Two views of the ESFj (ESE)

[Jonathan]

Two views of ESE: Which one is correct, or both?

Version 1:
* Always seen among people and tends to be perceived as very popular and friendly
* Impeccably dressed and well-groomed
* Usually quite interested in comforts, good food
* Great host or hostess, not stingy
* Confident in relationships; easily forms relationships with others
* Usually viewed as very optimistic, but can get quite depressed at times

Version 2:
* An avid debater with a wealth of knowledge, who reeks intellectuality
* Tends to state views so forcefully that other people are intimidated
* Has the appearance of an LII who has become "larger than life"
* Talks on in a continuous variation, with many nooks and crannies related to his/her significant accumulation of knowledge
* Seems very authoritative on everything, so it's hard to challenge the person
* Has firmly held-beliefs that seem impenetrable

Obviously, version 1 is what I regard as the "typical" ESE; however, in some discussions, it seems that others may regard version 2 as potentially ESE too. I'm wondering to what extent that may be so and would be interested in examples.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Kindly provide the esteemed members of the peanut gallery with examples so we aren't forced to decipher a semaphore from the fluttering of your tender hands.

[Gilly]

lol

Version 2 sounds more like an ILE or EIE more than ESE.

[Krig the Viking]

Version 1 seems obviously ESE. I'm having a hard time getting a vivid mental picture of Version 2, though. It sounds almost like some kind of Dominant NT type. There are ESEs who state their views forcefully and seem authoritative, but they don't generally "reek intellectuality" in the way you describe, as least so far as I've observed. Even the most intellectual ESE, in my opinion, would tend to appear more like "an ESE who has become intellectually inclined", rather than "an LII who has become 'larger than life'".

But, as I say, the mental picture I'm getting from Version 2 is not particularly vivid, so there's a significant possibility that what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are two different things.

[Korpsy Knievel]

lol

Version 2 sounds more like an ILE or EIE more than ESE.

That's because if Jonathan the LII were to comply objectively with my request and made use of forum members to do so he'd list yellow82 the ESE as #1 and Gulanzon the ILE as #2.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I only notice ESFjs stating their views strongly when they are stressed out. Their regular egos don't seem to like doing it all that much, and instead they take on their more stereotypical roles as caregivers.

Stating views strongly is such a Ni-ish thing to me, and I can't see an ESE doing that. They aren't really in the realm of 'views' anyway, they are focused more on the physical world of the here and now.

Yeah that second description doesn't sound ESFj at all. ESFjs are Alphas and like other people to be nice. Arguing and debating over views isn't their style at all.

Why do you people overcomplicate this shit? Why? why can't you just understand the fun--

Nevermind. It doesn't matter, Sam. It doesn't matter. It's not worth it. You just want life to be more interesting than it really is so you're gonna believe that purple spotted unicorns exist even when they don't. I think we're all like that.

[Trevor]

1.

[FDG]

Version 1, of course. Doesn't mean however that a Version 1 couldn't be a university professor - he-she would just avoid blasting his-her opinions during social gatherings. Version 2 sounds more like a EN type, except ENFp - so ILE, EIE or LIE.

[rat1]

ESEs are afraid to mention they don't like your spinach casserole, much less debate well thought out philosophical positions

[Absurd]

Version 1 seems obviously ESE.

Yeah that second description doesn't sound ESFj at all.

1.

Version 1, of course.

Dead on.

[Krig the Viking]

The others have a point, it's possible Version 2 is an EIE of some kind. It's hard to say without further description.

[mu4]

ESEs are afraid to mention they don't like your spinach casserole

ESE can be very critical of poor food and even more so of poor service. I know a ESE who routinely tells his own mother(EIE) her food sucks and she has no taste in food.

Now they may not reveal their thoughts to you in circumstances where they think it will start a seriously negative experience but they're aren't push overs or anything like this.

Also I've seen many occasions where at some sort of social gather or occasion disorderly conduct towards someone in a ESE's general circle/acquaintance/friendship will result in ejection from the premises as well as the necessary manpower, force, weapons, violence and authority to ensure it.

With Eighth function, they're not really very afraid to voice their opinion.

SEI's however are much more peaceful and accommodating.

However, as to the OP question.
#1 This is far more accurate

One version of ESE I have observed.

They can be intimidating, but they don't usually back up what they say except with excessive emotional outpouring like "I TOLD YOU! WHAT DID I TELL YOU! THOSE GUYS SUCK! I always said this or that!" It's not intellectual, it's much more just stating exactly what they believe and usually not even bothering to substantiate it. They don't really care about substantiating it, it's just not their thing and they are confident in their charisma and popularity that they can convince people with that.

[Krig the Viking]

ESE can be very critical of poor food and even more so of poor service. I know a ESE who routinely tells his own mother(EIE) her food sucks and she has no taste in food.

Now they may not reveal their thoughts to you in circumstances where they think it will start a seriously negative experience but they're aren't push overs or anything like this.

Also I've seen many occasions where at some sort of social gather or occasion disorderly conduct towards someone in a ESE's general circle/acquaintance/friendship will result in ejection from the premises as well as the necessary manpower, force, weapons, violence and authority to ensure it.

With Eight function, they're not really very afraid to voice their opinion.

SEI's however are much more peaceful and accommodating.

Agreed. Just because ESEs prefer to be pleasant and agreeable, doesn't mean they're not capable of being forceful if they feel it necessary.

[Jonathan]

Kindly provide the esteemed members of the peanut gallery with examples so we aren't forced to decipher a semaphore from the fluttering of your tender hands.

This thread was inspired by the Fe intellectuals thread under Famous people. Some people who have been typed by various individuals as ESE include Richard Dawkins, Al Gore, and Johannes Brahms. While these are all very different people, and all of their typings are controversial and held by different sets of people, and they aren't all like "version 2" above, one thing is for certain: they're all rather unlike the usual descriptions of ESE.

"Version 2" is an amalgam of various people I've met but I can't post specifics because nobody here would know them. Probably, the people I have in mind are really LIE, but this was just to explore other possible views.

Basically the Fe intellectuals thread made me wonder if there's a "different kind" of ESE, or a different view of what ESE could be.

[Jonathan]

lol

Version 2 sounds more like an ILE or EIE more than ESE.

That's because if Jonathan the LII were to comply objectively with my request and made use of forum members to do so he'd list yellow82 the ESE as #1 and Gulanzon the ILE as #2.

Except that I don't know those members (unless they've changed screen name)

[Korpsy Knievel]

Basically the Fe intellectuals thread made me wonder if there's a "different kind" of ESE, or a different view of what ESE could be.

Then I recommend more closely examining the nature of their cognition instead of simply cataloging all these behavioral epiphenomena, which could easily lead to mistypings if relied on too much. Since socionics supposedly studies the cognitive, once the what has been observed it's then necessary to deduce the manner of the why and how. It's insufficient to shout "!" on seeing someone enjoy food and then walk away.

Except that I don't know those members (unless they've changed screen name)

Yellow82 and Cat King Cole, respectively.

[Jonathan]

It's insufficient to shout "!" on seeing someone enjoy food and then walk away.

Agreed. I don't do that. I love good food, but I don't think I'm an Si type. Brahms apparently ate at the cheapest restaurants and didn't care how he looked, which I found odd for an ESE typing. I analyzed a little bit of Brahms in the Musicians thread. I don't know enough about the others to get into much detail. But I had an intuition that maybe "version 2" is possibly what some other people have in mind when they think of ESE.

[Krig the Viking]

This thread was inspired by the Fe intellectuals thread under Famous people. Some people who have been typed by various individuals as ESE include Richard Dawkins, Al Gore, and Johannes Brahms. While these are all very different people, and all of their typings are controversial and held by different sets of people, and they aren't all like "version 2" above, one thing is for certain: they're all rather unlike "version 1."

"Version 2" is an amalgam of various people I've met but I can't post specifics because nobody here would know them. Probably, the people I have in mind are really LIE, but this was just to explore other possible views.

Basically the Fe intellectuals thread made me wonder if there's a "different kind" of ESE, or a different view of what ESE could be.

I don't know anything about Brahms' type, but Dawkins and Gore are decidedly not ESEs. Unfortunately, there's a group that post here who promote a whole list of absurd typings of that nature.

LIE is certainly more consistent with the features you described in "Version 2" than ESE is.

[DividedsGhost]

Two views of ESE: Which one is correct, or both?

Version 1:
* Always seen among people and tends to be perceived as very popular and friendly
* Impeccably dressed and well-groomed
* Usually quite interested in comforts, good food
* Great host or hostess, not stingy
* Confident in relationships; easily forms relationships with others
* Usually viewed as very optimistic, but can get quite depressed at times

Okay, this sounds like a realized ESE.

Version 2:
* An avid debater with a wealth of knowledge, who reeks intellectuality
* Tends to state views so forcefully that other people are intimidated
* Has the appearance of an LII who has become "larger than life"
* Talks on in a continuous variation, with many nooks and crannies related to his/her significant accumulation of knowledge
* Seems very authoritative on everything, so it's hard to challenge the person
* Has firmly held-beliefs that seem impenetrable

Alright guys. So why can't number 2 be a less-realized ESE? What about personas that allow us to thrive in places that don't care about our egos? It seems rather ridiculous to automatically claim all the neurotic, crazy shit to NTs. ESEs MUST BE PERFECT.

[FDG]

Magna, take your daily xanax.

[Krig the Viking]

Alright guys. So why can't number 2 be a less-realized ESE? What about personas that allow us to thrive in places that don't care about our egos? It seems rather ridiculous to automatically claim all the neurotic, crazy shit to NTs. ESEs MUST BE PERFECT.

ESEs are neurotic and crazy in their own special ways. It's just that this doesn't really sound like that.

[Gilly]

This thread was inspired by the Fe intellectuals thread under Famous people. Some people who have been typed by various individuals as ESE include Richard Dawkins, Al Gore, and Johannes Brahms. While these are all very different people, and all of their typings are controversial and held by different sets of people, and they aren't all like "version 2" above, one thing is for certain: they're all rather unlike "version 1."

"Version 2" is an amalgam of various people I've met but I can't post specifics because nobody here would know them. Probably, the people I have in mind are really LIE, but this was just to explore other possible views.

Basically the Fe intellectuals thread made me wonder if there's a "different kind" of ESE, or a different view of what ESE could be.

I don't know anything about Brahms' type, but Dawkins and Gore are decidedly not ESEs. Unfortunately, there's a group that post here who promote a whole list of absurd typings of that nature.

LIE is certainly more consistent with the features you described in "Version 2" than ESE is.

Lol I mean Gore could maybe be LSE but he's no fucking Gamma, that's for sure.

Dawkins could be ILE but I think ESE is not unreasonable at all, I think he and Steve Jobs have a good bit in common personality and VI-wise but Dawkins seems more languid and classically "intellectual" in the Alpha sense, whereas Jobs is a classic Beta climber. Dawkins is more brash than most ESEs, but even he doesn't have the kind of overbearingly condescending full-of-shitness that is listed in the #2 description; it sounds more like an Aristocratic EJ, IMO, or perhaps a D-ILE or LIE.

[Absurd]

Unfortunately, there's a group that post here who promote a whole list of absurd typings of that nature.

o rly

I think so...

[Jonathan]

I don't know anything about Brahms' type, but Dawkins and Gore are decidedly not ESEs. Unfortunately, there's a group that post here who promote a whole list of absurd typings of that nature.

LIE is certainly more consistent with the features you described in "Version 2" than ESE is.

Lol I mean Gore could maybe be LSE but he's no fucking Gamma, that's for sure.

Oh, I didn't mean that any of those people I listed are LIE. I meant that my "version 2," which was based on some other people I know (but only "inspired" by the other thread) might be more like LIE. I realize that was a little unclear though.

Dawkins is more brash than most ESEs, but even he doesn't have the kind of overbearingly condescending full-of-shitness that is listed in the #2 description; it sounds more like an Aristocratic EJ, IMO, or perhaps a D-ILE or LIE.

Yeah, of the people listed, Dawkins is probably the closest to "version 2."

[plotter]

Two views of ESE: Which one is correct, or both?
Version 1:
* Always seen among people and tends to be perceived as very popular and friendly
* Impeccably dressed and well-groomed
* Usually quite interested in comforts, good food
* Great host or hostess, not stingy
* Confident in relationships; easily forms relationships with others
* Usually viewed as very optimistic, but can get quite depressed at times

Fixed

[Krig the Viking]

Lol I mean Gore could maybe be LSE but he's no fucking Gamma, that's for sure.

Oh, I didn't mean that any of those people I listed are LIE. I meant that my "version 2," which was based on some other people I know (but only "inspired" by the other thread) might be more like LIE. I realize that was a little unclear though.

Indeed. For the record, while I haven't studied either of them closely, in my opinion Gore is probably an Introverted Intuitive type, and Dawkins is likely some Decisive type. I want to say EIE, but that's more of an intuitive "vibe" than any kind of defensible conclusion.

[krieger]

i wasn't aware there was a significant number of people that had built an stereotype of ESFj around the mistyping of richard dawkins. it sounds like a seriously messed up development.

[Jonathan]

Two views of ESE: Which one is correct, or both?
Version 1:
* Always seen among people and tends to be perceived as very popular and friendly
* Impeccably dressed and well-groomed
* Usually quite interested in comforts, good food
* Great host or hostess, not stingy
* Confident in relationships; easily forms relationships with others
* Usually viewed as very optimistic, but can get quite depressed at times

Fixed

My point wasn't to say that 100% of ESEs would fit this description. My point was to show characteristics of a typical example of an ESE.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

My ESE mom gets crazy about me (in a good way) if I turn into a 'workhorse' and a 'Human doing' and do just a bunch of shit for her. I really don't mind and I'm not whining, I just think it's interesting. But she's gauging me so damn externally. No other type really does that. Not even my supervisors or conflictors. ESFjs are Se demonstrative up the wazoo.

But she gets really upset and standoffish about my internal opinions. Like "well that's just not practical enough for me" and like she doesn't really get the inner me. It's like all that natural deep Ni stuff that I take for granted because it's so natural for me, she isn't really paying attention to it. I get really impressed when I find out she likes some faggy storybook stuff too but she isn't really obsessed about it like I am. She claims to like Wizard of the Oz, but she always sleeps through it and always is worrying about a chore that needs to get done. I can't take her on my magic carpet ride like I can with ESFps and ESTps.

She wonders why i don't show her my art and like writing and well , it's because she has Ni polr and I don't really want to offend her. =/ She accepts me most and is happiest when I do chores for her so I just suck it up and do them cause I know that's what she likes. Yeah I can't really be myself with her or my true personality sammy self, but that stuff is kinda overrated I guess. I don't know, it's as good as it's gonna get. And I'm glad I found a way to get along that is beyond personality types.

[Jonathan]

As for Richard Dawkins, I still don't know his type, but I found this interview instructive for its contrast with someone I could easily conceive of as a "straight-laced" type of ESE (or other Si ego perhaps ?).

And an answer to the question that he was asked at the end of the video is of course the killers at Columbine, who at least in part did what they did in the name of of atheism.

[krieger]

this thread demonstrates the brainwashing influence expat an rick still ahve on the people of this forum. if they had never given the typing their blessing, none of this would exist.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, bruh. Given the perspectival plurality attending every type-fest it's certain someone else would have reached the same conclusion independently, irrespective of the hypnotic socionics seduction of mephistophelian overlords like Rick and Expat.

Dawkins is surely alpha though I class him with the NTs. However, I still figure MtDew to quite likely be ESE and if I ignore the validity of his premises he's capable of engaging in reasoned debate as well as drawing logical (if not sensible) conclusions. Additionally he's received academic awards for math so even if his type is ESE he isn't hampered by it in a strictly intellectual sense. So whatever resemblance he bears to stereotype #1 he also carries some traits of stereotype #2.

[Gilly]

Yeah, of the people listed, Dawkins is probably the closest to "version 2."

I mean, who did you initially have in mind? What is the origin of your idea of this type of ESE? Because personally I have never encountered one who strikes me in this way.

[Gilly]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, bruh. Given the perspectival plurality attending every type-fest it's certain someone else would have reached the same conclusion independently, irrespective of the hypnotic socionics seduction of mephistophelian overlords like Rick and Expat.

You HAVE been here longer than you've let on. Who the fuck are you?

[Korpsy Knievel]

I mean, who did you initially have in mind? What is the origin of your idea of this type of ESE? Because personally I have never encountered one who strikes me in this way.

Vide supra, part the second.

You HAVE been here longer than you've let on. Who the fuck are you?

I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.

[Gilly]

Gulanzon hardly fits any of those characteristics IME, and I certainly wouldn't say they are deeply characteristic of him, at least from what I've seen. Forceful? Authoritative? Intimidating? Hard to challenge? LII-like in any way? wtf?

[EyeSeeCold]

You HAVE been here longer than you've let on. Who the fuck are you?

hugo

I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live. There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.

[krieger]

Gulanzon hardly fits any of those characteristics IME, and I certainly wouldn't say they are deeply characteristic of him, at least from what I've seen. Forceful? Authoritative? Intimidating? Hard to challenge? LII-like in any way? wtf?

seconded.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Gulanzon hardly fits any of those characteristics IME, and I certainly wouldn't say they are deeply characteristic of him, at least from what I've seen. Forceful? Authoritative? Intimidating? Hard to challenge? LII-like in any way? wtf?

It isn't who he is but who I think he imagines himself to be, fluffy goodtime SF projections aside.

hugo

Yep, that's me.

It gladdens me to know you also shit on the bible. Lezbefrens.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, of the people listed, Dawkins is probably the closest to "version 2."

I mean, who did you initially have in mind? What is the origin of your idea of this type of ESE? Because personally I have never encountered one who strikes me in this way.

It's really just that in hearing some of the typings people have under ESE, that made me think that maybe they had a different idea of ESE than I have. I think of ESE as version #1, of course....and that person could be intelligent and intellectual just like anyone else, but wouldn't be #2. So I basically constructed #2 as a sort of guess regarding what they could possibly have in mind.

If you wanted a focal point, yeah, Dawkins is as good example as any. Perhaps ESE comes from people deciding Alpha and then going based on temperament.

If one wants to consider DCNH, maybe such people are D-LII, or D-ILE.