Type these characteristics

[jessica129]

I have no pictures. Here are some characterists of a friend:

Enthusiastic, likes being 'part of the team', impulsive, initiator, indecisive, spontaneous, outgoing yet appears shy at times, driven, enjoys work but complains it's not "giving back to the community" enough, gives the impression of being scattered, random, frequently cracks jokes, loves sports, in a position of authority at work, comes off slightly air-headed, was a member of a sorority, knows many people, popular, goofy, doesn't worry, happy, does not reveal deep emotions much, good morals-- yet acts out at times, appears sensitive, hard working, enjoys telling stories, polite, appears deep in thought, even emotions, does not like being alone, dreams of success, many goals, not fancy, likes to try new things, perfectionistic, very active, impatient.



Maybe more later.

[aestrivex]

perhaps ILE. or maybe ESE.

[Gilly]

Eie?

[aestrivex]

Eie?

or that too.

[leckysupport]

SEE or ESI?

[FDG]

SEE or ESI?

I think See too

[Phaedrus]

SEE or ESI?

Definitely not ESI.

[Mea]

Eie

[Wittmont]

or IEE?

[Expat]

EIE, perhaps IEE -- she described many traits, some of which are contradictory. Despite the "loves of sports" things (which many types do), I think EIE and IEE fit best, even if they are quasi-identicals (or maybe precisely because of it).

[FDG]

What's against SEE in that description, sorry?

[Expat]

What's against SEE in that description, sorry?

Nothing specifically -- a few things like "goofy" and "scattered" I associate first with intuitive extraverts, but it may mean nothing.

[Mea]

What's against SEE in that description, sorry?

I dunno, but I wouldn't exactly say that SEEs are indecisive.

[jessica129]

I've been leaning towards ENFP/ENFJ. What are some good ways to tell the two apart? Some things that differentiate the two? I'm really only confused as to whether she's a "J" or "P", the others i'm quite certain about.

[leckysupport]

I dunno, but I wouldn't exactly say that SEEs are indecisive.

That's why I was thinking ESI as well as SEE. To me what jessica wrote still looks very Se and Fi.

[Expat]

I've been leaning towards ENFP/ENFJ. What are some good ways to tell the two apart? Some things that differentiate the two? I'm really only confused as to whether she's a "J" or "P", the others i'm quite certain about.

Especially in for those two types, to try to go for "P" or "J" is extremely difficult. And especially if the person is one of the "calmer" ENFps, that is, not wildly EP in impulsiveness, it can be very difficult indeed.

Do you think the person is more likely to expect, and like, yes-or-no, straight answer to straight questions, as more like "shall we do this or that" or "is this correct, or wrong" and expecting a "I'm sure" reply; or more likely to welcome detailed explanations as to the WHY of your answers?

A little subjectively -- in terms of dealing with other people: would you say the person is more like "trusting, naive" or "cunning, political"?

[Wittmont]

Especially in for those two types, to try to go for "P" or "J" is extremely difficult. And especially if the person is one of the "calmer" ENFps, that is, not wildly EP in impulsiveness, it can be very difficult indeed.

Do you think the person is more likely to expect, and like, yes-or-no, straight answer to straight questions, as more like "shall we do this or that" or "is this correct, or wrong" and expecting a "I'm sure" reply; or more likely to welcome detailed explanations as to the WHY of your answers?

A little subjectively -- in terms of dealing with other people: would you say the person is more like "trusting, naive" or "cunning, political"?

Yep that j or p was the hard part for me as well, from Jessica's description. How is she in her role as boss? If she is a j type it she could be seen as more strict, disciplined and organized over an easy going p. I think an ENFj would be really good at getting things done and moving towards goals, be good at planning, while an ENFp would be more "chatty" and roundabout in her approach.

To me the 'indecisive, easygoing, scattered, random, goofy, slightly "airheaded" ' parts point to a p temperament. Overall the description gives a more EP than EJ impression I feel.

[jessica129]

Do you think the person is more likely to expect, and like, yes-or-no, straight answer to straight questions, as more like "shall we do this or that" or "is this correct, or wrong" and expecting a "I'm sure" reply; or more likely to welcome detailed explanations as to the WHY of your answers?

A little subjectively -- in terms of dealing with other people: would you say the person is more like "trusting, naive" or "cunning, political"?

I would say she prefers a more straight forward response, she doesn't seem very interested (at least, doesn't appear very interested) in details, is quite impatient. I don't know how else to explain this person, I know a lot of what I wrote is contradictory but that's because she IS. As for dealing with others, i'd say she's more trusting and naive than cunning and political.

We've only know each other for a few months so I can't really gage what "level" the friendship is on. We get along well, never had any arguements other than me complaining she changes plans too often..that's the only thing that grates on my nerves. I don't think i've met another person who changes their mind so often. It's not really a deep friendship, it's more like a quiet understanding and accepting of each other..if that makes sense?

[Expat]

Ok, from what you've said, in all, I think ENFp > ENFj.

[jessica129]

Yep that j or p was the hard part for me as well, from Jessica's description. How is she in her role as boss? If she is a j type it she could be seen as more strict, disciplined and organized over an easy going p. I think an ENFj would be really good at getting things done and moving towards goals, be good at planning, while an ENFp would be more "chatty" and roundabout in her approach.

This is where it gets confusing. I've never seen the at-work personality, but from her stories, she seems very strict. She's very serious about her work and is one of the hardest working people I've probobly ever met. She's told me numerous stories of how "easy" it was to fire people and how she sometimes found it humerous. She's always moved up to senior positions rather quickly, has a very good work ethic.

[Expat]

She's told me numerous stories of how "easy" it was to fire people and how she sometimes found it humerous.

Hmm, that's the least ENFp thing you told about her so far.

[FDG]

Hmm, that's the least ENFp thing you told about her so far.

Isn't that more likely to be a SEE trait over the two possibilities (and if I remember correctly, a trait of a SEE boss you had, even if he wasn't of the best kinds)?

[jessica129]

I know, it really shocks me when she tells me these stories because it seems so out of character. She says she sometimes blows up at work-- i could never, ever picture this. I think maybe it's an exaggeration on her part. She's entirely too nice.

But again, isn't everyone different in their "at work" personalities? Aren't you supposed to not base their personalites on who they are at work? Of course she has to be strict, she the manager of a major company with a huge responsibilty.

[Expat]

Isn't that more likely to be a SEE trait over the two possibilities (and if I remember correctly, a trait of a SEE boss you had, even if he wasn't of the best kinds)?

Perhaps, but we have to see everything in context of all of what she said.

As for my own bosses -- I don't think I actually had a boss who said it was "easy" and "humorous" to fire people; nor did I ever have an SEE boss -- the one I had typed as SEE, early on, is actually SEI of the "expansive" kind.

My bosses have been, in more or less chronological order, LII, SLE, SEI, LSI, EII, LSE, LSI, EIE, SEI, LIE.

[leckysupport]

I know, it really shocks me when she tells me these stories because it seems so out of character. She says she sometimes blows up at work-- i could never, ever picture this. I think maybe it's an exaggeration on her part. She's entirely too nice.

But again, isn't everyone different in their "at work" personalities? Aren't you supposed to not base their personalites on who they are at work? Of course she has to be strict, she the manager of a major company with a huge responsibilty.

ESI isn't looking too stupid now is it!?! HUH!?!

Anyway according to rick you're supposed to exaggerate the elements in your ID. And what Jessica is describing sounds like , so in the ID.

base since being a nice and lovely person is her 'normal' mode of operation and shooting off into land is supposed to be unusual so creative.

It goes with air-head, moralistic, scattered and indecisiveness that is linked to and the general hardworking, getting into powerful positions (going for power positions for the sake of it) and drive which is linked to .

[Wittmont]

Hmm, now that sounds like an ENFj friend of mine. Very high (extreme) capacity for work. Always active with something, moves really smoothly between different projects, doesn't stay too long on a project but prefers to keep many going at once and switches between them (to avoid boredom), very good planner, very efficient. She has been a boss too and fired people (I just asked her) and she said she has no problem doing so, if they don't do their jobs. Funny thing is she can seem none of the things above, but very laid back and good at goofing off. She just gets things done, when she wants to.

[Gilly]

I still see EIE, personally.

[Ezra]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why people haven't told Jess that it's very easy to differentiate between an IEE and an EIE, and that one should never be stuck on the J/P dichotomy, simply because that is not something we here at the16types.info do.

Jess, which functions do you see as most prominent in yourself? Which ones do you value; which ones do you appreciate and use or seek?

[Gilly]

Jess, which functions do you see as most prominent in yourself? Which ones do you value; which ones do you appreciate and use or seek?

I would hope, after what you went through, that you could see the obvious futility of this kind of approach.

[jessica129]

So this was interesting, I just got off the phone with her and had a 20 minute conversation about her being an introvert....? Ha, I didn't even bring it up. I don't even know how the conversation got started. I was basically convincing her she wasn't and she was convincing me she was. Now i guess I am convinced she is....wtf. Ironic this would be brought up right now.

I am officially DONE typing people. All it does is confuse me.

[Ezra]

I am officially DONE typing people. All it does is confuse me.

SEI.

[Slacker]

You think Jessica is SEI?

I think she is SLI, but I think she might be going through a period of depression or something right now. And I think SLIs are prone to that. But I don't see any Fe in her.

[hellothere]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why people haven't told Jess that it's very easy to differentiate between an IEE and an EIE, and that one should never be stuck on the J/P dichotomy, simply because that is not something we here at the16types.info do.

I don't think differentiating between quasi-identicals is as easy as you make out

[jessica129]

You think Jessica is SEI?

I think she is SLI, but I think she might be going through a period of depression or something right now. And I think SLIs are prone to that. But I don't see any Fe in her.

I've been out of it lately. Something is wrong, not sure what. Sorry if i've been ignorant.

[Expat]

I don't think differentiating between quasi-identicals is as easy as you make out

It is if you are aware of the functions and quadra values, not if you list external traits.

[Minde]

It is if you are aware of the functions and quadra values, not if you list external traits.

But aren't functions and quadra values manifested in external traits? How else is one supposed to determine (or even approximate) a person's type without observing behavior?

[Slacker]

But aren't functions and quadra values manifested in external traits? How else is one supposed to determine (or even approximate) a person's type without observing behavior?

If you know someone very well at all, you should have some idea of their internal motivations, which would tell you what information elements they value.

[Gilly]

But aren't functions and quadra values manifested in external traits?

No, they are manifested in motivation and thought process, which is precisely why it's so hard to type people. If it was about external traits, like MBTI, this wouldn't be nearly as hard.

How else is one supposed to determine (or even approximate) a person's type without observing behavior?

Obviously behavior is observed and taken into account, but you have to analyze a little more than that. You have to be at least a little bit presumptuous whenever you type someone unless you REALLY know them that well.

[Minde]

If you know someone very well at all, you should have some idea of their internal motivations, which would tell you what information elements they value.

That's fine. It still comes from observing them. It just means you've closely and more completely observed them and have a greater and (hopefully) higher quality pool of information from which to draw conclusions. It doesn't change that you see people's motivations in how they choose to act.

[Minde]

Obviously behavior is observed and taken into account, but you have to analyze a little more than that. You have to be at least a little bit presumptuous whenever you type someone unless you REALLY know them that well.

Well, that answer tells me some things about you. But my answer is the same as I gave Slacker Mom.