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

[mikesilb]

Hi everyone,

Over these last few weeks, as my type determination has pulled me more in the EIE direction, I am deeply curious about an aspect of Beta NFs that has confused me.

Is it at all possible that Beta-NFs (and especially EIEs, although I imagine IEIs also being this way too) can be passionate and enthusiastic in general but not in an 'in-your-face' type of edgy way that betas are often described?

I find that I am most likely -valuing since I can be very much in tune with the feeling/emotional tone of people within a given room and especially those who I am talking to (in sort of a warm, people-pleasing way). I am also very sensitive to any sudden emotional changes that may suddenly come on. In addition, I am very much interested in abstract, conceptual, and mystical/spiritual-based topics. I find myself constantly contemplating about life, the universe, and everything (including my purpose within it). I believe that this also puts me in a -valuing camp. Despite this, I am not an edgy/extreme person in general.

The question is whether these characteristics generally can fit within the general mindset of a Beta type. Does a Beta-NF (by definition) have to be on the edgy side of things or is that merely a stereotype in general?

Could it be a more unanimous description of Beta NFs involve a deep-rooted desire to live a dynamic life...lived to the fullest in terms of their passions, imaginations/fantasies, and are generally driven in order to bring that life to fruition?

Let me know your thoughts about this.

[Linas]

The question is whether these characteristics generally can fit within the general mindset of a Beta type. Does a Beta-NF (by definition) have to be on the edgy side of things or is that merely a stereotype in general?

of course not, Beta NF doesn't have to be Beta ST

Could it be a more unanimous description of Beta NFs involve a deep-rooted desire to live a dynamic life...lived to the fullest in terms of their passions, imaginations/fantasies, and are generally driven in order to bring that life to fruition?

yes, why not to live to the fullest.

you see IEI is feminest type of all, but I still may be really loud and all that, and also edgy a little bit, in-your-face. but i should admit that, that is pretty rare from my experience. but you know, having the right company you may become a f** different person

[Gilly]

I tend to oscillate a lot in my behavior...I can be pretty aggressive/in your face; other times I just sort of float on by. Ni-IEIs are probably the least openly aggressive of Beta NFs. But if you are never like this, you should consider Alpha SF.

[mikesilb]

I tend to oscillate a lot in my behavior...I can be pretty aggressive/in your face; other times I just sort of float on by. Ni-IEIs are probably the least openly aggressive of Beta NFs. But if you are never like this, you should consider Alpha SF.

What I don't understand is why someone like me with either dominant or creative (due to enthusiasm, passion, as well as empathy, sensitivity) who thinks about strong NF-based topics in general such as spirituality, mysticism, theoretical ruminations about science, philosophy, psychology, etc. cannot fit beta simply because I am not extreme enough in my behavioral style. While I like when things have a more indulgent/looser, non-PC flavor to it (and also while I can be very impulsive as well), the truth of the matter is that most of the time I am definitely checking out whether there is an emotional resonance between myself and the person/group who I am interacting with (making me more 'streamlined' [for lack of a better word] and less edgy overall).

I don't feel that my interests and way of viewing the world is an SF style. I always felt that I gravitated more towards the abstract, theoretical, and imaginative domains in my life. I live a lot of my life in my head and really enjoy analyzing and grappling with various puzzles and intellectual topics that intrigue me. (I also am very interested in topics of meaning, destiny, spirituality, etc.) However, I feel way too emotional (i.e. sensitive, empathic, etc.) to be an NT type either. I wear my heart and emotions on my sleeve, and while I may not always say the first thing that is on my mind (although conversely, when I am pissed off, I can go on a big time temper tantrum as well, so I can switch that way), the bottom line is that I can deeply feel the emotional mood within a room and would rather be in a place where there is a unified, harmonious setting, rather than a place where anyone might not feel as welcome in general.

Based on all this, can I still not fit within the Beta framework? Would an Alpha or even Delta make just as valid sense?

Can anyone thread all this together to determine the most suitable quadra for me? (I still would say a beta EIE with a harmonizing/Ni subtype for now). Let me know.

[Gilly]

Yes, actually.

[Gilly]

I don't mean to be mean, but that's all I can be; it's just me.

[Gilly]

Get the fuck out of my facebook before I sue you.

[redbaron]

and there are subtle ways to be edgy too. And there's the appreciation of edginess in others. You could be a harmonizing subtype or something, like I am. I'm drawn to aggressiveness in others, even if I'm not that way myself. I admire people who don't back down from confrontation, etc. But I'm rarely the type to take it on myself unless it's something I really believe in. I once got in a nearly-screaming fight with my aunt over the appropriateness of VBACs (vaginal birth after c-section).

[xerx]

I find that I am most likely -valuing since I can be very much in tune with the feeling/emotional tone of people within a given room and especially those who I am talking to (in sort of a warm, people-pleasing way). I am also very sensitive to any sudden emotional changes that may suddenly come on.

If you don't mind me asking, what do you see as ? I'm not try to retype you, just curious what you think.

In addition, I am very much interested in abstract, conceptual, and mystical/spiritual-based topics. I find myself constantly contemplating about life, the universe, and everything (including my purpose within it). I believe that this also puts me in a -valuing camp.

I don't think this is true, or else Aushra, Einstein and a number of other Ne/Si valuers would have to be retyped.

[mikesilb]

If you don't mind me asking, what do you see as ? I'm not try to retype you, just curious what you think.

What I am writing below is not an exact definition of , but hopefully it will somewhat suffice to answer your question.

It seems that has more of a consistent moral/ethical compass which as a static function (rather than a dynamic one) is not as easily affected by the moment to moment changes in the emotional mood of others. I would imagine that while is more tailored to the emotional energy that is dynamically taking place all around, is not as focused on this and instead is focused on those deeper values that extend beyond the emotional reactions and interactions of others.

Those are my preliminary thoughts as to the / differences in the tiniest nutshell imaginable.

[redbaron]

life, the universe, and everything

[redbaron]

I just wanna point out that NOT being edgy or extreme a lot of the time does NOT necessarily point you to alpha SF. Alpha SF indicates >, not a lack of edginess.

[mikesilb]

I just wanna point out that NOT being edgy or extreme a lot of the time does NOT necessarily point you to alpha SF. Alpha SF indicates >, not a lack of edginess.

This is what I am thinking as well, that the only way that I could be Alpha is if I actually favored over while still showing a dominant overall. As I imagine it, I don't feel that is that high (over ). Likewise, I also don't think that I use the brainstorming on-my-feet as much as either. So this is why I still feel in the Beta camp unless there is a solid reason to think otherwise.

[mikesilb]

As a quick update, I now realize that ESE/alpha is most likely my type/quadra. Feel free to browse this particular thread in light of this new information.