ENFjs and INFps: passionate and enthusiastic but not edgy and extreme?

[redbaron]

I dunno, for IEI, I think it's more of an underlying intensity which only sticks its neck out once in awhile (at least in my case).

In any case, I'm not sure you're beta? You seem too nice or something (yeah okay I know I'm nice on the forum). but for instance, being all worried about that person enjoying themselves at a party? I have to say, I'm not like that. I would never have those questions running through my head. Maybe if they were my best friend or something but then I would already know why they were sad. Otherwise, I'd just assume they were in a bad mood and probably avoid them! I definitely don't see it as my responsibility to make sure others have fun. In other words, as sad as this probably sounds to you, I would probably abandon the party pooper rather than trying to be some "loyal friend" by pulling them in. To me, if they aren't in the mood to have fun, then they aren't and my job is to leave them alone.

[mikesilb]

I dunno, for IEI, I think it's more of an underlying intensity which only sticks its neck out once in awhile (at least in my case).

In any case, I'm not sure you're beta? You seem too nice or something (yeah okay I know I'm nice on the forum). but for instance, being all worried about that person enjoying themselves at a party? I have to say, I'm not like that. I would never have those questions running through my head. Maybe if they were my best friend or something but then I would already know why they were sad. Otherwise, I'd just assume they were in a bad mood and probably avoid them! I definitely don't see it as my responsibility to make sure others have fun. In other words, as sad as this probably sounds to you, I would probably abandon the party pooper rather than trying to be some "loyal friend" by pulling them in. To me, if they aren't in the mood to have fun, then they aren't and my job is to leave them alone.

Thank you for seeing the nice/receptive side here since I do try to be this way.

I completely get the difference between your response and my own. It definitely gives me pause as to whether Beta is actually incorrect.

A few weeks ago, I posted a video under the question of whether I am an EII. Someone (on a different board) gave me a relatively convincing argument that I was exhibiting the type of passion, enthusiasm, etc. that appeared to fit an type. Additionally, my discussion of destiny, meaning (and its relationship to spirituality, etc.) made this person think that Beta was my main territory (instead of the obvious Delta). I could relate to his description that I did not hold my emotions in check that much, and rather showed them quite outwardly. Hence, by simply following the basic definitions of , it looked like I was (in his opinion) an -dominant type.

From my angle, it made sense because while I am very sensitive and friendly to others in an NF-ish kind of way, I also am able to express my emotions and to read the emotional space in a way that seemed congruent with an way of viewing things. So I bought his argument.

However, now I am thinking about how that applied from the perspective of how quadras are viewed here. I found a mismatch between the way that I communicate to the way that Beta is described here. This is why I brought this new thread forward. I needed to understand what underlies Beta and whether or not I can adequately put myself in the Beta camp.

Anyway, as this thread develops, I am more and more open to additional possibilities as to my type and quadra. You all have majorly valid points here, and I need to address all this so that I can find my proper 'home' (other than within my own inner sanctity/sanctuary) within this theoretical system.

Thanks so far for helping me work through this uncertainty!

[silverchris9]

I dunno, for IEI, I think it's more of an underlying intensity which only sticks its neck out once in awhile (at least in my case).

In any case, I'm not sure you're beta? You seem too nice or something (yeah okay I know I'm nice on the forum). but for instance, being all worried about that person enjoying themselves at a party? I have to say, I'm not like that. I would never have those questions running through my head. Maybe if they were my best friend or something but then I would already know why they were sad. Otherwise, I'd just assume they were in a bad mood and probably avoid them! I definitely don't see it as my responsibility to make sure others have fun. In other words, as sad as this probably sounds to you, I would probably abandon the party pooper rather than trying to be some "loyal friend" by pulling them in. To me, if they aren't in the mood to have fun, then they aren't and my job is to leave them alone.

Good ol' beta attitudes.

All this definitely applies to me. Either I am a Delta (or Alpha), or I must be a harmonizing subtype within the EIE camp. But no matter what, I can relate way more to inclusivity, unity, and harmony, than the lack thereof.

Well, it's difficult to type off of being a good person. Lots of EIEs love inclusiveness and harmony. In fact, many of the EIEs I know are sort of the engine of bringing people together in many social groups. But those same EIEs also harbor some very strong negative opinions about some people both in and out of those social groups, and are not hesitant to expound upon them (though usually in a jovial, joking way). And hey, there's nothing wrong with liking harmony. Still a focus on harmony as a priority over emotional expression, openness, etc., is very likely to indicate delta over beta.

I agree that we have to consider Alpha or Delta here (in addition to the possibility that I still fit the Beta framework but from a slightly different standpoint). I am open to the various possibilities here, and am not sure at all which ones make the most sense right now. Time will tell...[/QUOTE]

This statement sounds Ne to me. Like, the idea that from a different perspective, maybe you are beta, maybe we need to look at things a different way, etc. It all sounds very much like Ne considering multiple perspectives, trying to look at things from various angles, not staying too attached to one viewpoint, etc. Especially the idea that we "have" to consider multiple viewpoints... I dunno, sounds very Ne to me!

Because at the onset of this thread, I thought that I had as my ego block. What bothered me more than anything else was assuming that I did have those two IM elements there, I did not exhibit much of the outward behavior that most Betas on this board exhibited. So either one of two possibilities could happen, 1) The concept of Beta-NFs need to expand or generalize to include non-edginess (since I still cannot for the life of me understand why necessarily exhibits such intensity, especially when Ni is more about imagination, contemplation, mysticism, and conceptual understanding), or 2) I am actually incorrect about being part of Beta, and am actually either an Alpha or a Delta (I highly doubt that I am Gamma).

Here's the deal. Beta-NFs are generally perceived as edgy because Se and Fe are our two extroverted functions, and Fe is more "edgy" than Fi (which is more focused on harmony, stasis, permanent bonds etc.) and Se is more "edgy" than Si. Sure, you can be non-edgy and be a beta. I don't know if you've read any posts by a user named sigma, but he's definitely not edgy. But he's still clearly an IEI, in the way that he's so theoretical, sort of in the clouds (but in a good, IEI way). He has a belief system that seems to me rather like that of an EII, focusing on harmony and such, but he goes about it in such an obviously beta way (which is something almost unquantifiable, at least I experience it more as a general "vibe" than as something I can break down into its component parts). Also, your word "intensity" is really a better word than "edgy". That's what Sigma has that isn't edginess, it's an intensity, a sort of energy--betas like being in a high energy state. He's really intense in pursuing his Nonviolent Communication, but he's not edgy like, wearing eye-liner and stomping his left foot like a 1980s rock star or a performer in the new musical American Idiot starring Jonathan Groff a.k.a. Melchior, a.k.a. Lea Michele's boyfriend on Glee. So maybe that explains it a little better?

Also, please do remember that the way people behave on this forum is not how they behave in real life. I'm much more diplomatic and much less likely to spout theosophistic nonsense. I can be blunt irl too, when it comes down to serious topics, though. Hope that helps, even if only a little.

Also, on the difference between Ne and Ni:

Ni will tend to provide certain advice about what *will* happen in the future. Beta NFs in particular are prone to analyzing people's character and issuing predictions on how they will react to certain stimuli. Ne on the other hand will tend to provide advice about all the things that *could* happen in the future. Delta NFs are likely to say, "well, given this situation, Bob could do x, or y, or z." The focus is on the essential properties of Bob in the form of possibilities.

Delta NFs are more inclined to tell you all the things that could happen so you can prepare for all of them. Beta NFs are more likely to tell you the one thing that is most likely to happen (and to update the prediction as more information accrues) so that you can take the right action, at the opportune moment, that sort of thing.

In my own more theoretical understanding, Ni is concerned with uncertainty between signs and what they signify, in other words, semantic uncertainty. Ni is interested in exploring the relationship between signs and what they signify. This is how Ni gets a reputation for mysticism or focus on "meaning"--Ni-egos want to understand the meaning behind signs. It's still tinged with MBTI, but as a pure function description, I find a lot of what Lenore Thompson says about Ni pretty valuable.

Ne, on the other hand, is more focused on essentially properties in the sense of capabilities or capacities. This reminds me of Aristotle's form that inheres in objects, or the form of a thing not as a Platonic Idea existing outside of space and time, but as simply the set of powers of a given object. Ne is concerned with the essence in that sense: the set of powers. As such, they tend to look at a variety of options, because they spend their lives noticing all the different possibilities that inhere in everything. They always want to look at new options, because they see how many different capacities everything has. They also tend to see things in a new, unique way: for instance, seeing that, sure, a table could be a bed, why not? Or a window could be a paint canvas, why not? That sort of thing.

[Aiss]

BTW, I hate watching the paint dry :wink:. Too earthy and practical for me. Unless of course, watching the paint dry might be precisely what I am Dual Seeking because I personally can't stand to do it??? Hmmmmm?

I meant the fact that you seem willing to bend Beta characteristics to fit in, yet seem to find Delta too boring, which actually is a stereotype. This is of course only my impression.

I am so damn confused about this honestly. On a theoretical level, how can we separate from , and which one appears to make more sense in the context in which I am mentioning this? BTW, I very much can relate to the Alpha NT style of theorizing in sort of a loose/lighthearted way. So you are on the right track here.

It's hard to clearly separate the two because you have both of them either strong or weak.

On the purely theoretical level, is internal dynamics of fields and is internal statics of objects. In my own words, it's "what could be happening" and "what could it be" ("could be", "could have been", "would be" - anything but "is", really).

Silverchris probably did a better job explaining Beta than I could have done - you might notice that is somehow differently described in Beta and Gamma types. That's where the concept of blocks appears - is different from , and so are all analogical combinations. (Alternatively, it's -Ni and +Ni, but that's Model B.)

The view of seems Alpha over Delta. In NFs it's often described as focusing on potential in people, although ideas are by no means dismissed.The understanding of the big picture is also more concerned with meaning, or personal meaning of it, is implicit rather than explicit.

It is also my observation that seems to be connected to the concept of plot or narration, whereas focuses more on interesting and surprising elements, such as characters, objects or ideas (insert speculation warning here).

You spoke of universe and your place in it, and it seemed to me exactly sort of thing. would rather focus on development and change. So whereas the topic itself is of interest, the way you put it sounded - to me - as a conceptualized idea more than the flow I spoke of, though of course I can't know what exactly you meant and how you perceive it.

Also, note that you'll be strong in both if you're N, and it seems you're sure of it. So you're probably familiar with both, and especially if you're rational they might be hard to determine.

I am not even sure about this one. I have a bad tendency to 'sugarcoat' a lot of interpersonal situations and to make it sound as if everything is fine (when inside me things are far from fine). It takes me a while to state my deepest truth if that means that it will hurt the other person. As a result, I will stall to state this inner truth. This is a pretty big reason why I debate whether or not EII is actually my type. I am more prone to "make it look like I am satisfied" (when in fact, I am not).

Look at what Betas (especially IEIs) write about being open about your opinions vs being considerate of others in http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...i-valuers.html thread.

If I state something that is my own opinion and that I feel dearly about, I do not appreciate if it is ignored. While I anticipate that others should ideally follow their internal/subjective guidance about a given situation, I also absolutely would want to be listened to as well...and perhaps even have my advice heeded to. So it is tricky as to whether or not this paragraph applies.

I think the focus was more about insistence than a need to feel appreciated (which is pretty common amongst all sociotype, even though some might have problems admitting it).

[mikesilb]

In terms of the / difference, how accurate would the quote below (by Tereg) be in describing it?

Ok. So, for me, is something that I cognitively understand conceptually, but for me to actually use it feels quite foreign and many times is difficult to harness.

My understanding of is more along the lines of being able to intuitively understand concepts and trends with incomplete information. The only metaphor that I can come up with is like a sea of floating ideas, and somehow is able to gather these ideas and be able to draw a conclusion out of it. It's like understanding something's essence without the need for its full description.

This differs from in that to me is about being able to connect understood concepts together. Being able to connect seemingly unrelated things, providing good examples of things that illustrate concepts.

The key difference here for me is the amount of information that is understood about the thing being processed. typically does not require a complete explanation about something. generally means that I can draw in another concept similar to what is being discussed because I understand the information more completely.

So is fascinating to me, but I find it difficult to actually do because I feel the need to understand an idea or concept's makeup before I can start to draw conclusions or similarities to it.