To me, the situation is very impractical, and seriously, where are we gonna get that kind of money? In another situation: I love music and writing. Given the chance, I'd do them the rest of my life. However, I know how much money they don't make, usually. Therefore, it's a dream, and I really wish it could come true, but I don't see how. Right now, I'm looking for something that will support my habit, as I don't see my habit supporting me (save a miniscule chance, which I'm not hoping for).

In short, I think there's nothing wrong with realism.

[Park]

I don't believe in killing dreams. Infact I would encourage people to have them. I would be concerned with the practical steps to make that dream into a reality for the person. I'd be more inclined to approach that practicality from a positive rather than negative..ie here's what we *can* do it rather than how we can't do it. But then the reality of the dream, and hence the effort required to make it so, is proportional to how much that idea means to the person, so the more important, the more I would encourage, by presenting what I see as practical suggestions to obtain that, ie if it was really important to them I would back them all the way

+1

[xyz]

I don't believe in killing dreams. Infact I would encourage people to have them. I would be concerned with the practical steps to make that dream into a reality for the person. I'd be more inclined to approach that practicality from a positive rather than negative..ie here's what we *can* do it rather than how we can't do it. But then the reality of the dream, and hence the effort required to make it so, is proportional to how much that idea means to the person, so the more important, the more I would encourage, by presenting what I see as practical suggestions to obtain that, ie if it was really important to them I would back them all the way

Yeah man there's enough negatism in this world. There's being 'real', but there's also being 'positive' about being real. You know? YOU KNOW?!

[Park]

It's funny how negative I can be sometimes. When things I plan, hope and work for start going down the abyss I became negative, begin showing frustration and complaining. But I always try to remain outwardly positive and try not to pass my negativism to others around. Important to note is that I am periodically negative only about myself and my dreams, never about others'. To others I try to be as supportive and encouraging as I can be.

[xyz]

It's funny how negative I can be sometimes. When things I plan, hope and work for start going down the abyss I became negative, begin showing frustration and complaining. But I always try to remain outwardly positive and try not to pass my negativism to others around. Important to note is that I am periodically negative only about myself and my dreams, never about others'.

Haha I was just about to add that.

[jewels]

as for types that ENFPs clash with...

This is from my experience only, so take it with a grain of salt.

I've gotten along with all ENFPs, but there have been some miscommunications. And it has bothered me because i know they lose interest in things as quickly as i do, and that made me rather insecure trying to date them. I've been friends with probably 5 or 6 male ENFPs, but have only met about one ENFP girl, so am not sure if I'd get along w/ the girls or not.

The worst type for me is ENFJ. When they're happy it's great fun. But nothing scares me more than an upset ENFJ...wow. Something about those mood swings make me kinda terrified. ENFJ comments sting. They usually only say really negative things when I'm aleady on the defense. It's definitely a mutual uncomfortable-ness.

ISTJs I find easier to deal with, because they're so upfront and straight forward. So I can clearly tell them "no, I don't want to" and they won't be offended. Where as an ENFJ will try to convince me of something and I feel if I say no, they will get their feelings hurt and start to yell at me.

Generally I don't click with ESTPs at all. They kinda glare at me like I'm up to something and they want to make sure I don't make them look bad. Unless I play dumb, in which case they sometimes like me.

ENTPs are frustrating because they are sooo fun! And I want to become close to them, but then it's always hurtful to actually get closer. They don't do it on purpose, it's just the Fi difference.

INFPs I like in theory, but I can't seem to hold much of a conversation with ones I don't already know well. I have some family member INFPs who are very talkative with me and they're great, but new INFPs I have a hard time thinking what to say to them.

Just about every other type I get along with pretty well for friends/aquaintances.

[mikemex]

The type I find most irritating is SLE. They are obstinate to the bone and don't really care about being right or wrong; they only care about pushing their view. Some are so obstinate that, when you're talking to them, they don't even bother to look at you, because they simply ignore what they don't like.

[ataronchronon]

My dad is an LSI, my bro is IEE. They don't get along at all. I would say my dad is always trying to "straighten him out" and commit to something while my brother is always trying to break free and explore everything. They don't really talk much anymore.

[schrödinger's cat]

I've clashed with ENFjs and ESTps and INFps, but only once we'd started being friends. I'd guess they'd be OK as casual acquaintances if we kept enough distance.

That's nearly the whole of Beta. I'm kind of surprised that I don't clash with ISTjs. Germany is said to be ISTj, though, so maybe that makes me able to deal with ISTjs better? Moreover, they're so different that it's easier.

[Slacker]

I'm volunteering for an ISTj librarian at my daughter's school. We get along OK because it's her library, and I understand that it's my job to support her however she needs support and therefore I do everything her way.

When I have worked with ISTjs where we're on a more equal level, and particularly where we have to make decisions together, it hasn't worked well. We always want to do things differently and we think the other person's idea of how to do something is stupid or wrong.

[tiny_dancer]

Yeah, I think the reason I get along pretty well with the 2 I do, is because I haven't been given the opportunity to piss them off.. haha One is my office manager, so our realms of work don't really cross. In some ways it's pretty symbiotic, b/c she LOVES routine work, so if I give her a stack of shop drawings with notes that need to be copied, oh, 100 times, she's like, "Score!" and I think "Hallelujah.. you just saved my sanity." She hates the graphic design stuff, so she gives it to me... and it just works. That type of thing isn't possible in a relationship.

If we were to organize something together... not exactly sure what would happen! Probably the same conflict that arises when I work too closely with the ENFj.

Also, I think part of the reason we get along pretty well is that she's been married to an ISTp for 20 years, so she just seems much softer than some ISTjs I've met. Maybe that has nothing to do with it, but some ISTjs have such strong personas that I can instantly be set on edge. She doesn't do that to me.

I also appreciate the fact that she welcomes people to the office with a little Fe. The firm heads are quite introverted and have a habit of hiring someone, telling none of us, and dumping the unceremoniously at a desk before disappearing themselves. We're a small firm, so group introductions are important. If everyone is caught up in deadlines and meetings and doesn't make enough of an effort to get to know the new guy, the person usually ends up looking for another job within 2 days. Luckily this time she convinced the firm heads to take the office out to lunch (and actually show up themselves!!), so I think this particular new guy is going to stay.

Aaanyway, speaking of work...

[force my hand]

ENFp's hate dream killers and nay sayers.

The type I find most irritating is SLE. They are obstinate to the bone and don't really care about being right or wrong; they only care about pushing their view. Some are so obstinate that, when you're talking to them, they don't even bother to look at you, because they simply ignore what they don't like.

From what I've seen, this theme is very accurate. In daily affairs it's not necessarily so broad-scoped that ENFps dislike dream-killers (although that would at times certainly come into play). I think the effect is more subtle - rather that their open-ended methods and hunches continually get shot down by those who have difficulty either thinking beyond what's in front of their nose, or not valuing it. The ENFp sees it as pointless skepticism - arguing for the sake of arguing - and may feel that the other person thinks they are just stupid.

[meatburger]

I only do that to people who are assholes about pushing their views on me. They're probably just doing it because you're pissing them off.

This actually happened to me at an INTj's party i went to a few weeks back. This dude there who seemed to posess some form of Se wouldn't even look at me when i was talking to him. If i asked him a question he just looked straight ahead and answered breifly. I found it so rude. He was very outgoing and confident and i was trying to work out if he was SLE or ESI.

Herzy wouldn't know as shes clearly one of the nicer ESTp's

[mikemex]

Well, it happened to me the day I posted it, so I had it fresh in my memory. I saw a car accident between two girls and the one who hit (A) tried to blackmail the other (B) for not having insurance, because the fine for driving a car without insurance is somewhat high.

I stepped in and supported the (B) girl, telling (A) that, if needed, I would testify. Then told (B) that it would be better for her to pay the other girl a fraction of the amount they charge in each incident instead of going to the police and have to pay the fine. That would be beneficial for both in the end.

So I essentially transformed a confrontation between two parties who looked one another like enemies and didn't want to move from their position a bit (or in other words, "all or nothing") into a situation where both cooperated to find a solution to serve their respective interests.

All was great. They were happy with the arrangement, but just before they were about to sign, the SLE brother of (B) comes out and tells (A) straight "my sister didn't hit so she's not paying a cent". Note how he didn't know a shit about the situation (for example, he didn't see the accident himself) but he was already pushing everyone to accept his view (which for SLEs is generally pretty simple: anything which doesn't benefit me is wrong). I tried to explain that his sister would eventually pay more by the fine, but the idiot just started to ignore me.

Conclusion: the (B) girl paid the fine and they returned to look one another like enemies in a trial.

[Kim]

I stepped in and supported the (B) girl, telling (A) that, if needed, I would testify. Then told (B) that it would be better for her to pay the other girl a fraction of the amount they charge in each incident instead of going to the police and have to pay the fine. That would be beneficial for both in the end.

I don't understand this. A fraction of what amount charged by who?

And I am with the brother, she should not have to pay anything. I would rather pay the fine than giving that blackmailing bitch anything.

[mikemex]

You did not understand. I didn't tell (B) "yeah, give on with the blackmail". I told both parties that just because they had an accident they didn't have to look at each other like enemies. It was better if they cooperated to find a solution that was best for both. The situation was as follows:

(A) Had full coverage insurance, (B) did not have any insurance. Insurance companies charge a "deductible" in each incident. So, if the accident was, say, $1000, (A) would only pay 5%, or $50. My solution was (B) to give (A) $25 and in return get a letter stating that (A) assumes full responsibility for the incident. $25 is nothing, just a symbolic act to show that there is good disposition toward each other. But it saves (B) about $50 as the fine for driving without insurance is around $75.

We live in a society and no society works if people don't respect the principle of solidarity. By giving the other girl some money we do exactly the same as we do when paying taxes: contributing to the welfare of the society at large and ultimately, our own. Thinking that only the person responsible for an accident should pay for it is like thinking that only the person who uses a road should pay for it. How far would you get from your home that way?

It's because we contribute without thinking in our immediate benefit that societies work.

[xyz]

Well I admit that I occasionally do what that guy did at the party. The circumstance that pops into my head immediately is that this really annoying / ugly guy in several of my classes keeps trying to talk to me, and he never shuts the fuck up. The reason I wouldn't look at him was because I'm trying to get him to take the hint that I don't want to talk to him. I admit its rude, but it's a lot better than leading him on. And I think it's finally working. So yeah, there's usually a valid reason behind it, although this guy you talked to could've just been a jerk in general. Don't take it too personally.

Anyways, I highly doubt that it's strictly limited to SLEs though. I've certainly seen people of other types doing what you just mentioned to other people.

For being a direct personality... you sure aren't very direct

[Kim]

You did not understand. I didn't tell (B) "yeah, give on with the blackmail". I told both parties that just because they had an accident they didn't have to look at each other like enemies. It was better if they cooperated to find a solution that was best for both. The situation was as follows:

(A) Had full coverage insurance, (B) did not have any insurance. Insurance companies charge a "deductible" in each incident. So, if the accident was, say, $1000, (A) would only pay 5%, or $50. My solution was (B) to give (A) $25 and in return get a letter stating that (A) assumes full responsibility for the incident. $25 is nothing, just a symbolic act to show that there is good disposition toward each other. But it saves (B) about $50 as the fine for driving without insurance is around $75.

We live in a society and no society works if people don't respect the principle of solidarity. By giving the other girl some money we do exactly the same as we do when paying taxes: contributing to the welfare of the society at large and ultimately, our own. Thinking that only the person responsible for an accident should pay for it is like thinking that only the person who uses a road should pay for it. How far would you get from your home that way?

It's because we contribute without thinking in our immediate benefit that societies work.

I understood that you didn't suggest to give into the blackmail, but why in the world would I want to support a person who was perfectly willing to blackmail me and NOT assume responsibility for her mistakes? Why in the world should a person who was trying to weasel herself out of taking responsibility for her mistake receive money from the one who suffers from that mistake?? I am all for solidarity, but I am also for taking responsibility for your mistakes and not make the victim pay for it.

For me it is not about what works best for all involved. It is about not rewarding someone for not taking responsibility for her mistakes. If she had taken responsibility from the get-go and the scenario suggested by you had been the result of negotiation, fine. But in this case, I would not give her a dime. Why would she have to pay A in exchange for A to do what she should feel obligated to do, namely assume responsibility?

Ti vs Fi perhaps?

[xyz]

You could try being nice? Although I admit some guys don't take the hint when being told directly either.

[mikemex]

I understood that you didn't suggest to give into the blackmail, but why in the world would I want to support a person who was perfectly willing to blackmail me and NOT assume responsibility for her mistakes? Why in the world should a person who was trying to weasel herself out of taking responsibility for her mistake receive money from the one who suffers from that mistake?? I am all for solidarity, but I am also for taking responsibility for your mistakes and not make the victim pay for it.

For me it is not about what works best for all involved. It is about not rewarding someone for not taking responsibility for her mistakes. If she had taken responsibility from the get-go and the scenario suggested by you had been the result of negotiation, fine. But in this case, I would not give her a dime. Why would she have to pay A in exchange for A to do what she should feel obligated to do, namely assume responsibility?

Ti vs Fi perhaps?

It's strange for you because you're looking at it too abstractly. Real people is a bit more complicated. One thing is clear though: there are never easy answers in life; every decision costs us something.

You're assuming that (A) was totally wrong and (B) totally right but things weren't that way. Both tried to blackmail the other in one way or another. And in my opinion, it's perfectly normal that people treats their perceived enemies that way.

(A) did not do it for the money; she wasn't going to lose much anyway: she had full insurance. She did what she did for the same reason you're telling me that you would prefer to pay the fine than to give money to the other party: a sense of dignity. It's the same action, but a different motivation. It's not some evil act as you think; it's just that (A) genuinely believed that she did not hit.

It's impossible to reach an agreement between parties if they are not willing to move from their position. What I did is to suggest (B) a way to show (A) a good disposition by offering her to pay a part of the deductible. This had a positive effect in (A) because, as soon as she realized that (B) didn't want to simply get out of the problem but to cooperate to solve it (remember that A believed B hit), she became more receptive to the idea that (B) didn't hit. After a few minutes of conversation and explaining her what I saw, (A) admitted that she hit.

The ultimate purpose in anything is to have a positive effect in people, not to follow some stupid set of arbitrary rules.

[Kim]

It's strange for you because you're looking at it too abstractly. Real people is a bit more complicated. One thing is clear though: there are never easy answers in life; every decision costs us something.

Please don't patronize me. I am looking at this like you do, just with different priorities. You want everyone to walk away happy. I don't want someone who is not at fault to have more trouble than she already has (a damaged car).

You're assuming that (A) was totally wrong and (B) totally right but things weren't that way. Both tried to blackmail the other in one way or another. And in my opinion, it's perfectly normal that people treats their perceived enemies that way.

No, immature people involved in an accident treat each other that way. But in my mind, the best advice is to figure out who was at fault. You were able to assist in that. I would say: "A, it was your fault and I can confirm that. You have insurance, so it's not a big deal. B should not have to pay anything, I am sorry." And if A hit B, B was right.

(A) did not do it for the money; she wasn't going to lose much anyway: she had full insurance. She did what she did for the same reason you're telling me that you would prefer to pay the fine than to give money to the other party: a sense of dignity. It's the same action, but a different motivation. It's not some evil act as you think; it's just that (A) genuinely believed that she did not hit.

You did not initially say that she believed that. Arguing over who is at fault has nothing to do with blackmail.

It's impossible to reach an agreement between parties if they are not willing to move from their position. What I did is to suggest (B) a way to show (A) a good disposition by offering her to pay a part of the deductible. This had a positive effect in (A) because, as soon as she realized that (B) didn't want to simply get out of the problem but to cooperate to solve it (remember that A believed B hit), she became more receptive to the idea that (B) didn't hit. After a few minutes of conversation and explaining her what I saw, (A) admitted that she hit.

And after she admitted that she hit, she was still willing to take B's money in the solution you proposed. She has no right to this money. You were able to explain to her that she was at fault, so what made you and her think she was still entitled to that money? You are both ripping off B. And this refers to the time AFTER she realized she was hit. At that point, taking money from B is ripping her off. You knew all along that A was at fault and suggested B to pay because you felt it would help resolve the situation. And I say that B should not have to pay for anything.

The ultimate purpose in anything is to have a positive effect in people, not to follow some stupid set of arbitrary rules.

Ok, so I drive along and someone does not pay attention and hits me. My expectation for the person to assume full responsibility is an arbitrary rule? The person denies that s/he hit me and I have to offer to pay for something that was not my fault to get her to think? No, I don't think so. This rule is not arbitrary, it makes people repair the damage they have done because some obviously are not willing to do so.

[istpunk]

gay sex

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Believe it or not, ISTPs are submissive to the authoritarian ENFP with the ENFP in a higher hierarchical level. You may think that being submissive means you are in a weaker position. Try not to think of it that way. ENFPs are not what they're cracked up to be, duality in relationships does not equate perfect.

We're authoritarian?

[schrödinger's cat]

ISTps are submissive?

[tereg]

And after she admitted that she hit, she was still willing to take B's money in the solution you proposed. She has no right to this money. You were able to explain to her that she was at fault, so what made you and her think she was still entitled to that money? You are both ripping off B. And this refers to the time AFTER she realized she was hit. At that point, taking money from B is ripping her off. You knew all along that A was at fault and suggested B to pay because you felt it would help resolve the situation. And I say that B should not have to pay for anything.

While I understand mikemex's position on this and what is being suggested, the fundamental difference here is simply to whom B's money is going to. I'm quoting Kim to reinforce her position.

The fact of the matter is that both parties have some fault. A is responsible for hitting B, and B is responsible for their car insurance.

It becomes a fundamentally philosophical debate about whether B should pay A or if B should pay the fine. Arguments for B should pay A is that it saves B money in the long run. Arguments against B should pay A is that B is not responsible for the accident itself, just for the lack of insurance.

Again, I understand mikemex's attempt at compromise here, but in my opinion, from a non-material standpoint (the principle of the matter), I would lean towards both parties bearing their own responsibility. B paying the fine and A bearing the responsibility of the accident and paying the deductible in full.

If A had said something like "Ok, I know you don't have insurance, but I'm not going to use that against you because the accident was my fault." Even though monetarily it's more expensive to say that, in my opinion that should have been the mindset of A. But, this does go back to mikemex's point about people being willing to adjust their positions.

The money difference is really negligent in my opinion (at least in this particular case)

[xyz]

We're authoritarian?

ISTps are submissive?

ENFps allow themselves to be in hierarchical models?

[jewels]

submissive ISTPs and authoritative ENFPs? hmm.

It doesn't seem like ISTPs are submissive. I think ENFPs need someone who stands up to them. I think instead, it isn't submissive, but more like if don't particularly care about something, they'll go along with it, regardless of whether they're the one in "control." They do what they want. I guess that could appear submissive to some? I dunno.

As for ENFPs being authoritative...I've never though of myself in that way. I don't order people to do things and I'm not power-hungry. But, I have had several guys tell me that they were worried I'd walk over them, which surprised me. The only thing I can figure is that because I want to feel free to act without others controlling me, I need control over my own life (which can look to others like I'm stubbournly refusing their attempts to tell me what to do). If people try to control me, then I do freak out and I guess I could look "authoritative" as I try my best to break free from that control. That is when I get pretty angry/decisive/like "you may not do this and this and this...blah blah." But still, overall it's not like an ESTJ or ENTJ would act or anything like that.

Or it coudl be we're talking about different words.

[tereg]

ENFps allow themselves to be in hierarchical models?

Not just any hierarchical models. Higher hierarchical models.

[tereg]

We're authoritarian?

ISTps are submissive?

ENFps allow themselves to be in hierarchical models?

ENFp's aren't what they're cracked up to be?

[xyz]

ENFp's aren't what they're cracked up to be?

bull!

I don't particularly see myself as submissive. Like Jewels said, "if I don't care either way we'll do what you want" type of attitude. I'm not expecting ENFps to be perfect, just real easy to connect with and all that goodness.