I've noticed that in this forum, the ENFps (except Stefana perhaps) are kinda old in age and the INFps are kinda young in age.
Any comments?
Printable View
I've noticed that in this forum, the ENFps (except Stefana perhaps) are kinda old in age and the INFps are kinda young in age.
Any comments?
*sets down her cane and puts her dentures in*
I think it's coincidence :lol:
That's because INFps get killed by ESTps, and ENFps get older quickly by living with ISTps.
:Si:
hah!Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
One possibility might be that the INFPs just sound young. I think of all of them (my older sister being the exception) as about 13. Awww so cute. Run and play now!:lol:
OK, thats harsh, I shouldnt say that.
Back in my day, we didnt make a big fuss over stuff like that. *Puts in an 8 track tape, slips on platform shoes*
No matter what type you were, you were cool. Dig it.
*Starts dancing to Sly and the Family Stone: "I Wanna Thank You Fo Let Me Be Mah Self Again"*
Since when is Topaz LIE?
Yeah theres me and Traveller :)
I will always be young at heart
After long minutes of deep soul searching (and talking to Joy) I decided I was LIE. Glory! I see the light! I dont know how I could have missed it. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
For one terrible moment I believed you were being serious. - You weren't, were you? Or were you? No. Right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
Perfect.
ENFp's seem older because they are trying to better than people by acting "mature" or at least superfically mature. INFp's just act timid or like themselves. Like me, I'm spazzy and moody, and thats how I act here. I try to be all serious sometimes but I'm never taken seriously because people just remember me as being spazzy or whatever.
People generally don't listen to me or take me seriously, online and off.
(not all ENFp's)
Aww I love it when you guys complain. Its so cute. <3Quote:
Originally Posted by aurora_faerie
:P
:( I don't think it's an act we put on in order to impress people. If it's put on at all, it's in order to pass for normal. You should see some of the stares we get whenever we really let our hair down. But I'm very much afraid that this prissy "maturity" is what we're actually really like. It's the creative Fi, probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by aurora_faerie
*blinding flash of sudden insight* Could it all be related to our Te hidden agenda? A hidden need to be taken seriously? Or would that be the Ti PoLR? One of those, anyway.
As for acting like yourself - I'm beginning to wonder if this could be one way extraverts are different from introverts. Perhaps we don't really have a "real self" first of all, and then we sort of act like it. With me it's the other way round. When I'm interacting with the outside world, then my real self sort of happens within me, as a side-effect. As soon as I stop and examine what I'm really like, then everything quickly becomes static, and dead, and misleading. I seem to have so many facets, and different situations bring out different aspects of behaviour.
What do you all think? Are those things I said typical for ENFps? Yes/no/some of them?
Absolutely - the trials of :Ne: :Fi:Quote:
Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
Especially the part of the true self happening within us. Perhaps that is also why we are so secretive when it comes to deep emotions, especially fear and pain? While the real self incorporates the good, the bad, and the ugly, I don't want to expose people to the latter. They will see a part of me that is very real, but not the whole picture. And yes, isn't it amazing how people would provide such different descriptions of you depending on which context they met you in? They would range from "quiet and shy" to "zany and energetic" to "bitchy and confrontational." And I am not even trying to be one or the other.
I just recently had a talk with a friend of mine about the bad and the ugly. I think he is still in shock. Well, the irony of it is that now he is more attentive than ever: he is INFp and I suppose the bad and the ugly make me *deep* enough to be attractive to him. 'Tis rather funny. :8*
Hey, I relate. I think it's like this for all ExxPQuote:
Originally Posted by Kim
Yeah that sounds like EP temperament.
Perhaps INFps (being introverts) do their self-search younger? ENFps just hurry through early life without paying much attention to concepts like "self" and only later start seriously thinking about who they are and what it means etc. I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugo
If this is true perhaps it could it be generalized that introverts here are generally younger than extroverts?
Not even. ENFPs are born with a desire self actualization and meaning. All NFs are like that. (Keirsey got that one right :) ) ENFPs a probably more likely to look for signs of self in the outer world and INFPs will look to the inner world to find themselves. Eventually both will shift. NFs enter maturity when they give up the search and live a life of integrity. They are still very aware of who they are and still scrutinize their actions but the main thing is to live with integrity, push themselves beyond boundries, dichotimies, and fears. Like Cat said when we stop to examine ourselves too long we loose ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
boom boom TISH!
(I'm tired of always saying "I agree with Topaz", so I thought I'd vary the pattern a little)
I always thought i acted mature because of my conservative parents. My Father(ISTj) is very serious and made me grow up fast.
I always used to have to buy the underage beer and i often found myself talking to the parents at a party.
Psychologically i actually believe i have the maturity level of most 40 year olds.
Topaz i love your post on abandoning the self searching. Unfortunately i am still doing it to some extent and even though i know i need to let it go i cant seem to for some reason.
Does this answer mean you disagree or agree with this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Topaz
"If this is true perhaps it could it be generalized that introverts here are generally younger than extroverts?"
Hah! I just remembered something: On this forum, the INFps are in fact younger than most ENFps. One of the blinding flashes of insight us ENFps are so rightly famous for. :8* So... correct me if I'm jumping to conclusions... but doesn't that make the answer to XoX's question a resounding "yes", as far as ENFps and INFps are concerned?Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
:lol: yes it does but I was having fun avoiding the question. Its not even a matter of opinion really. Either the ENFPs in general or older or not. I technically dont know the ages of the INFPs on this forum but I do know the basic ages of at least some ENFPs so I cant actually say for sure who really is older. But Id have to put my money one ENFPs. That being said I think its just coincidence. Not all ENFPs are older than INFPs. Thats silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by schrödinger's cat
There may be already a thread on that, but anyway --
How would you describe the easiest-to-spot differences between ENFps and INFps, especially when meeting them IRL but not knowing them very deeply?
The concrete situation is -- a woman I know slightly, but will potentially have to deal with more in the future, is almost certainly either ENFp or INFp. From my interactions with her I'd have said INFp, but the people she mostly hangs around with seem to be largely Delta which strongly suggests ENFp.
I think one of my friends is ENFP. We're not that close because like when we're together, nothing is challenged and we don't know what to do. There's a bit of psychological distance even though she's very like accepting, understanding and not judging. But I just don't feel as comfortable for some reason. If she really is ENFP, then it's really easy to tell. She's very blunt and has her own weird sense of humor. INFPs are more secretive and goofy in only some occasions. ENFPs are like never cold. They are always warm.
Sorry, Expat, no idea. Perhaps it's different depending on what type you yourself are... I mean, an ENFp might distinguish between an INTj and ENTj (f.expl.) with the help of little things that matter to ENFps or are easily noticed by ENFps, but would totally get ignored by other types.
What I'd do in your situation is mainly go via the "does she remind me of my scary INFp sister-in-law" route, a method that would probably set any :Te: type's teeth on edge. :P
Ah! Found something. Does the person feel at ease with her Delta friends or do you get the impression she's suppressing a part of herself? Could that help?
the easiest way i kno of to tell is to get into an intimate conversation about her. if she's enfp she will most definatly spill the beans about whatever u are talking about with little work on your part, if she is infp she most likely wont, or it will take a lot of prodding on your part
could be a little uncomfortable though if she turns out to be infp
Grab her breasts
If she is INFp she will playfully smile and kick you
If she is ENFp she will stare daggers at you and hit you on the arm but really want you
I think what someone said about warmth could be accurate. If she tries very hard to be warm to everyone then shes ENFp. Also if she spurts out a few whacky things shes ENFp too. Maybe you could watch her energy levels, how she looks when she moves.
:)
That would make me an INFp, because I can be like that, but not with everyone, and not straight away. There might be situations or groups of people where I'm never like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by meatburger
And we'll just forget about that little verbal diarrhoea about the breasts, shall we. That is the biggest bit of nonsense I've ever heard any ENFp spout. Mind you, meatburger, I'm still open to other opinions, provided they're based on actual experience. So, have you got breasts?
Yeah maybe i was a little off. The ENFp girl at work is like that and im kind of like that. Even if im in a bad mood i try very hard to appear interested / warm.Quote:
Originally Posted by meatburger
I wish i had breasts. I would definately play with them and dance to watch them move. My breast theory is based on factual evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by cat
IME INFps tend to try harder to be warm to everybody, as opposed to ENFps which are less so. Also with ENFps the more attraction there is, the more comfortable they are at being warm, with INFps the more attraction there is, the more they are awkward at being warm.
INFPs I have seen have a gaze in their eyes... Teeth are often more exposed for some reason. They will act 'high' or out of it for no apparent reason... The INFPs I have met are mostly quite skinny except for the guys who lift crazy weights and thats the exception.
ENFPs tend to see through you when they first look at you its like they see past your body, and it makes me think I am being scanned by an alien. ENFPs will be more physical in body contact and seek excitement more than the INFP.
The INFP is more likely to be open about their problems in the world. The ENFP would only share that with a special few or one.
**this probably wont help:
The ENFP dresses with a touch of uniqueness. Look for quirky ear rings, purses etc. The INFP dresses with a touch of ?! I guess difference being the ENFP making a statement, the INFP being a statement.
Hmm.. ENFps are much warmer, I agree. With EVERYONE.
I am a very passionate person deep inside, but it is very, very hard for me to let that be shown to just anyone ... it is too intense and private. What FDG said is true too - the more attraction I have to a person, the harder it will be to be friendly/warm.. etc. It's as if I don't want them to know I am attracted to them and like to play that distant, mysterious role of not being all over them =P I hate that..
ENFps on the other hand are WHACKY as hell... it makes me kinda uncomfortable because it almost seems fake (girls, especially..) The way they are ALWAYS seemingly happy.. grr. I know one that pisses the hell out of me, she can't shut up and is so annoying ... EVERYONE thinks she is so intolerable while she thinks she is incredibly funny and cute. Attention whores at a very OBVIOUS level ?
INFps -- we are attention whores, yes... but on a subtler level. We know how to manipulate emotions more, I believe
ALSO -- if you just meet me, I can come off quite cold. Other times quite nice ... it depends =/ But never quite as friendly as ENFps.
I have that distant look in my eyes as mentioned .. and I get that really "out of it" .. "high" look too.
I have this idea that one on one ENFps would be more dominating and self centered where INFps would try to adapt to you and make you feel comfortable with them. Unless you piss them of. The ENFp is also way more scattered especially if things are happening around you. INFp is perhaps better at concentrating on you. ENFps are likely to chat more "freely" too. INFps pay more attention to what they say and when. Then I guess the ENFp would be more "real". The INFp might take a be a bit different role depending on the context. Oh and INFps are good at making promises but not very good at keeping them :D "yes I will do that task and send you an email let's say tomorrow is that ok?" then after some days you start bombarding them with "why haven't you done what you promised?" then they go "oh, I'm so sorry!! I forgot. I will do it as soon as possible. How about tomorrow?" and same thing goes on...ENFps can forget what they promised but I think they are bad at breaking promises on purpose. Or promise something just to get rid of a situation/person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Then...ENFps are more likely to do a "half job" because INFps are perfectionists. ENFps do more stuff but INFps are more careful when doing something.
Ok. If I'm wrong then kill me :D
weird! i noticed the teeth thing, too. i'm kind of convinced there are more INFp weightlifter guys than people readily realize.Quote:
Originally Posted by IcEPiCk
Ok. My post was badly worded. I was thinking more about situations in work. Like when you have an assignment. INFps are more likely to check that all the facts in their work are correct, there are no simple spelling errors, etc. The general quality of INFp work is usually very high. However INFps are quite slow to produce anything because of their perfectionism and not willing to show their work to others before it is "finished". Well that sort of thing. I don't know if it is generally true though. I have never worked with an ENFp but I _think_ I have sort of worked with an INFp who was very slow but eventually produced high quality work. It was more or less a guess that ENFps would be faster, more open about their progress and not pay as much attention to get all the details and cause-effect relationships right before making their work "public".Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfall
Oh and ENFps probably express their true opinions more openly. INFps are sort of diplomats and are more likely to hide their true especially negative, opinions unless really pushed about it. So ENFps would more openly and spontaneously criticize others than INFps. Just another guess.
yeah. I think most of your observations are very astute XoX :)
Thats actually interesting Scarlett i can imagine this. The ENFp girl at work often acts a bit too cutsey. For instance she will say "hi, my name is XXXX, whats your name?" in a very kiddy voice etc. She does this kind of thing all the time. I actually think most people do like her though(including me), but im certian this kind of thing would annoy some people a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScarlettLux
I'm usually skeptical of using this kind of trait to type people, but I have to say that as far as INFp men are concerned, this has been precisely my experience so far, both the skinny and weight-lifter bit. I hadn't even put it together like this before :oQuote:
Originally Posted by IcEPiCk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfall
Well the problem with both observations above is that I don't know yet if she's expressing her true opinions or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
As for being "lighthearted and friendly" or "light and silly", she's between the two in my PoV.
To me, the most characteristic feature of her personality is a sort of "standard smile" that pops up at almost in any situation, my first reaction to which is to think that it's a sort of mask she activates at will (I am not saying that it really is the case, I'm trying to convey the impression she makes on me). A sort of "static" smile, wide, accompanied by a narrowing of the eyes.
Other things --
She's a music teacher in high school. She is totally helpless with the slightest bit of technical problem (like not knowing how to switch the circuit breaker on in her flat back on after a power surge, or even knowing that she should look for it). Whenever a conversation gets into a more arcane-technical area, she's quick to say, "well I don't understand anything about such things"; she even says stuff like "I'm a technophobic female". She says such things in a sort of slightly impatient way, as if she was saying "so don't expect me to participate, and can you please change the subject" - at least that is my impression, she never says such things directly.
Yeah, this is spot on, and makes me go crazy actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Actually this is precisely the experience I have with an INTp woman. I don't have to change one single word on XoX's description. I think it's the IP temperament "reinforced" by focus on :Ni: rather than :Si: .Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Should that serve as a criterion, then the woman I'm thinking of is not INFp -- she's irrational IMO but she does not seem to have that particular kind of behavior.
Most ENFps on here have confirmed at some point that they were shy when they were young and more confident and outgoing now that they are older. I still think that many of you mistype (young) ESFps ethical subtype as ENFps (and the ENFps would be mistyped as INFp or INFj). ESFps ethical subtype can appear very ENFp because they are also warm and caring, but then have the confidence to be whacky and funny ( :Se: ). I would not have acted like that around people I didn't feel very comfortable with (unless drunk perhaps).Quote:
Originally Posted by meatburger
I am very close friends with two ESFps ethical subtype and one ESFp sensory subtype and if you saw all three of them together, you would most certainly assume that the former two are ENFps compared to the S subtype. But they are without doubt ESFp (especially when you look at what is different in comparison with me. You can see it in DeltaRho and me even in our postings). In addition, all descriptions I have read on here about the ESFps you all know describe the S-subtype (not to talk about the blatant stereotypes).
The ESFps I know are also pretty "airy" in the sense of being absent-minded about various stuff.
Me: 23 years old.
My friends: 22, 32, 35, 44, 57, 60, 61.
Altough I know lots of people of my age, I tend to ignore them because I often have the feeling about them as time wasters. I mean, they don't have any real interest and spend most of their time just killing it.
When I was younger I pretended to be interested. Now I simply don't care and seek the company of older people which seems far more interesting to me. I feel akward sometimes, but it is sure worth it.
Fanks Detail :)
That song reminds me of a year 7 camp when we were all on a cruise boat.
:slaps forehead:
God, please ignore what Josh brought up.
What are the most obvious ways to tell ENFp from INFp?
This confuses me, since extraversion and introversion are easiest aspects of the psyche to identify. What is it about E/I you have trouble determining? What is the context of the individuals you are interacting with who you are trying to type?
Also, do you mean a Socionics INFp or a MBTI INFP (INFj)?
this couldn't be more untrueQuote:
extraversion and introversion are easiest aspects of the psyche to identify
This is a socionics site after all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Republicus
::Sigh::Quote:
Originally Posted by Republicus
I’m no champ on typing people.
Some ENFps can seem rather “introverted”. And I think I might somehow confuse ENFps with INFps, since I don’t have many (if any) reliable rl examples of both types I can compare.
Clover's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clover
"Extraversion" and "introversion" are the easiest aspects of someone's behavior to identify only if you follow pop-MBTI criteria; if that's what you are doing, I assure you you are mistying a lot of people in Socionics.
As to the question: I don't know any single way to easily differentiate between them - not when you meet them. INFps are well within the Compliant range and ENFps, within the Obstinate range; INFps are Resolute and Victim, ENFps are Reasonable and Infantile, and, obviously, INFps are IP temperament and ENFps, EP. The best way is to understand all of these traits.
This may seem sort of like a dunce answer, but ENFps and INFps are only as easy to tell apart as ENFjs and INFjs are as easy to tell apart. And that is not easy at all.
I think that to tell them apart you need to take a more proactive mindset that does not involve the stereotypical MBTI style, where people are typed as introverts and extroverts, but involves the more applicable socionics approach that functions are introverted and extroverted and then note that an INFp uses :Ni: and :Fe: and an ENFp uses :Ne: and :Fi: ... once you realize this, differentiating the two should get a whole lot easier, because instead of saying, "geeze ... is this person an introvert or an extrovert?" you would be saying "does this person express :Ni: together with :Fe: or :Ne: together with :Fi:" and that is how you tell the difference! Forget the MBTI way, it is disfunctional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
*sighs with relief* :)
ENFps tend to have a "wider" social network so to speak... whereas INFps are more so limit themselves to a few people they become very close with
agreedQuote:
Originally Posted by misutii
The problem with this is that it says nothing about what functions a person could be using. Even if this is a valid way, the second dilemma is to diffrentiate INFps from INFjs. If you do not decide this by closely checking the introverted and extroverted aspects of the functions they are using, you are still going to be confused all hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by misutii
Your avatar is very appropriate Clover. And Expat, MBTI is the ONLY way it could be the easiest? Not using the thinking function today?
Extraversion and Introversion aren’t strictly related to cognition, nor to the persona. Psychologically Jung says the psyche holds a disposition towards one or other, this affects, among other things, how the ego interacts with its environment. Neurologically extraversion is the predisposition of the brain to react to dopamine in certain areas. Meaning introverts don’t get the same ‘high’ from dopamine that an extravert does. Obviously this only applies when dopamine is being employed to as a reward mechanism, and not its other functions like muscle control. I am unclear if this affects motivation, that is very possible.
The neurological explanation doesn’t preclude Jung’s explanations of these aspects of the mind in their psychological expression. Since dopamine in this sense is only being given, not being given, dependent on external circumstances it stands to reason that the mind, which is tied to the physical brain, will have to reflect this relationship psychologically. The expression, or at least part of it, is extraversion and introversion.
If I understood neurology better I would probably be able to explain better how extraversion and introversion would be experienced psychologically, and just what implications this has. Since I don’t I will have to provide a more Jungian philosophical definition of extraversion’s and introversion’s effect on the psyche. The relationship between dopamine and extraversion is by no mean absolute. In Jungian terms his definitions may have been broader and encompassed more than what was being tested. Having read both, I don’t think this is the case, but I am simply acknowledging the possibility that the terms here may not be equal.
Extraversion and Introversion in Jung’s, and therefore Socionics’, view, at the very least, is that the psyche, in this context the conscious mind, has a predisposition towards one or other. It has a favorite, it likes itself or it likes the outside world. The conscious is guided by the ego, the entity responsible for interacting with the environment. The ego is going to be pulling information from two sources, the brain, and the body (senses). It will prefer one or the other, this is extraversion and introversion. The conscious will be predisposed to the self or the external world’s input.
In essence extraversion or introversion are properties the mind and how it navigates the adapts to the external world, or visa versa. Which thing has to change, the images of self, or the images of the world. And in practice as well. Unlike a persona, which may appear to be either introverted or extraverted, the individuals psyche is not; unless they have Disassociate Personality Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) then I don’t know, but I still think they are one or the other, since DPD is ego like structures, not distinct egos.
So how do you tell when a person is E or I? Well, that isn’t always easy, but as I said, it is the easiest. Particularly with any observation across a spectrum of environment, particularly outside or work/school or any formalized social unit. When they are alone, or with their friends, then it is easiest to tell. Extraversion being linked to their sociability is our cultural definition, and it sucks, you can thank Eysenck for that definition, the creator of the infamous IQ test. It is wrong. Social extraversion, in his definition, is not a universal human cultural trait.
In Japan they are ‘introverted’ culture. They don’t have displays of outgoing gregarious behavior, that would be very shameful. Does that mean they don’t have extraverts? Of course not. So being gregarious or socially outgoing has nothing to with extraversion in people, although in a specific culture that may be a way it is exhibited. Unfortunately it isn’t ever a one to one correlation like that, and introverts can act that way too, specifically if they fulfilling the role of a persona.
Extraversion and introversion can be determined by how the person is navigating the world. You won’t probably be able to tell that if they don’t talk, and that is really the key, why they say, and why they are saying it. There are other methods I’m sure, but I find this to be very reliable. There are pitfalls in this method, one is mistaking feeling or something like that for extraversion. Someone expressing the sentiment of social responsibility might make you think extraversion, and while the thought itself may be an example of that, it is important to recognize that a sentiment that has an extraverted nature doesn’t mean the person is extraverted.
That doesn’t make it easy, and it is made worse that there are so many different reasons for behavior. To be reliable you have to establish a pattern of consistent action, and even then you may be falling victim to confirmation bias. This is one of the reason I don’t try to type people at all, and simply let any realizations about the person come as they may. I don’t actively look for them.
Still, I will attempt to define a few of the traits I think people will have regardless of culture of other factors, mental retardation for example (In which a extravert may be extremely socially withdrawn because of constant rejection). I am trying to get a better idea of Autism to see how they might exhibit extraversion.
Anyways, as I said, some traits in the manner of thinking and interaction of the world that an extravert and introvert might display. Just a few things off the top of my head, by no means a complete list of all the behaviors, or even all the cues I use, I will add others as I think of them and clarify any ambiguity in these. Only if you care and find these useful.
Definition of these traits in relation adaptation:
Jung prefaces this extravert section by describing some general behavior of extraverts. Unlike the farce MBTI, and to a lesser extent Socionics, he doesn’t neglect the key factor in these behaviors, the motivation. The motivation reflects the ego, and therefore will reflect extraversion or introversion. You need to find a way to see that expressed by people, their actions and their words can carry with them their motivation. They may simply state it forth rite, or you may ask them (In such a way that doesn’t plant a suggestion in them).
One of Jung’s examples is how a man will like an opera singer, not because he likes the music, but because other people like him. The later part is obviously the important part. His preference has been shaped by the external world. A single instance doesn’t constitute the whole psyche as being extraverted or introverted, but a repeated pattern does. Definitions of extraversion and introversion that state only the behavior are almost always worthless. Stating that someone is social does not constitute extraversion. They may be an introvert who uses social situation to pursue introverted thought processes.
Here is another example, a coworker and myself objected to our bosses consistent use of the word agnostic in reference to things like “I’m agnostic as to whether or nor this is the path I want to take.” Same behavior, but totally different reasons. She objected because that was not the dictionary definition she had learned. He was violating the external world’s word usage. I objected on different ground. Of course I thought he was using the word incorrectly, but not because a dictionary said so. Mostly because I wouldn’t use it, and I had never heard it used in the context he was using it. An extravert in my same position probably would have adjusted their definition to include the usage. And coincidently, that usage of the word agnostic is apparently correct.
So the question is, is someone doing this because they think that is best/correct/right, or because they think that is what the external construct they have would do/wants done. Are the terms they using their own, or externally defined. Which one holds more importance? Motivation is the key.
This isn’t the greatest definition. I am able to use this method better than I am able to describe it. Still, I think by observing this factor you will find that extraversion and introversion can be easily discerned in most cases. And the cases where it is not you will be able to figure it out, if you have enough contact with the person. If you have limited contact, or in a limited capacity, it may be impossible. But, it is still easier to see if someone is introverted or extroverted than any aspect of their cognition.
Here are a few additional behaviors I believe universally indicate extraverts of introverts.
Introverts
Defensive: Not against criticism, anyone can do that. By defensive I mean they put their persona out to act as a shield against intrusion into their world. You notice how some people you don’t know just start telling you a bunch of stuff about their day and family, like you could care. But introverts are more guarded with thing like family, which are part of their inner world.
I observed someone once who wouldn’t even answer question on what he did in his free time when I asked. I share his sentiment to a degree, what do when I’m alone, if it involves any sort of physical interaction with the external world, I still consider an exercise of my self. I feel violated when this is shared without my permission so to speak. For instance, if someone over hears my music. I try very hard to prevent that from happening. Because when I listen to music I am exercises my imagination. I do not believe this to be cultural in any manner. I have found Arab and Chinese people who appear to behave the same way. This is also expressed by with holding certain types of information, emotions, to unknown people.
Extraverts
Absorptive: Extraverts will absorb their environment, adapt to it, and fairly quickly. I work with a guy who like me was prior military. I am an introvert, he is an extravert. When we got to this job our vocabulary was similarly. In the year since we’ve been here he has adopted many of the business terms used around here. I on the other hand do not use a single one. I am acutely aware of these terms, so I may be consciously resisting them. Never the less, I have observed repeatedly that extraverts adapt/absorb to their surrounds faster and better. This is also consistent with the theory behind extraversion.
Things I don’t think are directly related to either:
Thinking something ought to be a certain way, and trying to project that on others.
Sociability.
This probably has some areas that need clarification, if you care please ask any questions or point or any problems.
A little comment on the above explanation by Republicus ... Carl Jung was a philosopher, not a scientist ... it is correct to say that he never purposed for himself any scientific reasoning and nearly his whole emphasis bordered on religion, philosophy and psychology. Other people have tried to explain introversion and extroversion by various factors such as dopamine level or regions of the brain such as extroversion and introversion being derived from developements in specific part of the brains.
I would actually say in a way that attempting to understand or interpret anything Carl Jung said on a scientific basis may actually be perverting and distorting his theories, for the simple fact that the theories I do not think are even compatible with science.
The only other thing I am going to say is that it is far too easy to confuse non-type related things people do with either extroversion or introversion for it to be reliable to type someone just based on extroversion and introversion alone. You need to type people in function pairs and by figuring out how people are using the functions not by picking apart a 4 letter code, which is what MBTI does and it is not very accurate. Atleast not if you are trying to type on the basis of a socionics context.
Curios, what then would be the value for you of studying Jung, Socionics, Personality and so forth if it is just philosophy, and could not be correlated to anything scientific? I do disagree with your assertion as well, but I won't go into that now. Also, if he wasn't a scientist, then he doesn't have any theories :)Quote:
Originally Posted by rmcnew
And in line with your second comment, i'm not suggesting people type based on E/I. simply what it is and and how tell independent of it's usage with cognition.
Well, let me put it this way, although I mind you this is going to be a very strange answer that borders on religion and philosophy :) .... I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Republicus
Essentially I do think that Jungian theory works and is valuable for the simple reason that it is based on Universal principles. It is hard to dispute the fact that people think or that people feel, because everyone does. The same thing with intuition and sensing although those two could be a little disputable on account of not being a part of the body, but they do obviously exist. However, I do not think any of these ideas work because there is a scientific basis behind it, but because it deals with the intuitive connections that every man has in common. Is it not true that every culture in world is either dictated by people who believe in the spiritual or by people who believe in the powers of science? Is it not true that there are cultures who lift one of these up and then minorly hold or neglect the other?
For example, the institution of marriage comes from the bible and is an integral part of western culture. The institution of marriage as western people understand does not and never has existed in all parts of the world. Western Culture believes that men and women are seperate genders based on their anatomy. For years, western cultures upheld God as a creative force and their was a uniting of church and state.
Then came the reformation ...
Then came the settling of America
Americans decided to favor deist principles in place of christian principles and keeped church and state seperate.
The social questions of the 19th century came along with new modern technology, changing the fact of europe and causing mass overpopulation.
Darwinism and survival of the fittest came along as a result of the overpopulation
People begin looking less at God and more in the direction of science, eugeneics theories arise and evolution theories become common place. No longer is a God responsible for anything. It becomes common place for people to question the existance of God and it becomes taboo to speak of religion in the context of government or anything related to school functions. People look for empiracle reasoning abilities.
Now the American culture has a thing called "feminism," which with the help of the eugenics movement has totally undermined the Christian insitution of marriage by telling women that they are defined by their pussies or more specifically they are their pussies, that they should be sexually expressive whenever they want, that that technological advancements such as condoms, birth control pills, abortions, etc. make marriage nullified and unneeded [and in actuality they do make marriage commitments unnecessary in a global scale by eliminating the incentive to be responsible]. However, there are a few errors and bigoted things about feminism that are actually sort of ugly and even hypocritical [that is besides the fact that they now refer to themselves as cunts and shout that at their meetings] and that is that in order for them to undermine marriage as a form of mysogyny [which it really is not if you understand that the biblical principle was there for birth control, health reasons, and for political and social reasons as well, not to mention security] feminists had to actually adopt the Christian doctrine that a man and woman's gender is defined by their anatomy which in all respects they claim is mysogenic. And instead of lobbying for sanctions against the violence against men, the reformation of the scam system the goverment has set up that they call "child care payments," and educating women against bad practices such as getting knocked up so they can keep a guy [the baby being a tool to keep the guy and if that fails they can get the state to make the man pay her money] they bitch, whine, and moan about the way that women are treated over in some distant country such as Iran when there is nothing short of an army that is going to change any of the viewpoints society has placed against women there and totally ignore the majority of the main issues back at home [each woman claiming to be feminist in western society seems to have her own subjective non-globalistic reason for being feminist it seems]. Not to mention that it is totally untrue that most women are being paid less than men and are having higher difficulty finding work as evidenced by the high percentage of educated women working as nurses, teachers, etc. while the men are working at Starbucks or being stay at home dads. Second, the principle of defining a persons gender by their private parts is not even a universal idea, but a western one. In asia their are men who are clasified as female by behavior regardless of anatomy. Hence, this is a perfect example of a culture root that started out with religion in the lead and sciences second, whereas science is now in the lead and religion second. People no longer understand Intuition in its true context and try to interpret life by means of science.
Another thing, besides my rant here which might have gone a little off topic ... is that cultures who value religion over science tend to refer to forces that they do not know in terms of "Gods" or "spirits," whereas they sometimes would make a representation of what they think God is as an explanation of these forces. This does not mean that either science or religion is better than the other; however, you have to realize here the differences are only subjective. People who use arguments to mock the existance of God with empirical style arguments such as "how can a loving God allow children in Africa to starve?" do not understand what it means to be intuitive nor the purpose of religion... and the answer is simple, because it takes just as much subjectivity and faith to believe in things called love or acceptance as it does to believe in a thing called God, because what people strive for is exactly where intuition comes into play and for what gives people purpose in life. Jungian psychology is no different in the aspect that it strives to give people a purpose and a goal, and that is the actualisation of a persons psyche. That is its one and sole purpose and it can not be described in any other way.
Hopefully my roundabout way of explaining this will not be very confusing for you.
This is a very interesting idea, but isn't this equally true for Myers-Briggs and Socionics? And are the two theories equally useful?Quote:
Originally Posted by rmcnew
My point is, even if Jungian theory did not, Socionics does make empirical predictions: if X is of type A and Y is of type B, X and Y will have relationship Z. This predictive power is not explained merely by the universality of Socionic traits.
It is also called a generalization. A relationship to define perceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by thehotelambush
The one who just won't shut up is the ENFp. The quiet one is the INFp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Going B. Zerk
Both are nice though ;-)
Eh. Not true, ENFps can be very quiet too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grek0
That's the reason why I don't really know how to respond to this thread. :lol:
I thought of a rule of thumb that may be helpful; it sounds like stereotypes, and it partly is, but I have seen some trends.
- ENFp: more likely to enjoy learning foreign languages, literature, and the like. Less likely to enjoy mathematics and engineering. More likely to read a lot.
- INFp: the opposite: more likely to feel drawn to at least some mathematical thought, and not that keen on studying languages. The "mathematical" bit may actually be expressed as a taste for playing an instrument. Less likely to read a lot.
Now there is no need to point out exceptions that you know of :) - - I know a couple myself. I just thought that, as a rule of thumb, this is more often than not accurate.
oo o.. this is pretty accurate. At least the ENFp one is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
I think I relate more to the INFp one here. I don't really think I'm INFp though. Foreign languages and literature have always been a nightmare to me. Even if I don't particularly enjoy mathematics and engineering it was always clear to me that I would end up having a career where they would be needed at least to some extent. Then I have to admit that the older I get the less I'm interested in engineering and maths but my focus is not shifting towards foreign languages, cultures or literature but more towards business and people skills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mea
I've been considering INFp for someone I've previously thought of as a Fi dominant type, and what you've said about mathematics/engineering is definitely true of him (and the only "foreign language" he's ever been interested in is morse code :lol:). Peter thought he could be ENFp, but I'm very confident that his wife is ISTj, which makes it seem pretty unlikely that he's ENFp. He has a very good relationship with his wife, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Here's his type thread. If someone wants to comment in a way is relevant to this thread, post here. However, if someone wants to help me type him, feel free to bump his type thread instead.
Well, learning a foreign language sometimes isn't an obvious thing to do in your geographical region, especially for a tool maker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
From your description in that thread, I can't see ENFp. What I see is:
- negativist
- introvert
- aristocratic
- ethical and probably Ti>Te(not presenting evidence or elaboration on how is past experiences are relevant)
From these we have -- IxFx as you said ---> ISFp or ISFj if negativist but then Aristocratic doesn't fit
If we "stretch" negativism to include Ni IP, then INFp-Ni
If we eliminate Aristocracy, then ISFp or ISFj
However, I do get signs of Ti>Te
ISFp or INFp-Ni -- ISFp makes sense for his profession.
However, from your description, I do think INFp-Ni is more likely.
Yes, I think so, too. I've been thinking about the negativist thing... and decided perhaps I was mistaking bitterness for negativism. :( He's not like this much anymore, but for a long time he always spoke as though hopeless and helpless... that's depression, which is not type related.
And while I do not associate myself with any particular type these days, I feel comfortable at least saying "Gamma". The relationship between him and me is the closest parent/child relationship in the family, and always has been. This being the case, ISFp seems less likely than INFp.
I hung out with my sister recently, and she asked me if I ever noticed how talking to him has a very calming affect. She said that if she's stressed out and she calls him, talking to him (even if about a totally unrelated subject) calms her down a lot. I hadn't thought about it, but this is true of my conversations with him as well.
it's sometimes indeed difficult to see quickly what is an INFP and what is an ENFP.
These are the most common differences, that i can think of now.
ENFP:
very charming, they get/want easely to be noticed in a group, make jokes
INFP:
lesser charming, not easely noticed, more serious
All right, not knowing much about the bolts/nuts of socionics (or at least, having forgotten most of the interesting parts of it), I need your help, guys. I mean, obviously this is mostly gonna be conjecture, but I'll take any opinion on my I/E dilemna. I've given up trying to figure it out, and I think that mostly comes from a maybe faulty conception of what it really means? Intro vs. Extro, I mean. And I think it comes down to more than just how much I talk in a social situation....
I'm not sure how to elaborate on this, or explain how my brain works (cause I am most definitely NFP!)
I'm known for being extremely quiet. But every other sign points to extraversion, at least in the way I carry myself and respond to situations... (ie; I've only recently begun to actually enjoy spending time alone with myself). I've heard that enfp is the most 'intro' of the types, and that doesn't help...
I mean, I have a lot of friends, and I make them super fast, but everyone still says I'm real Insular and Mysterious. gah! I SO don't know, and it probably doesn't matter. I even looked into figuring this out through the quadrants, and while I feel a certain looseness among the Betas, I definitely resound with the core seriousness of Delta. I also read one of the articles that related the quadrants to phases of conception and whatnot, and ... I've always kinda provided hope to people (as opposed to that 'eternal victim' thing associated with beta)... does that make sense? blaaaaah. :8*
I would recommend that you start from zero on your Socionics type, scrapping even the preconceived notion that you are "NFP", since you clearly do not know much about Socionics types.
If you have to be either INFp or ENFp I'd go for INFp; but you should really start from zero and tell more about yourself, if you are serious about finding your Socionics type.
Initial impression... SEI? Somehow I can see you complementing an ILE but not a SLE nor a SLI. But that's just my initial impression.
expat, ok, more about myself...
- I'm an art student who gets pretty horrible grades cause I'd much rather accomplish things according to whim and fancy, and also I'm kind of lazy
- People regularly accuse me of being not of this earth, or totally out of touch with reality
- some amount of social anxiety, but the shyness involved with that has more to do with people getting kind of confused by me when I just let myself act freely
- um... I have a kitty?
- I'm not sure what kind of information you would need, and though it might seem otherwise, I HATE talking about myself. probably adds to that mysterious thing, which is a quality that just gets me into trouble, but anyway....
- I have few people who I trust completely, and can feel completely open around, but I would call each of them a best friend. And I make friends like that pretty easily. Actually, most people are my 'friend', even if we don't really know how to talk to each other comfortably yet (and we always eventually figure out some sort of beneficial, satisfying common ground to interact on)
- I'm a walking existential crisis :lol:
snegledmaca of the coool name,
My roommate's an ILE and while we've become pretty vital to eachother, and we have an awesome dynamic, it doesn't last super long and we have to take breaks before we can "play" off eachother again. And SLE's are just super! I know one that I'm not really close to yet, but I do love his company and don't really see his type's "negative" traits (or at least, he's been nothing but gracious and VERY perceptive with me). I don't think I've met an SLI, but I think I'd like them. Actually, an old friend of mine may be one, and we've always had this unspoken bond. .... except, I've got an unspoken bond with freaking everybody, so anyway....
Actually... you remind of a combo of two people: Maisy and BionicGoat.
This is my post #666 under this account! :D
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Muffinstein
No worries, Muffinstein! :D I haven't even read all this thread but the taste of your posts is loud and clear - you're 100% INFp. The REAL deal, too! Not like all of those mistyped INFPs out there, as there are many.
Honestly, I think she's ENFp
sort of a layed back mania, friendly people-person loner sort of thing. A walking/talking contradiction... I can sense it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Baby
Same here. (Well, not IEI at least. I get this strong Si >>>> Se vibe from you)Quote:
Originally Posted by ScarlettLux
Aha, I'd say not IEI. A typical self listed IEI trait is their "bulging" rationality, never their "bulging" irrationality. That seems to be a typical self listed trait of IEE-s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffinstein
Makes me wonder if this would equate to expat's "laser beams".Quote:
.... except, I've got an unspoken bond with freaking everybody, so anyway....
Just quoting this for reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffinstein
ENFp or INFp? :wink: Or some other type possibly? :P
I think she's ENFp too.
I really like the topics that muffinstein enjoys talking about. Reminds me of my conversations with my ENFp friends. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mea
Because of this, I think you're ENFp. :D (I would have used the laughing smiley, but I think it's ugly...so just pretend it's a lauging smiley.) It sounds like the randomness of my ENFp best friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffinstein
Interestingly enough my ENFp friend and I were talking last night about how she will interupt conversations when she's distracted by something random just to point it out. For example (and this is the real example she gave) she'll be having a conversation with someone, see a kitty, point and yell, "KITTY! Oh my goodness it's so PRECIOUS!" then go back to the conversation.
Anyway, this wasn't a completely serious post. It just made me think of my ENFp friend.
Ooh, that thread full of Expat's descriptions of the various functions was super illuminating. I think I can quite comfortably go with IEE, based on functions and feedback, which is exactly what I was looking for, so thank you!
hmm... I wasn't going to post this, (it was in the video thread for about 8 seconds - bionicgoat got to see it, though!). But what the hey, here's a sort-of intro that I recorded mostly cause I'd never recorded myself on film before.
no vid now
Oh yeah, and here's Satchmo trying to gnaw my arm off. I also hereby swear that I'm not one of those cat people, hehe, you'll hear no more on the subject. :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ntitled-23.jpg
lolz! I made the video before you posted that, and umm... yep. I'm just gonna say yep. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth
Based on the video, ENFp.
I dont get enfp vibe. thinks before she talks quite a bit. "ummm... ummm..."
Speaks in a shy manner.
just my 2 cents.
ENFp is possible.
ENFps can be shy! :PQuote:
Originally Posted by IcEPiCk
I get the two mixed up a lot.
What do you think are some of the biggest blaring differences?
. You are point of least resistance Te; you are Alpha in your values. Everything you think is Se is really PoLR Te. You cannot find IEIs and EIEs because they are not your dual / activators. Your enemies are LIEs/ILIs/LSEs. Your dual is the ILE - which are rarely female.
Now go tell us again what Se is like ... and this way we can see what Te as a vulnerable function is.
I am just trying to help.
:"SEIs can be skeptical of beliefs, arguments, and actions that are based on external sources of information or oppose the SEI's values system. Therefore, an SEI could come off as stubborn or rigidly set in their ways. They put more trust in the expertise of someone who seems to have hands-on experience, even if limited, than of someone who demonstrates having read many books on the same subject.
They can tend to tune out lengthy text-book explanations and information that requires especially concise explanations or language that they might have a relatively vague understanding or impression of. The reason for this is because the SEI always feels that "there is much more" to dry facts and statistics.
People who are bossy and critical are disliked by the SEI because SEIs usually believe in taking action only when it is prudent for them. They are also prone to avoiding people who demand perfection because that can lead to feelings of inadequacy for the job at hand."
From wikisocion.org
That sounds like you in the Navy! Sounds like you in your Youtube videos. It sounds like you in the first post of this thread.
From my experience of having INFP and ENFP friends, I find that INFP's are a lot like ENFP's when around loved ones, kinda like fun energy bombs with loads of crazy ideas. While ENFP's are a lot like INFP's when around loved ones, more reserved, not playing the joker card as much and they are a lot more prone to be deep in thought sometimes.
@Saberstorm
You're pretty set on this aren't you?
I do have a history with ENTp women going after me, and I do find myself very attracted to some ISFp's and INSANELY attracted to ESFj's. SEI 8 would be quite interesting. I'll take a look but the likelihood of my type changing is pretty low... unless I'm just a pissed off 2... which would explain the 4'ish desire for super deepness.
Though if anything I think ESFj would fit better than ISFp.
If I'm an ESFj, then this is gonna put a rock in all my fuckin youtube videos.
Hello,
I'm having difficulty differentiating between IEIs and IEEs. I've been reading about functions, but I can't really tell which function is being used and valued (Ni or Ne/ Fi or Fe) :confused2:. From your experiences, what are the most apparent traits/behaviors of both and how do you distinguish them?
First of all IEIs are introverts and IEEs are extraverts, in pretty much every sense of both words.
Ni=inner imagination dreamland
Ne= hyperactive, random, "what if we did this?", extroverted, childlike wonder
Fi= good and bad, moral compass, serious
Fe= being bubbly, caring for a fun, lighthearted group atmosphere and good at creating one, merry
They are like day and night.
For example, Bo Burnham, I typed him IEI at first but I've seen some type him as IEE.
And then Kirk hammett, who I typed IEE but some type him IEI.
It's confusing. That's why I want to know how you perceive them so I can see if I'm typing correctly or no.